fishbane

As in you quoted it from the flo article or an AI produced that for you? The flo article that is from is 4/8/2019. Ferrari was #1 again 8/6/2019. After that he started falling. On 1/8/2020 he was down to 5 and on 1/8/2020 and finished the year #10 in the last class ranking for the class of 2020. You don't need AI to figure a guy who missed his entire senior season is going to fall in the rankings. And whilst being 1 shows the potential to win NCAAs. Somewhat rarely is that potential realized as a true freshman or ever in challenging cases such as Ferrari.

It's not strictly true. It's hyperbole. There also is some truth to it. Smith succeeded where other top coaches such as Brands, Manning, and Koll could not. Not sure where your AI is getting those rankings. Below are Flo's rankings. The latest one they published was in March 2020. Earlier Ferrari was number 1 but he didn't wrestle his senior year and fell down the rankings.

Flo had him number 10 behind a bunch of guys many of which didn't AA much less win a national title. The only one ranked ahead of him by flo that won NCAAs was Braxton Amos. Some still have eligibility left (Ferrari and Amos). Isaac Trumble also won NCAAs. He was ranked 43. Braxton Amos Keegan O'Toole Patrick Kennedy Beau Bartlett Lachlan McNeil Hunter Catka Robbie Howard Josh Saunders Chase Saldate AJ Ferrari

What do you think free speech is about? Distasteful, critical, and controversial speech is subject to strict protection. This is the kind of speech most likely to be restricted by the government. Opening a PayPal account isn’t free speech. Iran is an OFAC sanctioned country. You will not be able to open an account with an address in Iran. If you are an ordinary citizen in the US opening an account should not be a problem

Are these not the kind of laws that allow the Islamic Republic to punish those that oppose their regime? Pass such laws and one day someone you disagree with may end up power, decide you are the enemy, and use them against you.

You have described nothing illegal. In the US she is free to say those things. She is free to think those things. Maybe in Iran citizenship could be stripped and someone deported over this but not here.

That is not true. In 1962 red cards didn't carry an automatic ban for the next match. There was no ban to be lifted or suspended for 1-4 years. FIFA decided to not levy an additional penalty. There was no penalty reduction.

This really isn't unique to Iran and FIFA. The Olympics do the same thing with flags. Only official flags of participating countries are allowed. I recall seeing an occasional pre-revolution flag in Paris, but the majority were the official one. There were also some protest messages in support of Iran allowing women to wrestle. But protest and non-official flags are banned. The iconic black power salute at the 1968 games was also against the rules. How could a US citizen be deported for being loyal to Iran or any country? I guess that's paying in some sense, but this doesn't sound like the kind of thing was done on a large scale. I am sure the Islamic Republic of Iran had tickets allocated and people who wanted to go, but couldn't get visas. Visas were tough enough for the players and support staff to obtain. I am sure no spectators travelling from Iran got them. Might have been considered the best alternative to actually attending. Sell the ticket and an opposition fan is likely to buy it. Give it to a neutral and get them to carry your flag.

Red cards are not appealable and cannot be taken away. Article 27 cannot lift a suspension from a red card it can only suspend the penalty (ban) for 1-4 years. In Balogun's case they suspended the sanction for 1 year. I assume the judicial body in question here was the disciplinary committee since he doesn't have the right to appeal a red card. So in this case the backroom review decided to be more lenient. In Ronaldo's situation, the only other time this was ever done, the disciplinary committee opted for more discipline but then suspended all of it. Why was article 27 used in these two instances and no others?

How much was he paid?

So free that crime is legal at least for some.

Can't undo a red card there is no mechanism for that. And if this backroom review decided it wasn't a red here the official review in Ronaldo's case decided it as worse than a red card. Instead of the mandatory one game ban they decided it was worthy of a three game ban. Why give two more games only to suspend them? It would be better for the integrity of the competition if vague catch all exceptions weren't used in this manner and if politicians stayed out of sports. Not unexpected from an organization like FIFA sadly.

The only other time it’s been done. Why was it done for Ronaldo and Balogun and not Sithole, Zwane, Montes, Mokoene, Muharemović, Ahmed, Madibo, Almiron, Nagoya, Cabral, Gomez, or Lasheen who all served suspensions at this World Cup? There isn’t a rational argument to explain it. How is that fair to those individuals and the countries of South Africa, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Qatar, Paraguay, Belgium, Cape Verde, and Egypt? How does FIFA suspend Quanshah for England’s next match? FIFA is favoring the USA and Portugal over these other counties.

And yet you see no problem with the president selling and promoting trash?

Feel free to buy some and ad to the trading volume!

Folarin Balogun ban from a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina has been suspended and will be served outside of the tournament. Whilst this is good news for the US in their game today, it seems unjust. President Trump personally lobbied FIFA for this to happen and no other player in the tournament has similarly had a ban suspended. Twelve players have served bans at this world cup due to red cards, suspensions, or an accumulation of yellow cards so far. Three of them served suspensions in the knock out stage so far. Three others received a red card in their country's final game and will serve the suspension outside of the World Cup by necessity. Jarell Quansah received a red card yesterday and will be suspended for England's quarterfinal match. If you let Balogun and the US off here how were the rules consistently applied across the other 16 suspensions?

I don't care about the new livery. You seem to care about waste fraud and abuse except when it comes to Trump. If the Qatari plane is necessary then it should remain with the Air Force. If not then it was wasteful to modify it. There exists a similar tension with his crypto ventures. If his coins are supposed to be either an investment or a store of value then investors losing $2.28B whilst the president profited $1.4B would be a problem for investors. If investors are not upset with the losses then did they somehow get value for money? That is concerning if the investors got value by lobbying Trump for policy that benefits their interests buy maybe not be the same as the American public.

I don't think there are many questioning Trump for ordering the replacement planes from Boeing. I think that made sense. The question is whether the modifications to the gifted plane makes sense. Boeing said that if the AIr Force agreed to modification to the requirements one of the planes could be delivered in 2027 up from 2029. So if the modifications were acceptable then the need for a bridge plane to replace the VC-25As only has a useful lifetime of 1.5-2.5 years. If they weren't then the replacement could be in use 2.5-3.5 years until both VC-25Bs are delivered, but that's without additional delays and Trump doesn't give away the gifted plane after 2.5 years. The gifted plane cant really be a cost savings over maintaining the current VC-25As because those aren't being retired. They will still be maintained as backups and are more capable for the purposes of protecting the president than the hastily modified Qatari gift. They can't even fully retire one of them because with Trump fixing to give this plane away in early 2029 both planes might be needed if their is a delay. Also both planes remain superior at defending the president in the air meaning one is still needed for higher risk uses and the other as backup in case something happens to the other one. In other words there is little to no maintenance cost saved because now instead of maintaining two 35 year old aircrafts they are maintaining two 35 year old aircrafts being used a little less and a 15 year old aircraft. If you think I am wrong and the Qatari plane is actually better in all regards than the old VC-25As then it should remain in possession of the Air Force until both replacement planes have been delivered. The latest reporting I could find said one VC-25B will be delivered is mid 2028 and the other in mid 2029. This might mean that the not all the modifications were accepted. It also means that a delay of 6 months and the next president could take office and have to use both old VC-25As with Trump having given away the modified Qatari plane. The decision to modify the Qatari plane is dubious from a cost and necessity standpoint. Having made the modifications the plane should remain in possession of the Air Force until both VC-25Bs have been delivered and they've determined there doesn't exist an alternative use for it in the military. Then if the Trump library still wants it they can request it from the DOD. Bush's presidential library has requested one of the VC-25As after its retirement. This is how presidential planes typically end up at presidential libraries/museums. The outgoing president doesn't give them away before leaving office.

You’re going senile old man. I never once said it was a personal gift to Trump and you didn’t ask me that question. I responded to your statement “Umm...the jet was a gift to the US not Trump personally...you guys and your TDS is in strong form lately” asking what Trump’s plans for the plane are in 2029. You never responded. If it the plane is a gift to the US, property of the US, and hundred millions of taxpayer dollars were used to renovate it, then it should remain in possession of the US government through 1/21/2029.

You forgot to compare the value of these gifts with the value of the plane. The plane is vastly more expensive. You are also overlooked the utility of the item in question. All the expensive items in your list that other presidents transferred to their libraries are show pieces. If they remained with the government they would either be on display somewhere or in storage. It’s not like you can sell or regift ceremonial gifts and it’s not like if Obama left that Malaysian sword with the government the DOD would use it in battle. Conversely the plane has actual utility it can move people and things from place to place. It could be left with the DOD and serve a purpose. Then at the end of its usable life get moved to a museum for display. This is what happened to the small plane LBJ purchased to transport him from the Air Force base to his ranch in Texas. He didn’t transfer it to his library before he left office. It was left to the DOD and continued to transport people for decades. When it was finally retired from service it was put on display in a museum where it remains today. Finally none of those gifts you listed required hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer dollars for modification. If Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to modify that Malaysian sword when the DOD has two older perfectly good swords that would be better suited for their intended purpose even after modifications to the Malaysian sword some might call into question the spending. Obamas preference for the style of the Malaysian sword would not justify it to many. Especially when he has an order for two brand news swords from an American company the first of which could be delivered only 1.5 years after modifications to the Malaysian sword are completed. It shouldn’t be surprising that some view the plane as an example of waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it can certainly be looked at as waste and abuse given the large sums that were spent on it only to get a less capable less secure plane than the two we already have and with such a limited service life. Allegations of bribery and fraud are more speculative, but likely driven by how non sensical the decision appears to be.

You didn't answer my question. What is Trump going to do with the plane no later than Jan 1, 2029? It also wasn't just a gift from Qatar, tens of millions of tax payer $$ have been used to modify this gift.

Feel free to compare the value of those gifts to the value of the plane. Also feel free to answer my question as to what Trump is going to do with it in 2029?

Demonstrably untrue. I am sure some people that have no problem with Trump doing this would have a big problem if an elected official they disagree with tried something similar.

Before you call everyone crazy, what was Trumps stated intent for the plane come 2029?

A year ago you were confident the court was going to rule the opposite that it ultimately did. Now you are predicting Trump vs Barbara to be Dred Scott 2.0. It should not be surprising if you end up being wrong on this given how confidently you were wrong on this topic in the past. You are not prescient on this topic.