StrangeSox

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:34 PM) Yeah, Jenks, it seems like your argument boils down to Secretary of Education being a completely unimportant position that has no possibility of creating tangible harm or tangible good. I think a lot of people in this thread respectfully disagree with that position, and have already provided a number of examples of potential tangible harm. The point here is that it doesn't need to be a doomsday scenario with schools in flames for DeVos' educational philosophy to have a really negative impact on a lot of kids and a lot of families. That is a good way of putting it. DeVos won't and doesn't have the power to completely change and destroy our public education system because a majority of it happens at the state and local level, not the federal level. But that doesn't mean that the DoEd doesn't play an important role and that the policies they implement have ways of trickling down to state level policy and of still having serious impacts to school budgets. Even with the relatively limited power she had through political financing in Michigan, her and her ideas caused a lot of demonstrable harm while enriching private actors. Now she has 4,400 employees and something like a $50B budget to implement these same policies. And as I said before, things are still worth opposing even if they don't directly impact you or your children. Really, it's those who are not in 'the middle' who are the most vulnerable and who need the most protection. Saying "sure, poor kids' schools will be run into the ground even more than they already are, but my kids' schools will be okay" is pretty callous. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:38 PM) Pardon me if I am wrong, but didn't the implementation of her policies in Michigan do just that and kill schools? I thought I read it was pretty disastrous in Louisiana as well when they tried to adapt her plan Yes, and then Republican lawmakers in LA were shocked and horrified to learn that the vouchers they allowed to funnel money to Christian schools also meant money could go to Islamic schools.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) Again, i'm not arguing she was a stellar choice. I just don't see the doomsday scenario. People are saying she's going to be really awful for a wide variety of reasons, both based on her stated policy goals and her apparent total ignorance of the actual job she's been chosen to do. It's hard to imagine a less qualified candidate. What do you imagine something you'd call a "doomsday scenario" for SoE would look like if you don't see why DeVos is so bad? You're right when you say that she can't single-handily destroy public education because it's mainly controlled and funded at state and local levels, but the DoEd can still have a significant impact at both the primary and secondary ed levels.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:46 PM) This isn't the first or last high level position to be bought. But most career politicians have enough respect for the office to require at least a slightly deserving resume from.their bidders. Not the Donald. And all but two Republican Senators.

This, from an ACLU lawyer, is very troubling. Related editorial from the Baltimore Sun: Ordinary Americans carried out inhumane acts for Trump

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:07 PM) FAKE NEWS CNN!!!! http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kfi...a-on-fake-news/ They're also inventing fake news about CNN! CNN rejects White House claim: We never retracted statement on Conway

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:15 PM) "Our kids." No, this may impact poor kids who already go to s***ty public schools. Now they'll just go to s***ty for-profit charter schools. "Our kids" will stay in good school systems. edit: I'm not saying i'm thrilled about the choice. I just don't see it as some colossal failure either. She's going to fail like every other education secretary when trying to fix poor school systems/districts. Are there a non-zero number of families who pay property taxes to your district but send their children to private schools? If people like DeVos get their way, all of those public education funds would instead be funneled into the private schools those kids are attending. That would hurt your kid's public school education. She'll also likely have a very negative impact on higher ed as there are strong signs they'll be rolling back the restrictions on the firehouse of federal student aid dollars aimed at awful for-profit colleges. "It won't personally affect me" isn't a good reason not to care about something, anyway.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:23 PM) Did she delete this? nope! https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/8290...src=twsrc%5Etfw http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-rea...s-confirmation/

re: DeVos, Jill Stein remains a colossal moron

Nope! That was my way of pointing out that Trump has always been a racist delusional asshole. Over the last several years, there has been bipartisan push back against asset forfeiture laws. These laws let law enforcement seize "evidence" in the form of cash, cars, or really anything of value when a crime has allegedly been committed. They hold these assets until the case is resolved in favor of a defendant, and even then it can be very difficult to recover the (essentially stolen) property. The programs are rife with examples of abuse by police forces. Under Obama, the federal government changed these rules briefly for federal law enforcement but then later reinstated them. That brings us to Trump, today: Threatening to ruin the political careers of anyone who dare opposes your regime and bolstering authoritarian abuses by law enforcement.

Trump was retweeting fake stats from neo-nazis about "black crimes" at least as far back as January 2016. This really isn't anything new.

I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is beyond "they started it!" regardless if that claim is true. Even if Biden and the Democrats had successfully blocked H.W. Bush from filling a hypothetical vacancy back in 1992, I'd still think it was wrong then and wrong in 2016. brett's said before that it was because we were in "election season." I'm not sure when the earliest campaigns started, but Ted Cruz announced in March of 2015. That means that at a minimum, we were in "election season" for nearly 50% of Obama's second term. Do we really want a standard where Presidents lose their power of appointment for that long? Do we think that should only apply when the opposition holds Congress, or do the people making the "Biden rule" argument also think that Trump should be blocked from making any appointments once the 2020 campaign starts? Where are these lines where we say that a sitting President now loses their appointment powers? If this is a legitimate ideological stance rather than just grasping at whatever paper-thin justification they can for taking unprecedented actions, they should be able to answer these sorts of questions.

I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992.

I will do that if I ever have the impulse to respond to your posts by whining that you're posting at all rather than making an on-topic comment.

Okay? And you don't need to whine if I happen to make an on-topic comment, either. If you don't like it, just ignore it and move on.

Donald Trump's staff get him to agree to policies by saying 'Obama wouldn't have done it' President only agreed to botched Yemen raid because military officials said predecessor would never do it, intelligence sources say So much for Mattis being the sane, stabilizing force.

You asked a question and I gave an answer. If you don't want anyone else to comment, send him a PM instead.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 11:52 AM) Don't forget private online for-profit schools with no accountability The University of Phoenix model for K-12 education--what could possibly go wrong? e: And the fundamentalist Liberty University model for secondary!

Pointing out that Milo advocates for harassment and violence against some minority groups, doxxes specific people at his events, and that one of his followers recently murdered a protester at another event seems pretty relevant to talking about the protests against Milo at Berkeley. It wasn't some random "conservatives are bad too!" event but something that involved the same man at the center of it.

My grandpa's squares were always split 5 ways, 1, 2, 3, 4, final. Realistically, that meant 4 was always a double payout.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) i cant wait for DeVos to build the Jesus Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too fyp don't forget she's not just a regular anti-public schools zealot, she specifically wants to subsidize religious education!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 07:50 PM) The White House list of "terrorist attacks" that should have gained more press is....amusing. Search -> crimes -> Muslim sounding names This appears to be pretty much what they did. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38893253 Hmm wonder what sort of historical analogues there are for an authoritarian regime promoting both complete distrust of the media/any sources of information besides themselves and stoking fear of religious and ethnic minorities?

DeVos has got to be the most plainly unqualified Cabinet member ever, right? At least since the modern, post-spoils system reforms in the late 19th century.

holy cow blast from the past welcome back, Soxy!

It's why you see some places like gas stations offering a discounted price if you're paying in cash. All of the CC companies tend to charge 1-2% per transaction or so, although there are flat-fee models as well (which is why you might see a minimum purchase requirement).

Processing fees on the merchant's end.