Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 385: Voting Rights Axed

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Missed that, I just skimmed through looking for info on the college/degree. That seems like a tricky case; I guess it might hinge on whether he should have reasonably known that his epilepsy would prevent him from making use of the degree beforehand? I'd have to think about it more.

The dragon quest heroes would be ashamed of you tbh.

I know I'm being reductive here, but "maybe the epileptic shouldn't have had dreams in the first place" is quite the bold stance.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Red Sox the government owns the public colleges.

Usually it's the state governments that own their own public colleges. So if the federal government is paying, the states still have an incentive to raise tuitions to the stratosphere.

Also, in many cases (certainly for the University of California) the public college effectively governs itself. UC receives something like 15% of its funding from the state at this point, and is basically entirely self-governing. It's a private university in all but name.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Missed that, I just skimmed through looking for info on the college/degree. That seems like a tricky case; I guess it might hinge on whether he should have reasonably known that his epilepsy would prevent him from making use of the degree beforehand? I'd have to think about it more.

Well, there are 3 parties to a student loan, right? A student, who is probably about 18 (barely over the age he can enter into a contract binding on him at all), a lender, which is the government or a bank of some sort, and a college. I see 2 sophisticated parties and 1 very unsophisticated party. If the school accepted him with epilepsy and the lender lent to him knowing about it, I think the consequences of that decision should fall on them.

Just like if a bank lends to XYZ corporation and XYZ corporation declares bankruptcy, too bad for the bank! Caveat emptor as they say.

red sox 777 posted...

Usually it's the state governments that own their own public colleges. So if the federal government is paying, the states still have an incentive to raise tuitions to the stratosphere.

Also, in many cases (certainly for the University of California) the public college effectively governs itself. UC receives something like 15% of its funding from the state at this point, and is basically entirely self-governing. It's a private university in all but name.

Well, there are 3 parties to a student loan, right? A student, who is probably about 18 (barely over the age he can enter into a contract binding on him at all), a lender, which is the government or a bank of some sort, and a college. I see 2 sophisticated parties and 1 very unsophisticated party. If the school accepted him with epilepsy and the lender lent to him knowing about it, I think the consequences of that decision should fall on them.

Just like if a bank lends to XYZ corporation and XYZ corporation declares bankruptcy, too bad for the bank! Caveat emptor as they say.

You realize the bill for this could just include what the states charge the government. Supremecy clause gg

DoomTheGyarados posted...

You realize the bill for this could just include what the states charge the government. Supremecy clause gg

That feels like it would be unconstitutional but hmm..... I wonder. Too lazy to look into this more right now.

red sox 777 posted...

That feels like it would be unconstitutional but hmm..... I wonder. Too lazy to look into this more right now.

Federal government sets budget for a lot of things. They can set a budget for tuition too

Suprak the Stud posted...

I know I'm being reductive here, but "maybe the epileptic shouldn't have had dreams in the first place" is quite the bold stance.

Thats not what Im trying to say here. I certainly sympathize with him; his situation sucks. The question is to what extent his situation is different from the guy who takes out the same debt for a biology degree and ends up only being able to get the same job he would have gotten without it. In both cases the degree ends up being worthless from an income perspective.

Thinking about it more I think this specific debt forgiveness is fine since he cant hold a job at all, in which case the government should probably be helping him out financially even without the debt.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Federal government sets budget for a lot of things. They can set a budget for tuition too

Sure, but states are also able to refuse the federal funding and get money from other sources. Given they charge a ton of tuition now - oh, I see. So if they continue to charge tuition, they'll be outcompeted by the federally funded colleges? That could work.

That's a lot more thought out than what I keep hearing from the left though. I'm concerned they'll actually try to give colleges a blank check.

red sox 777 posted...

Sure, but states are also able to refuse the federal funding and get money from other sources. Given they charge a ton of tuition now - oh, I see. So if they continue to charge tuition, they'll be outcompeted by the federally funded colleges? That could work.

That's a lot more thought out than what I keep hearing from the left though. I'm concerned they'll actually try to give colleges a blank check.

what you are saying is I should run for office

DoomTheGyarados posted...

what you are saying is I should run for office

Sir Chris 2024

I have joked give me like a decade to be an established business owner and to let all of my rage die out and I would probably be pretty good.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

what you are saying is I should run for office

You're a small business owner right? People will lap that right up.

Okay but please don't run the country like a business, I hate that expression. If a country is being run like a business history would indicate that it would pay people unfair wages and generally do unscrupulous things in the service of the mighty dollar. Run it like a country that has programs to promote the common welfare.

I would run the cou try like my business. Spend a lot of money investing in the future. Money today doesn't matter if there is no tomorrow. We need an educated, healthy, provided for populace.

LordoftheMorons posted...

The question is to what extent his situation is different from the guy who takes out the same debt for a biology degree and ends up only being able to get the same job he would have gotten without it.

hey there's no need to bring my brother into this

red sox 777 posted...

That's a lot more thought out than what I keep hearing from the left though. I'm concerned they'll actually try to give colleges a blank check.

spoilers: chris is part of the left.

acting like "the left" is a homogeneous group is something assholes like ben shapiro do. stop doing it.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

spoilers: chris is part of the left.

acting like "the left" is a homogeneous group is something assholes like ben shapiro do. stop doing it.

Obviously the left is not homogenous. As you said, Chris is part of the left and I expressly said what he proposed is different from what I often hear. The right is also not homogenous, and same with the center and just about every other group you can think of.

maybe "what you often hear" is anecdotal and you shouldn't base blanket statements about what "the left" thinks on it!

I think it's very clear I am not claiming that all people on the left feel that way, and also clear that "the left" as an actual thinking cohesive entity does not exist. My meaning should be clear although it is not worded as articulately as I might word it in some other situations.

i get that you're not saying that literally 100% of leftists have that stance, but i don't see the benefit in claiming that "the left" thinks something when it's not clear that even a majority of leftists think said thing and you're just basing your claim on anecdotal evidence.

also, one thing i've noticed is that people who constantly generalize "the left" (steven crowder, ben shapiro, stefan molyneux) absolutely never generalize "the right." they'll never say something like "the right thinks homosexuality is a sin," even though that's a perfectly valid thing to say, going by your logic. not saying this applies to you but it is a trend i've noticed.

I think I generalize about the right also. For example, the right love individuals and dislike groups. The core principle of the modern right is "the ends justify the means." Republicans fall in line. Of course, I don't mean the right is a homogenous block.

Jobs reports are basically a meme now.

2020, with Trump: Initial reports looks good, revisions show the numbers were actually far worse than initially reported.
2021-2022, with Biden: Initial reports look lukewarm, media panics, revisions consistently add hundreds of thousands of jobs after the fact, media *crickets*

When you're constantly adjusting upwards at like 200k-300k like how are you keeping your job when you keep consistently fucking up the numbers this badly. Like I remember when the usual revision was like 20k-30k either way but now you've had years of these dramatically misreported numbers that "somehow" are always being reported in a way to make the GOP look much better and the Dems look much worse.

BLS head is a Trump holdover so maybe it really is that simple.

Avenatti found guilty

https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1489690711553282051

Apparently though there was one juror who was refusing to deliberate for a long time and the judge had to issue an instruction that they all needed to actually deliberate multiple times. From what I'm reading that's a pretty thorny legal issue which will give Avenatti a not completely frivolous avenue to appeal and claim that the judge should have accepted that it was a hung jury and declared a mistrial:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1489636197324378120

LordoftheMorons posted...

Avenatti found guilty

https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1489690711553282051

Apparently though there was one juror who was refusing to deliberate for a long time and the judge had to issue an instruction that they all needed to actually deliberate multiple times. From what I'm reading that's a pretty thorny legal issue which will give Avenatti a not completely frivolous avenue to appeal and claim that the judge should have accepted that it was a hung jury and declared a mistrial:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1489636197324378120

Avenatti is basically a Trump wannabe who isn't as skilled at avoiding personal liability for his actions. I don't know what on earth made him think it was a good idea to go on cable news all the time in breach of his client's NDA before winning the case to cancel the NDA.

As far as the mistrial goes.... was the juror actually taken off the jury? If she ended up deliberating with the other jurors and voted guilty I don't know that there's that much to complain about.

No they stayed on the jury. I dont get the impression that people think hed ultimately prevail on an appeal, just that its something that wouldnt be immediately dismissed (but if the judge had removed them it might have been dicier).

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489670105768370177

The GOP officially declared the 1/6 insurrection "legitimate political discourse."

thisisfine.jpg

They didn't really have a choice since the alternative is to admit they've become the party of domestic terrorism.

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489670105768370177

The GOP officially declared the 1/6 insurrection "legitimate political discourse."

thisisfine.jpg

https://twitter.com/bpmehlman/status/1489395823972605959?s=21

When the GOP legalizes their ability to overturn Democratic electoral victories, dont say the writing wasnt on the wall.

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489670105768370177

The GOP officially declared the 1/6 insurrection "legitimate political discourse."

thisisfine.jpg

Hard to be surprised by gross stuff like this any more, but it's almost impressive how they keep sinking lower and lower

https://mobile.twitter.com/GOP/status/1490332956703043590

Wow, a whole 40.

In federal AND local primaries.

I think if we were counting local, there are more than 40 black democratic candidates in my district alone.

Thats as many as four tens

lmao the political equivalent of "I have black friends"

FFDragon posted...

lmao the political equivalent of "I have black friends"

More like "I have a black friend."

On his mother's side

FFDragon posted...

On his mother's side

You've never met him. He goes to a different school.

Who's ready for another round of Dave Chappelle discourse? This time, there's a twist!

https://twitter.com/ExileGrimm/status/1491496240214913029?s=20&t=CoqCoGY6F5x5m3h1g76CJQ

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Who's ready for another round of Dave Chappelle discourse?

fingers crossed for "nobody"

I think his name should be pronounced Dave Chapel.

This inflation is absolutely out of control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/11/us/politics/taliban-afghanistan-911-families-frozen-funds.html

Biden is taking half of 7 billion dollars the Afghanistan government deposited into a New York bank and allowing victims of 9/11 to claim it? Seems extremely fucking weird, considering the timeframe and also the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Someone explain how this isnt basically pillaging the remains of a failed state?

All the explanations I've seen boil down to "you can't prove the Afghan government would use it any better, because Taliban" or "if you think about it, the money belonged to the US anyways." Neither of which are particularly satisfying!

And look, geopolitics is hard, whatever. My sticking point here is this doesn't decrease tensions or lower US involvement in the region, what is the actual point of this besides continuing some moral crusade while making a profit?

I was literally counting down the time til the fake outrage story would make its way here. Lasted a few more hours than I expected.

lol Red what are you talking about?

Not engaging today, Tony.

Then dont post? Lol

You settled a mental bet in my head and I found that interesting.

Discussing the subject with you disinterests me at this time. There is a difference.

Your definition of fake outrage story is goofy.

Its one thing if you dont care, which is fine, it literally doesnt affect either of us.

But its definitely not an ethical or even logical thing for us to do. Thats not fake outrage, thats me saying man, this seems weird!

Ok now good night

But that simply isnt true. I do care and do have an opinion. I just don't care to discuss such with you.

Then show about you just give your own summary/thoughts for the rest of us