RedDenver

Players can be ineligible for grades, transferring schools, skipping team meetings, missing curfew, etc. None of that has anything to do with guilt or innocence. The "innocent until proven guilty" is only for the justice system - it doesn't even extend to employees being retained or fired.

Criminal proceedings and eligibility are different things

There's usually some Husker stuff in August and September.

I'm in Colorado and usually get Husker gear at Kohl's.

Of course politics is different - it always is, but using the bully pulpit has worked multiple times before and in different eras, so it's not unreasonable to think it could work again. M4A support polls around 60-70% (82% among registered Democrats, 66% among independents, and 50% among registered Republicans) plus healthcare polls as the top issue among voters, so I think you're kidding yourself if you think Bernie can't drum up public support to put pressure on politicians like Manchin and Sinema. There's not a lot of polling to draw strong conclusions from, but while Biden still leads Bernie in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, his polling is weaker than his national polling numbers. But Biden is stronger in South Carolina than his national numbers. I'm not sure how much any of that matters though. Trump can't pack the courts if the Dems hold the Senate - in fact the precedent for not even holding a vote until after the election has already been set. A Repub-held Senate can block a Dem President from getting an court appointments if they wanted.

I'm in my mid 40's. I only sometimes watch TYT and Secular Talk, and very rarely the Humanist Report. I much prefer The David Pakman Show. If you can get past the snark and poor attempts at humor, the Majority Report is also good.

I strongly disagree that TYT are propagandists unless you consider every single source of media as propaganda. But they definitely have a bias since they call themselves the "Home of Progressives". I also disagree with you that Bernie is wrong. He's following the same playbook Teddy Roosevelt used to get antitrust legislation passed and break up the monopolies and that Reagan used to get the tax cuts passed in the 80's. It's certainly not guaranteed to work, but it's not ignorant. Getting more bills done is only a good thing if those bills are helpful and not hurtful, so the context of Biden's bills matter a lot. Electing a Democratic Congress is the blueprint to success for any of the Dem candidates. But Biden (like Obama) will get absolutely nothing done if Repubs hold either the Senate or the House, whereas Bernie at least has a plan on how to exert political pressure to make change happen. At the end of the day though, I don't think who gets elected President matters even 1% as much as who controls the Senate and the House. I'd take another term of Trump if it meant the Dems got control of the Senate and the House.

He says in the tweet that the graphs are an example and haven't been updated for this season yet.

Moiraine has already addressed this, but you're missing the point. My point in bringing up Russia was to show a clear and simple example that the process/system can determine an election result regardless of how good a candidate is. No, you said Hillary was supported by the establishment while Obama was not. I'm just showing that the establishment wasn't against Obama nor particularly in favor of Hillary. For me, it has to be a Constitutional Amendment to get money out of politics. I'm not sure what every progressive thinks should be done, but Bernie and Beto have shown that small, individual donors can raise sufficient money. Why can't both be done at the same time? It's not like we have to choose one or the other. Using its institutional power to promote them is where it's undemocratic and against their own bylaws. Additionally, to claim the voters are deciding but then using institutional power to subvert that is fraud IMO. Both are again possible. Isn't grid lock the new normal? Why would you expect Biden to do any better? Here's Bernie's answer on that:

You made the argument that a candidate can always win if that candidate is just good enough - even in the face of the process being rigged, which I showed is nonsense. You might not like the example, but it disproves your claim. What you really want to argue is that the DNC didn't rig the primary enough to affect the result, which is indeed difficult to prove either way. Establishment Repubs might have opposed Trump, but the RNC didn't try to tip the scales in any way that I'm aware of. The difference is that Jeb Bush wasn't in control of the RNC's finances like Hillary was in control of the DNC's. The issue isn't whether the DNC picked a good reason to push Clinton - it's that the DNC shouldn't push any candidate. And I don't see anything to make me think the DNC pushed Clinton in 2008. You've argued that the establishment pushed Hillary over Obama, but I don't see evidence of that in the polling data. I'm not sure what point you're making. The data shows that the candidate with more money wins around 85-90% of the time. Beto showed that grassroots fund-raising can out-raise donors - at least in this one instance. Neither of those candidates were progressives though, so I'm not sure what your point is. I agree. All groups should be introspective and reflective about their movements. I'm worried that the DNC is stupid enough to try tilting the scale for a candidate or against candidates, which is the best way for the DNC to help Trump win. No matter what they think of the candidates - let the democratic process play itself out.

College isn't primary or secondary school.

Come on, you know why I made that comparison. You're trying not to address what I'm getting at. Either admit your "good enough candidate" argument is flawed, or explain how a "good enough candidate" can overcome any rigged process. Fine, then propose another metric for establishment support of a candidate. Thanks, I didn't realize it had gone down so much. However, having more money is a giant advantage: I don't know the progressives you're talking to, but I agree that you need power to change the system. I'm only seeing people worried about what the DNC will do. The DNC broke trust last time around, so they've got to earn it back.

This is just a ridiculous argument. Take an extreme example to disprove the point: are Putin's opponents simply not good enough politicians to win against him or is that system rigged? Now obviously it's not anywhere near as rigged as that, but it shows that you're "good enough candidate" argument is not enough by itself. Whether the changes in the primary process are enough remains to be seen. Here's a timeline of Obama's campaign: https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/june/obama_candidacy/obama_timeline_04.html Note that he started out fundraising Hillary in June of 2007, half a year before the first primary. Also, Hillary was doing historically poorly in endorsements in 2007, which was again before Obama started winning: I'm wary of them doing it, but I'm not claiming the DNC has done it yet. Note that the article also did not account for the two major factors I previously noted: incumbency and money. Also: That's a good article showing that the progressives didn't directly win, but the article also points out that the progressive candidates helped with getting turnout up to help the moderates win. Yeah, it's ridiculous to be cautious of something that happened in the previous primary. I mean, why were there process changes if there was nothing to worry about? Now the question is whether those changes will result in a more impartial DNC or not.

Good article:

I find them interesting when it's a long interview with some back and forth, like the ones where the voters in the studio and get time of talk about their opinions. If it's just a quick sampling of people as the reporter walks by, then it's not worth it. And I hate listening to callers.

Do we have a schollie or does that mean someone else is gone?

Really? Donna Brazille - the chair of the DNC - even said as much: What? Is there any evidence that the establishment didn't want Obama? Obama had more establishment endorsements than Hillary did. Note that the DNC didn't interfere to try to help Clinton. And the RNC didn't try to stop Trump. Both times the parties let the voters decide. A lot more non-progressives ran than progressives, so I'd like to see the data to backup this claim that progressives aren't winning elections. Keep in mind that the two biggest factors in winning an election are incumbency and having more money, so it'd be interesting to see how progressives and non-progressives compare considering those metrics. I agree Bernie needs to rise to the top if he's the candidate to beat Trump, but I don't agree with the "either way" stance. If the process is tilted or rigged, then it's ridiculous to expect someone to always be able to overcome that. If the DNC puts their finger on the scale instead of remaining impartial and letting their voters decide, then they deserve to lose to Trump again.

Haha, "Freedom" Caucus doesn't like the 1st Amendment apparently.

I can't find a link, but didn't the Omaha police chief say they weren't going to prosecute or arrest anyone for CBD oil?

Yeah, I have that fear as well. Biden is the candidate most likely to get beat by Trump IMO. But we'll have to wait and see. No. The DNC gave up the right to the benefit of the doubt after the shenanigans in 2016. You're right that Biden is indeed the frontrunner in the polling and it's harder to force an outcome with so many candidates. Those are both different than the DNC trying to force a preferred candidate versus being an impartial arbiter. Let's see what the DNC does, but things like a gathering to discuss stopping Bernie don't give me a good feeling that they're going to let democracy play out this time either.

And all of that is after considering the human cost. I'm not sure exactly sure how you value the life of an undocumented immigrant child - putting that child in a cage, deporting them to possible horrors or even death, letting them stay in our country, etc. But I know where I stand on that issue regardless of the dollar amounts.

DNC doing what it does best: pissing off their own voters. DNC declines a debate on climate change and bans the candidates from taking part in a climate debate outside the DNC. Campaigns go public with anger at Democratic National Committee as first debate looms DNC Denies 2020 Democrats a Climate Change Debate

Why should Mexico "protect" it's own borders from migrants? If Mexico is ok with the migrants, then they don't need to "protect" from them.