RedDenver

I put his post in this thread because it's sexist. And it has nothing to do with soccer, but rather that he was ok watching the World Cup until he found out it was the Women's World Cup. I understand teach was trying to be funny, but he was just sexist instead. See, we're all supposed to laugh because girls were playing.

I didn't have to infer anything. Go back and read what comes before "Oh, women's world cup?"

You went over to watch what you thought was men's soccer and then turned it off because it was women's. At least that's what you said.

I'm sure there are conservative ideas that would work, especially if we remember that the idea of conservation was about the environment. But I think we're past the point where a carbon tax or cap-and-trade will work quickly enough.

I'm fine with both. But the IC has a history of keeping secrets from the American people.

I would prefer it went to Congress.

I don't think subsidies are free markets concepts.

I wasn't giving any guidance on how to proceed, just pointing out that eligibility is not tied to legality nor vice versa. What I'd personally recommend for how to proceed (strictly my own opinion here) is that the coaches and school should determine whether what the player did broke school or team or NCAA rules and determine the punishment, if any, based on the evidence they have. The same as when they determine any other breaking of the rules that doesn't involve the justice system. If the trial or criminal investigation reveal new evidence, then the coaches and/or school can re-evaluate. Relying on the justice system isn't perfect either because the verdict can only be guilty or not guilty - there are no innocent verdicts. And there are no guarantees the justice system will be correct in their verdict anyway.

Also keep in mind FIFA rules only allow 3 substitutions during a game, so the US couldn't just play their backups.

Sounds like a car racing phrase - maybe it started there?

In the Reagan years the President and Congress realized the 1981 tax cuts were too big and raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984. And then a larger overhaul of the tax system was done in 1986. So even Reagan himself wasn't constrained by the "blasphemy" of raising taxes.

I don't think there are any free market ideas that can get to zero emissions in a decade. We're pretty much at WW2 level effort if we want to avoid permanent damage to the climate, and I don't see anything else than government-led action (actually, every government) to get there.

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.