mspart

I knew he coined that phrase!! mspart

I hope the US Open is a huge affair this year. With birth into final x the prize, all the also rans should be there. mspart

That's where I sit on these. Regarding Schultz, it's tough to keep the consensus #2 match of all time off of this list. mspart

Him taking the Final X route would make him go 92 which is not what he wants this year. Big decision for him to make here that's for sure. mspart

There's nothing to see here or you are next. mspart

Got it. D=good. R=bad. This is essentially what you are saying. You cannot credibly say Hillary did nothing wrong and that anyone else that did what she did would not be in prison or heavily fined. I am simply and naively thinking that justice should be blind and treat everyone the same. That clearly has not and is not happening. The Feds had numerous opportunities to punish Trump for this porn star thing, and didn't. The DA is taking a misdemeanor case and trying to make it a felony case. Unlike all the felony cases he reduces to misdemeanors. And he's a horrible prosecutor losing almost half of his cases. Like his heart really isn't in it. But you can bet his heart is in this one. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11475383/Manhattan-DA-Alvin-Bragg-downgraded-half-felony-cases-misdemeanors.html REVEALED: Woke Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has downgraded over HALF of felony cases to misdemeanors as criminals are free to roam streets of the Big Apple Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg downgraded 52 percent of felony cases to misdemeanors, compared to 39 percent in all of 2019, according to new data Bragg wins a conviction 51 percent of the time, down from 68 percent in 2019 Between 2013 and 2020, the percentage of cases downgraded by District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. never exceeded 40 percent Bragg who took office Jan. 1 campaigned on promise of criminal justice reform If this website is not to your liking try https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-braggs-soft-crime-policies-face-scrutiny-manhattan-da-goes-after-trump-1789040 "Bragg has been in office just a year, but Manhattan seems to be getting progressively worse in crime," said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, which describes itself as a non-partisan research organization with academics affiliated from Harvard University, The Wharton School, University of Chicago, University of Michigan and Emory University. Lott is also author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime." According to his group's research, culled from the Manhattan D.A. Office's Data Dashboard, from 2021 to 2022, Manhattan's seven major felony offenses (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, grand larceny and grand larceny auto) rose by 26 percent to the highest since 2006. Or how about this website: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/nyregion/trump-potential-criminal-charges-bragg.html Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy. This isn't blind justice, this is blind rage. Even NYT doesn't give this much of a chance to succeed, but Bragg moves forward undeterred. If only he did that with the felons that make NYC a dangerous place to live. mspart

This is an asinine statement. If they both broke the law, prosecute both. If they didn't, don't. It really is as simple as that. Your statement just places in concrete that this is all a political thing, nothing to do with justice. I don't think you meant to do that but you did. mspart

That is a great match. That was quite the show. All because Schultz didn't think it was right that someone should have the chance for 4 NCAA titles. mspart

I hope he is ok, but getting weird advice. If he is ok, he needs to wake up soon. If he is not ok, I wish him a speedy recovery. Any word on his social media? mspart

I think the logic is clear. Leave Trump alone if you are going to leave others alone. If you don't leave Trump alone, then be intellectually honest and go after these others as well. Comey recounted how Hillary broke the law and hid what she did. But in his opinion, that was not enough to go after her. In the immortal words of the great one, C'mon maaaaan!! mspart

Crotalus, this is an interesting thing you bring up. 2022, Trump endorsed many candidates and democratic people voted for these people (this is documented and was in their playbook - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/15/democrats-boosted-trump-gop-primaries-helping-midterms/10670042002/) because they would rather run against the Trump guy than someone else. Trump's endorsees won many of those Primaries and many of those lost the general election. So the Ds were smart and smelled weakness in these candidates and helped them win their primaries. I have no complaint with that in general. But given that fact, why would anyone fear Trump? I have no idea. If he were a king maker it would be a different story, but he proved he is not. We have an ex Rep here in Vancouver WA, who voted with Ds in impeaching Trump, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. She lost her primary to a Trump endorsed candidate. This seat had been solid R for years. He lost to a D candidate, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. So essentially Trump cost WA an R House Rep. This was replicated across the US. This is why the House was not a trainwreck for the Ds. Why would anyone have fear of Trump now? I really don't know. mspart

Thanks for responding GWN, I appreciate that. Too bad Mike is not willing to back up his unsupported argument that the first got it wrong. He won't even defend what he says, that is pretty sad. I agree it is tough to go website by website to decide who is credible. But when many are reporting the same thing, then isn't the conclusion that they must all be credible in this particular story. The websites I listed were from left to right. They are all saying the same thing. To me that is the epitome of credible journalism. That said, there are numerous websites reporting on this. I think it is ridiculous to say that one is not getting it right when there are so many saying the same things, and many of them would be considered legitimate purveyors of news by Mike. The professor was an idiot for saying it is better to kill than to verbally engage. And there are people here fighting over the fact they don't like the website reporting it. No discussion of what the idiot said and why the University President took action. Nope, all we get is that the website is not credible. I think the reason he won't support his own argument is that he has been proven wrong and will not take ownership of that. Is this really what constitutes discussion these days. Throw a bomb and make fun of people if they don't believe it or want evidentiary support? That's just an ignorant way to try to make a point; it's like how a teenager would do it. mspart

That's a tough picture to look at. Thanks KCMO2! mspart

This is all true of course but after college. I think the topic here is college hammers, not after college hammers. Burroughs would certainly be high on the latter list. mspart

Where does Cox fit into the 97kg question? Is he injured hard so he can't compete? I would figure it would be Cox's to lose if he is healthy. mspart

It did wonders for my ultimate frisbee intramural career!! mspart

When will that be Mike? And you are very welcome. I'm always concerned about my intermat forum buddies. mspart

I'm not sure I would put it that way. There are various pieces of legislation that never get a hearing because it is not allowed to get a hearing, either by committee bosses or by majority leader or Speaker. This is precedented on a wide level. What McConnell did was no different. He held the nomination until a new President was selected. If Clinton had won, he would have moved forward with Garland is my guess. That is not what happened of course. But holding pending legislation in limbo is a time honored activity. It is neither unprecedented nor is it outside the rules. Doing something "precedented" 150 years ago is not even similar. But I think we should agree to disagree here. You have your opinion and think going to 13 justices so you can get your way is a great idea. I think it is sour grapes because you no longer have a liberal court you can count on. Maybe it would be easier to just get abortion legislation though Congress and get a signature, but that appears not to placate you. You want SCOTUS to legislate what you can't legislate. That is the true motivation here really. mspart

When will that be Mike? And you are very welcome. I'm always concerned about my intermat forum buddies. mspart

Mike, Primary to your assertion that the original source was suspect is that you think they misrepresented what the idiot professor said. I am now asking a third time, what did he say that the original source got wrong? Please note all the other sources I supplied. mspart

I love those guys!! They were my favorite on the Muppet Show. mspart

You did not include the detail that I very clearly communicated. You make it sound like the number of justices has been changing recently which is not the case. The number of justices has been static since 1869, which I went to great detail to document for you. But you just cruised right past that like it wasn't even there. Over 150 years of 9 justices. It has served us well. Changing the number will certainly change the rules. Let's say you did this, change the number of justices. What would stop the Rs from making an adjustment such as going back to 9 or upping it to 17 or some other number? And then what would stop the Ds from doing similar? I don't think this is the correct answer to the issue that seems to plague you. But it could be accomplished. But by doing so, I don't think the majority of Americans would accept it as a better way, only that petulant Ds didn't get their way so they are forcing SCOTUS to rule they way they want it to. https://news.yahoo.com/poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-supreme-court-as-confidence-wanes-194217399.html In a Marquette Law School poll released Wednesday, 51% of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat favored increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, versus 49% who were strongly or somewhat opposed. Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans. That is a really slim number. I think once done, the number of Independents wishing it different would increase. This could be a make or break deal for the Ds. They might get their 13 but at what cost? Changing the rules that have been in place for a century and a half is not something to trifle with. mspart

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. Per https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices the rule is written down in the law, The Judiciary Act of 1869. Yes, Congress can change that, but that is a 150+ year rule. Changing that is changing the rules. mspart

Essentially he is the police. The police don't have the authority to say what a reasonable prosecutor would or would not do. Neither did Comey. They are to gather evidence and present that to the DA (in the case of the police) or in this case, the Justice Dept and they decide what they will or will not prosecute. It was presumptive of Comey to do that. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124 “It’s not just unusual, it’s unprecedented,” said Matthew Miller, who was director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder and now works at strategic advisory firm Vianovo. “He’s put himself into the middle of a political campaign in a way that will call into question the legitimacy of the office.” “You’ll now have people in the middle of a campaign able to say, ‘Well, the FBI director said Hillary Clinton was careless,’” Miller added. “That’s not the FBI director’s job to do, and the rules are set up to prohibit that kind of behavior.” https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421530-no-glory-in-james-comey-getting-away-with-his-abuse-of-fbi-power/ Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.” So there are those that feel that Comey did not have the authority to do what he did here. mspart

1. So now that there are other sources saying the same thing, what does that say about the initial source? You still did not answer my question. You said, and I quote: "If the posted source lies about what the subject of article said, that's kind of a problem, wouldn't you say? It's hard to critique someone's words when the right wing press is flatly lying about what they said." 2. What did the guy actually say that has been misreported? There are two questions here. A response to each would be much appreciated. mspart