Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

Bernie  Sanders says we need  more regulations on existing charter schools and a moratorium on federal funding for new ones.

‘The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color.

True ,but for the better not to the detriment of black kids.

What's fascinating is that you put that bolded statement in without a shred of evidence to support it, merely evidence to support that it is preferred by a couple of the major minority populations.

Duh. The point is how blacks feel about Bernie on the issue of school choice.
Guess that skippedby you.

No, Ward, what skipped by you is your bolded statement:

for the better not to the detriment of black kids

YOU said that. The POINT is that you said something that was bullshit and you cannot admit it, same as ever.

So boring.

Not bullshit.  REDSTATEWARD isn't capable of backing his statements with fact, and his motivation for the post is to poke eyes, and make snide comments about the horse race on the Democratic side.  But I can have a real convo about this if you wish:

Our findings show urban charter schools in the aggregate provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers. Specifically, students enrolled in urban charter schools experience 0.055 standard deviations (s.d.’s) greater growth in math and 0.039 s.d.’s greater growth in reading per year than their matched peers in TPS. These results translate to urban charter students receiving the equivalent of roughly 40 days of additional learning per year in math and 28 additional days of learning per year in reading.

https://urbancharters.stanford.edu/

And the students attending those charter schools in urban areas are predominantly African American.

Not all Charters are as successful, as with non-urban schools in states that don't properly regulate them, or for-profit schools. But there are enormously successful non-profit schools that are doing good work eliminating achievement gaps in cities with school systems that are unfortunately effectively segregated by race.

Not saying that Charters are a cure-all.  But a blanket ban on funding vs. figuring out what works and what doesn't is a bad idea.

I will take a look at this subsequently, in depth. Thank you.

I was a Charter School supporter at the outset and even an applicant.

The last time I reviewed the research, a couple years back now, I found a grossly uneven set of results - far beyond "not all Charters are successful" to gross fraud and schools closing in the middle of their founding year. Yes, those complete and utter failures meant that some charters must be doing amazingly well.

My biggest problem has ever been with the charter movement its apparent abrogation of the underlying reason to have charters at all: to try new ideas and, if some of them are working, to migrate those ideas into the regular public schools.

So few charters, among those doing anything different, are working to translate what they have done into the broader public system and I am appalled! Others are doing better because they can control their sizes better - which I applaud, but which we continue to get resistance about. And... the ones that are not serving an experimental purpose and which are not making a difference academically for their students?! They need to go away, if only so that we can replace them with fresh experiments.

But... that all said, I have not read the link youposted. It will probably sit until after I escape for the long weekend to celebrate our anniversary. I'll likely poke in here, sometimes, but I won't have the time for concentrated reading.

Again, thanks for the link!

[whiskeypriest]

  This is about the hard democratic and Constitutional requirement that there be checks and balances.  We give up oversight of the Executive, then we declare any future President, Democrat or Republican, above those checks and balances.

It is also a Constitutional Requirement (separation of powers) that a President cannot be compelled to appear before Congress nor can his intimate advisors..  Conversations between the President and his staff are covered by executive privilege. Since  Don McGahn and Robert Mueller were both employees of the Justice Department whatever they discussed in the Russian Investigation is off limits to the Oversight Committees.And, besides, most  of what McGahn told Mueller is in Mueller's report.
If the democrats want to pursue Impeachment that's their call.  But McGahn has every legal right to ignore any subpoena and can't be held in contempt for refusing to appear.

Funny, you were arguing a few weeks ago that Mueller was free to testify if he wanted to.

What does that have to do with McGahn?

Trump can not invoke executive privilege over Mueller for testimony on a report that has already been made public.  Which is why he hasn't.

You make no sense.
 

I don't know if he will try to invoke that privilege over McGahn.  I do know that Trump is threatening McGahn's law firm if he does testify, which I'm sure you think is totally above board, trash poster.

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

What hilarious nonsense.

Exactly.  Mueller gave Congress a chance to search for impeachable offenses.
Nadler and Company don't want to run that risk, apparently because it may fail.
But they don't want the end the controversy either.  But they look foolish with statements like
" our subpoenas are not optional."
They are, in fact, legally fruitless.

Even more hilarious nonsense.

[josh]

Not bullshit.  REDSTATEWARD isn't capable of backing his statements with fact, and his motivation for the post is to poke eyes, and make snide comments about the horse race on the Democratic side.

Then I will repeat it for you.


‘The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color.”

True ,but for the better not to the detriment of black kids.

And I will repeat for you: there is nothing in your post that supports the bolded sentence.

It doesn't make it false. It doesn't make it true. It makes it unrelated to the comments or quotes you offered.

[josh]

Meanwhile, the effluvium rising from the administration just gets thicker....

Washington (CNN) -- President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen had more than 1,000 contacts with a Russian-linked company, evidence that special counsel Robert Mueller used to quickly intensify his investigation, according to newly unsealed court records.
Mueller was appointed in 2017 to investigate Russian interference in US politics, and the new documents show how Cohen gave Mueller plenty of reasons to aggressively investigate him. That's because Cohen initiated many of his contacts with foreign companies immediately after the 2016 presidential election, and started taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign sources.
The special counsel obtained five search warrants before handing the Cohen investigation over to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Those warrants were unsealed Wednesday by a federal court in Washington, DC, after CNN and other media outlets sued to make the records public.
The details of Mueller's early work were disclosed as Trump and Attorney General William Barr set their sights on the origins of the Russia investigation. Barr has questioned the legitimacy of how the probe started, while Trump has called it an "illegal" and even "treasonous" endeavor.

But the documents describe how investigators were learning of new and concerning actions, tying Trump's closest associates to powerful Russian interests, even after Trump was elected....

And most citizens couldn't care less about all this.  Their minds are on healthcare, immigration, and affording to have a roof over their heads.  What they forget is that no matter how tasty the fruit looks, if it's dangling from a poison tree, it will be poisoned fruit.  Corrupt leaders tend to produce corrupt legislatures and courts and agencies.

And while the Trump craziness continues the Dems have to be out calling for, “Healthcare, fair wages and no babies in cages.”

OBAMA cages.

More already disproven bullshit from Kiiid, who supports tearing kids from their parents and refusing to track them so as to make reuniting them harder.

You, Kiiid, are a disgusting amoral hypocrite.

[whiskeypriest]

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

Spinning wheels is pure projection on your part REDSTATEWARD, as executive privilege does not apply to either McGahn or Mueller (and has not been invoked by our "President" in either case) nor the numerous other avenues of investigation on which the White House has stonewalled.

What was stonewalled in the Mueller Report? Executive Privilege does not pertain to Mueller since he was not advising the President.  But it does to McGahn to the extent his testimony cannot be about matters Trump decides are private.

Nope. The president gets to decide what he claims executive privilege on, but not what matters are actually privileged. But then, from available evidence you do not understand any complex issue beyond what you read in right wing sources and regurgitate unfiltered.

[kiidcarter8]

Josh thinks there were no fenced in kids when O was prez.  Funny.

[facilitatorn]

Wherever there is a butcherously bad republican held senate, children will be put in cages. Good point, Kiid. Thanks. It’s probably part of the republican war on life.

It’s ok, because McConnell is getting embroiled quickly in his massive influence peddling scandal, part of his long running broad campaign to sell out national security for electoral survival for ugly immoral office holders and ugly unpopular policies.

[josh]

Josh thinks there were no fenced in kids when O was prez.  Funny.

Cages, Kiiid.

But why bother reminding you of what you said, when you cannot admit an error much better than Ward can. A little, I grant, but not much.

And "Obama cages" are still not at issue. Let's for the sake of the discussion grant that at some point in the 8 years Obama was president there were some kids in cages.

(a) Do you honestly believe it was as many?
(b) Do you honestly believe that the kids were as poorly taken care of?
(c) Do you honestly believe that if Obama's administration did something inappropriate, that it in any way, shape, or manner excuses the Trump administration's doing the same thing, only worse?

You cannot defend Trump's immoral and criminal actions, so you try to obscure his actions and those of his administration by pointing backwards in time to Obama's presidency.

You think Obama's presidency is an excuse for Trump's.

Hilarious.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

Spinning wheels is pure projection on your part REDSTATEWARD, as executive privilege does not apply to either McGahn or Mueller (and has not been invoked by our "President" in either case) nor the numerous other avenues of investigation on which the White House has stonewalled.

What was stonewalled in the Mueller Report? Executive Privilege does not pertain to Mueller since he was not advising the President.  But it does to McGahn to the extent his testimony cannot be about matters Trump decides are private.

Nope. The president gets to decide what he claims executive privilege on, but not what matters are actually privileged.

you either need an interpreter or an editor.

[whiskeypriest]

Your wheels are spinning. The bottom line is Presidentshave a long history and precedent in scores of judicial memos that Congress has no authority to mandate testimony from Presidential advisors on intimate advice given to the President.  The President also has executive privilege in denying any testimony he considers private by one of his employees.

Spinning wheels is pure projection on your part REDSTATEWARD, as executive privilege does not apply to either McGahn or Mueller (and has not been invoked by our "President" in either case) nor the numerous other avenues of investigation on which the White House has stonewalled.

What was stonewalled in the Mueller Report? Executive Privilege does not pertain to Mueller since he was not advising the President.  But it does to McGahn to the extent his testimony cannot be about matters Trump decides are private.

Nope. The president gets to decide what he claims executive privilege on, but not what matters are actually privileged.

you either need an interpreter or an editor.

No, just a less witless foil to debate.

[kiidcarter8]

Josh thinks there were no fenced in kids when O was prez.  Funny.

Cages, Kiiid.

But why bother reminding you of what you said, when you cannot admit an error much better than Ward can. A little, I grant, but not much.

And "Obama cages" are still not at issue. Let's for the sake of the discussion grant that at some point in the 8 years Obama was president there were some kids in cages.

(a) Do you honestly believe it was as many?
(b) Do you honestly believe that the kids were as poorly taken care of?
(c) Do you honestly believe that if Obama's administration did something inappropriate, that it in any way, shape, or manner excuses the Trump administration's doing the same thing, only worse?

You cannot defend Trump's immoral and criminal actions, so you try to obscure his actions and those of his administration by pointing backwards in time to Obama's presidency.

You think Obama's presidency is an excuse for Trump's.

Hilarious.

That is what you call(ed) them.

[LarryBnDC]

Bernie  Sanders says we need  more regulations on existing charter schools and a moratorium on federal funding for new ones.

‘The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color.

True ,but for the better not to the detriment of black kids.

What's fascinating is that you put that bolded statement in without a shred of evidence to support it, merely evidence to support that it is preferred by a couple of the major minority populations.

Duh. The point is how blacks feel about Bernie on the issue of school choice.
Guess that skippedby you.

No, Ward, what skipped by you is your bolded statement:

for the better not to the detriment of black kids

YOU said that. The POINT is that you said something that was bullshit and you cannot admit it, same as ever.

So boring.

Not bullshit.  REDSTATEWARD isn't capable of backing his statements with fact, and his motivation for the post is to poke eyes, and make snide comments about the horse race on the Democratic side.  But I can have a real convo about this if you wish:

Our findings show urban charter schools in the aggregate provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers. Specifically, students enrolled in urban charter schools experience 0.055 standard deviations (s.d.’s) greater growth in math and 0.039 s.d.’s greater growth in reading per year than their matched peers in TPS. These results translate to urban charter students receiving the equivalent of roughly 40 days of additional learning per year in math and 28 additional days of learning per year in reading.

https://urbancharters.stanford.edu/

And the students attending those charter schools in urban areas are predominantly African American.

Not all Charters are as successful, as with non-urban schools in states that don't properly regulate them, or for-profit schools. But there are enormously successful non-profit schools that are doing good work eliminating achievement gaps in cities with school systems that are unfortunately effectively segregated by race.

Not saying that Charters are a cure-all.  But a blanket ban on funding vs. figuring out what works and what doesn't is a bad idea.

I will take a look at this subsequently, in depth. Thank you.

I was a Charter School supporter at the outset and even an applicant.

The last time I reviewed the research, a couple years back now, I found a grossly uneven set of results - far beyond "not all Charters are successful" to gross fraud and schools closing in the middle of their founding year. Yes, those complete and utter failures meant that some charters must be doing amazingly well.

My biggest problem has ever been with the charter movement its apparent abrogation of the underlying reason to have charters at all: to try new ideas and, if some of them are working, to migrate those ideas into the regular public schools.

So few charters, among those doing anything different, are working to translate what they have done into the broader public system and I am appalled! Others are doing better because they can control their sizes better - which I applaud, but which we continue to get resistance about. And... the ones that are not serving an experimental purpose and which are not making a difference academically for their students?! They need to go away, if only so that we can replace them with fresh experiments.

But... that all said, I have not read the link youposted. It will probably sit until after I escape for the long weekend to celebrate our anniversary. I'll likely poke in here, sometimes, but I won't have the time for concentrated reading.

Again, thanks for the link!

My biggest problem with charter schools is they have the ability to pick and choose who they elect to serve. That makes them public only in terms of funding. I also think publicly funding vouchers for private school is a drain of funding for public education.

American public education is what helped make the US a world power. The right has been doing its best to dismantle the system since Brown.

[barton]

    Executive privilege is the presidential claim to a “right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative” and judicial demands.  Although such a privilege is not an explicit right the Constitution grants to the executive branch, its justification is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers. The argument is that if the internal communications, deliberations, and actions of one branch can be forced into public scrutiny by the other two co-equal branches of government, it will impair the supremacy of the executive branch over its Constitutional activities. This is because the president benefits from the executive branch’s advice and exchange of ideas , and forcing it all into public scrutiny can harm the integrity of these discussions. Additionally, it undermines the ability of the executive branch to hold sensitive military, diplomatic, and national security information.

Of course, because executive privilege is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, its exact scope and extent is ambiguous and disputed. After all, it was not until the Watergate scandal in the 1970s that such a privilege of presidential confidentiality was first judicially established “as a necessary derivative of the President’s status in the U.S. constitutional scheme of separated powers.”  In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court broadly established the reach and limits of executive privilege: the president can apply it when asked to share information pertaining to presidential decision-making that he believes should remain confidential, but it is not absolute and is subject to a balance of competing interests and needs of the respective branches of government. For Nixon, the interest of a criminal trial overcame his invocation of executive privilege, resulting in him having to hand over the tapes that brought down his presidency.   

  - from Penn Law Journal

The strong indication of impeachable offenses would overcome any similar Trumpian invocation.   And, as defined above, EP would in no way protect activity done as a private citizen. 

[LarryBnDC]

Two court subpoena defeats in three days for Team Trump. The banks and the accounting firm have to turn over the financial docs to the House.

drip, Drip, DRIP!

[LarryBnDC]

    Executive privilege is the presidential claim to a “right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative” and judicial demands.  Although such a privilege is not an explicit right the Constitution grants to the executive branch, its justification is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers. The argument is that if the internal communications, deliberations, and actions of one branch can be forced into public scrutiny by the other two co-equal branches of government, it will impair the supremacy of the executive branch over its Constitutional activities. This is because the president benefits from the executive branch’s advice and exchange of ideas , and forcing it all into public scrutiny can harm the integrity of these discussions. Additionally, it undermines the ability of the executive branch to hold sensitive military, diplomatic, and national security information.

Of course, because executive privilege is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, its exact scope and extent is ambiguous and disputed. After all, it was not until the Watergate scandal in the 1970s that such a privilege of presidential confidentiality was first judicially established “as a necessary derivative of the President’s status in the U.S. constitutional scheme of separated powers.”  In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court broadly established the reach and limits of executive privilege: the president can apply it when asked to share information pertaining to presidential decision-making that he believes should remain confidential, but it is not absolute and is subject to a balance of competing interests and needs of the respective branches of government. For Nixon, the interest of a criminal trial overcame his invocation of executive privilege, resulting in him having to hand over the tapes that brought down his presidency.   

  - from Penn Law Journal

The strong indication of impeachable offenses would overcome any similar Trumpian invocation.   And, as defined above, EP would in no way protect activity done as a private citizen.

RSW is full of shit. He’s making political arguments from rw propaganda sites. Trump Inc. and their legal arguments are laughable.