Posted on 12/15/2015 4:38:48 AM PST by markomalley
Scalia said that kids who were admitted to colleges based on race who would not have made it without quotas don’t do well in advanced college programs.
I’m an adjunct instructor at the local college and I know that more than half of the kids starting college have to take remedial math, science, and English before they start taking freshman-level college courses. High Schools have dropped their standards in order to improve graduation rates.
I wish Cruz the best in his career.
But right now, Trump is doing more to advance the dialogue and reforming the Republican Party for the better. People feel it when he points out various outrages, and his plainly worded plans are not only wildly popular — almost every one of them is a great idea ... except for Big Ethanol. No fan of that one either.
Well said, Mark.
Trump hits Scalia over comments on black students
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3372041/posts
[Hit accidental IMHO.]
“Scalia was essentially paraphrasing Thomas Sowell’s well-researched and apt argument.” — 9YearLurker
“[Scalia] was asking rhetorical questions to allow the opposing party to respond.” — USNBandit
THAT is the obvious question....that I’ve yet to see an answer to.
“Without Trump (and the wall), the flood of invaders coming across our borders would have been ignored across the board.”
Cruz would have done his best, but Trump keeps nailing it big-time. He connects with everyday people and they sense his sincerity.
Time will tell how all of this plays out.
“Trump on the other hand just has his rhetoric and decades of supporting Democrats to show for it.”
The one thing Trump is consistent with, his rhetoric is always helping dems and his good friends the Clintons, sometimes just by it’s timing.
Did you notice right after the attempted mass murder of Pam Geller and co. Trump was quick to blame Pam Geller and what the dems call “right wing extremist hate speech” as fueling the fire for muslim extremist.
This last mass murder and Trump makes his comments about muslims and low and behold once again we get “right wing extremist hate speech” is fueling the fire for muslim extremist.
On it’s surface it looks like Trump’s position flipped in a matter of months from “don’t say or do anything offensive to muslims” to “it’s OK to say things to offend muslims”.
In reality Trump’s position is the same, help Hillary and the dems with their position, right wing extremism is what’s fueling the terrorist attacks.
If Trump were evil, this would be a huge gamble.
First off, he gambles to win the White House.
Secondly, he gambles that somehow he could enrich himself even more while in the White House.
Thirdly, he gambles that his corrupt self-enrichment doesn’t get him impeached/removed.
Fourthly, he gambles that he will be happy even if he weathers a battery of congressional hearings.
Career politicians like the Clintons and Harry Reid are willing to risk everything — their reputations and even jailtime to profiteer off of politics. Political profiteering is a tricky trade that takes incredible legal knowledge and more importantly — a network of cronies to walk you through it.
And ... career politicians can never feel as happy as a self-made businessman who has a sound reputation and can walk the streets without fear and who rarely if ever fears the FBI and congressional oversight.
Trump has sacrificed a lot of personal freedom as well — he will never get to walk the streets the way he used to. He will never ‘blend’ in our society again. That bridge was burned, and I believe it was due to patriotism.
Then look at Hillary at a congressional hearing: ‘My mind’s like a blender. I just can’t remember. Like jello.’ — humiliating.
They are private institutions.
One thing is certain. Trump and Cruz are both on the right side regarding muslims, and whoever proves to be the most anti-muslim-refugee is better off on the issue:
Obama Releases Dangerous Jihadists - Then Misleads Country About It
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3372621/posts
Then Obama sends them all 72 virgins, a bottle of Scotch, and a Merry Christmas card.
I am a Texan. Yet I am not far from no longer recognizing the University of Texas.
A bad debate planner for one year? No different than the boring old media.
But magine if the states appoint someone really good as debate planner. What a year that would be! We might hear Mark Levin debate every activist judge on the supreme-sandwich-court. And then the nation deliberates what ought to be done about that judge.
[Only a constitutional amendment would harm the judge, but enough truth breaking out would lead to that.]
“I’d go for [mandatory debate for professors]....if the moderators were totally neutral. Which would never happen...as we know.”
I took that into account. Of course perfect neutrality is impossible. But ...
1. No moderator. Just a timer that switches off microphones automatically for fair time.
2. A planner collectively appointed by the states and term limited to one year.
If a planner is biased against the truth, no great harm done, and only for one year. But if a debate planner stands for truth and selects effective debators — fireworks!
Funny.
Trump is angling to hang on to his share of the black vote, which could be substantial. Without that it’s getting harder and harder to do the calculus of a non-Democrat winning.
What planet do I need to gravitate to?
: )
I hear that. Hoping a time machine into the future will get you there. FRegards ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.