illinilaw08

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 07:52 AM) Agree with all of this and I'll go as far as to say that anyone who continues to fight against laws restricting background checks, limits on the mentally ill getting guns or bans on how powered rifles legitimately have blood on their hands. It is absurd how easy it is to get these types of weapons in this country and I'm sick of hearing we can't do anything about it. We have already made cuts that certain weapons cannot be held by citizens, we certainly have the ability to further restrict gun ownership but we choose not to because our politicians are bought by a bunch of terrible people from the NRA. We don't have a mental health issue that is unique to America. The unique American issue vs. other first world countries is our gun culture and how easy it is to obtain weapons here. Oh and let me also say that the 2nd amendment argument is bulls*** for allowing weapons like this to be in civilian's hands. We have grown and evolved as a society. The founders were ok with slavery, but we got rid of that. I'm sure the founders never envisioned people would have weapons that could kill 50+ people and injure hundreds in a matter of minutes. This is a good post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) Typically, yes. But with the size, scope, and the legal implications of this specific incident, I think schools aren't going to be as accommodating as they typically would for NCAA violations. Well, this specific incident, based on the allegations to date, as it pertains to Underwood are that Evans used his influence to steer kids to a specific agency in exchange for $22k. Evans (and by extension Underwood) aren't tied up in $100k to Bowen or the $150k for Little (I think that's the AZ side of this). There might be more on Evans, and there might be a lot against Underwood that hasn't come out yet, but based on the indictment against Evans, Underwood looks pretty insulated.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 27, 2017 -> 08:54 PM) Not directed at Illinois fans, but it's been comical to see so many fan bases claim their head coach had no clue what these tarnished assistant coaches were doing. No doubt in my mind Sean Miller should be fired immediately I tend to not care generally about schools paying kids on the recruiting trail. I know it's against the NCAA's rules, but the kids are unpaid labor (I know, I know, they get scholarships) whose likenesses and talents bring in loads of revenue for everybody other than themselves. Ergo, while I tend to agree that the head coach obviously knows how the assistant is operating, I can't really bring myself to care that much (and that includes Pitino, Calipari, Miller, etc.). With that being said, the indictment against Evans is that he steered players toward a specific agency, and that he was paid around $22k for his influence. If that is the extent of the allegations against Evans, it's reasonable to believe that Underwood isn't caught up in that. Doesn't directly impact recruiting, the payments are really pretty small for a guy making north of $1M annually. Underwood would have to be dumb to be pulled into that. BUT I think one of the allegations on Evans says that he said that he needed some cash to set up a recruit's mom. That gets into an area where the NCAA could have an issue with Underwood. Also don't know what Evans might say/know that might get Underwood in trouble with the feds.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 02:09 PM) Maybe I'm missing something here, but where does he say to loot and conduct violent actions in there? Dude. No one is saying that King said to loot or conduct violent actions. And no one is condoning that in this thread - at least not that I have seen. Greg is saying that King would not have protested illegally. In that, he includes protests in malls, protests that inconvenience anyone, etc. King's protests led to a lot of the protesters being beaten by police and arrested. They committed illegal acts. They also did those acts peacefully. King might condemn looting, but he also would have been very in favor of civil disobedience.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 01:25 PM) He is way past symbolic. If the left is right, he has had his nuclear program that he wants, and the world knows about it and has for a while. All of the accelerating tests, firing missiles towards other countries, on top of the rhetoric is putting himself in a situation where he could draw an attack from the US. If all he wanted was a nuclear program, he could well have gone the Israeli route where they refuse to talk about it, yet the entire world knows it is there. What do you mean, he's way past symbolic? NK hasn't launched any of its weapons at a populated area. It hasn't started a shooting war. Until it crosses that line, this is all still symbolic. Also that's not how NK has ever operated. They have a long history of overt statements, and flexing whatever muscle they can flex. Right now, it seems like we're in a war of escalating words. Every time the President makes inflammatory statements, NK responds with a show of force to remind the world that it can cause a lot of harm if pressed. This is certainly as scary of a situation with NK as we have had in a very, very long time, but diplomacy, not continued inflammatory rhetoric from the US, it what pulls this back from the brink.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) Yet he keeps provoking a man the world knows isn't right in the head into a war he can't win. This isn't Obama or Bush he is dealing with who never had any intention of actually doing anything. I think that Kim believes that he has all the deterrence he needs to avoid a US invasion. But that it's only through provocative talk that he keeps the US and, to a lesser extent, China, believing that he'll actually kills lots and lots of people if a line gets crossed. Maybe I'm wrong and Kim isn't a rational actor. I just don't see what his end game is if this goes beyond words and symbolic shows of force.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 12:13 PM) Good post, Harry. Do you think China would step in and help the USA if Kim sets a deadline for removal of sanctions and says he will launch so many nukes the day the deadline passes? Is there any point China would save the day so to speak? Greg - I think China is exerting what influence it has behind the scenes to try to keep NK in check. China does not want war on the Korean peninsula for a lot of reasons. But China also benefits from North Korea's existence generally. They don't want to deal with a flood of refugees (war or complete destabilization of NK), they don't want American allies (a unified Korean peninsula) on their borders. I know this has been said before in this thread, but Kim Jong Un knows that the second he launches a nuke or conventional weaponry, he starts a war he cannot possibly survive.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 12:07 PM) It's not too much to demand a protest to be legal. Legal protests are effective as I indicated in that article I posted. Not one or two but 8 examples of King's legal protests. I'll stop now. If you think I am scum I can't do anything to change your opinion. All I want is peace for all no matter if u believe it or not. Greg, you are selectively ignoring what SS said. A number of protests led by King WERE illegal. Non-violent (at least on King's part), yes. Legal, no. If you are asking that protests only be legal, then you are implicitly condemning a number of the protests led by King. If you are asking that protests not put protesters or others in harms way, you are also ignoring the number of peaceful protesters who were attacked during King's civil rights protests.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 08:07 AM) Anyone with even a hint of business acumen would have known that companies would do that. But it never mattered, because it's not about the people. It's about votes and filling your friends' pockets. I think that's a true statement about every R repeal bill. I think you would find a lot of people who would say the ACA was providing access to healthcare to more people.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 11:45 AM) I don't think i'm asking for an impossible standard. I'm saying more than one example with circumstantial evidence is needed to prove this very large conspiracy to work with the Russians. edit: but I forget, innocent until proven guilty except when it comes to people you don't like/believe. As to evidence, we have thus far evidence that: 1) Manafort offered access to a Putin associate while he was running Trump's campaign; 2) Kushner tried to create a back channel between Russia and the White House after the election and before inauguration (pretty sure that's the right timeline); 3) Trump, Jr. took a meeting that he understood to be with the Russian government and the context for the meeting was that the Russian government had dirt on Hillary Clinton; 4) Flynn had unauthorized contacts with Russians about sanctions prior to inauguration. 5) Russia meddled in the election in an effort to get Donald Trump elected President. That's a lot of direct evidence of contact between Trump associates and Russia. It might not get to Trump, and it's certainly not direct evidence of collusion. But there's a LOT of smoke here. And to expect anything definitive from Mueller's investigation at this point is absurd. And pointing to the lack of anything definitive as evidence of lack of guilt is equally absurd.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 11:40 AM) 1) You (and Vox) are telling me those e-mails are all the proof you need that he committed a crime. If you discover a murderer at the scene with a gun in his hand you don't wait for weeks to investigate further. You file your charges. I'm just saying it's more of a grey area than what you believe, not that there's absolutely nothing there that should be investigated. 2) And I've said I would have done the same thing. Why on earth wouldn't you want to hear what dirt is out there on your opponent? Report it to the FBI afterwards but certainly have that meeting. And i'm deflecting and minimizing (without ever denying that something could be there) because i'd like to see the full evidence before deciding, conclusively, without doubt, what you already believe is true. 1) This isn't a murder investigation and you know that. If you are investigating the mob, you don't arrest every low level offender as soon as you have enough to charge. I'm not saying that charges are coming against Trump, Jr., but at best he was operating in a very, very grey area of the law (that Vox article directly quotes a number of well regarded people in the legal field). The lack of charges to date means absolutely nothing as to whether or not Trump, Jr. taking that meeting was illegal. 2) As to #2, in the immediate aftermath, seasoned Republican politicians said that you do not take that meeting. You immediately report it to the FBI. Like I said, my understanding is that's standard operating procedure. Not try to get dirt from the foreign government first, and then go to the FBI... http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jr-em...is-disturbing-1 From the article: Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina: "Anytime you're in a campaign and you get an offer from a foreign government to help your campaign, the answer is 'no.' ... Definitely, he has to testify. That email is disturbing."

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:58 AM) The media came out and said he committed a clear crime and yet no charges have been brought. It's a pretty clear cut case if true, so where's the indictment? Regardless, that still doesn't get us to the meddling that you all are claiming. At best you have Manafort asking for RNC contributions in exchange for sanction relief (illegal), but that's not "meddling" with the election system in the ways that are being alleged. Re: Sanctions. Congress passed the sanctions. Trump signed it, but he didn't give it a ringing endorsement. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/don...bill/index.html From the article "In a statement, Trump expressed his own doubts about the legislation: "The bill remains seriously flawed -- particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch's authority to negotiate." Mueller is investigating everything, including that meeting with Donald, Jr. Whether Donald, Jr. will be charged with a crime is very unresolved. As to the Russian election meddling, there's abundant evidence that Russia meddled in the election, and that they wanted Trump to win. Mueller is (among other things) investigating the Trump campaign's involvement (if any) in that. Jenks, you know that a case like this is a really, really difficult case to investigate and prove. The Nixon investigation took like 18 months (off the top of my head) and they had tapes of Nixon. As Crimson said, there isn't going to be some contract titled "Collusion to Influence Election" but there is a lot of evidence of impropriety between people close to Trump (Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, and Trump, Jr. at a minimum) and people related to Russia. Maybe there isn't ultimately anything there, but drawing a conclusion that there isn't anything there after 3 months of investigating is really, really shortsighted.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) But that's not solicitation. He didn't actively seek Russia's help. He was notified that someone wanted to meet to discuss what info they had. I think i'd take that meeting to, if I were Trump Jr. I might have sent a proxy just so it didn't look bad, but i'd want to know what info they had. I'm not even sure obtaining dirt from a foreign agent is illegal unless there's something provided in return. The below link has a pretty good summary of the state of the law. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/1595059...k-times-illegal "A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value." In this case, the anything of value would be damaging information. In my understanding, it's basically politics 101 that you immediately refer a solicitation like this one to the FBI...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 08:36 AM) Legally this is also very different. There's no proof of that (yet). What we do have proof of is that the meeting came about because the Russian party was promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's pretty black and white in the e-mail. Whether that reaches Trump himself is obviously very up for debate. And what was actually discussed in the meeting is also obviously unknown. But Trump, Jr.'s intent in taking the meeting was very clearly to get damaging info on Hillary Clinton from the Russians (or at least from this one Russian).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) In regards to what, if anything, Russia did with respect to "election meddling." If providing dirt on Hillary is what you or SS are considering as "meddling," fine. But to that end, whoever leaked the Access Hollywood tape was "meddling." Dan Rather was "meddling" when he filed his false report about Bush's war record. To me that's not the same as the claim that Trump's campaign actively assisted and/or requested Russia use hacking measures, making ads, false news, etc. Legally, it's very different. Someone leaking the Access Hollywood tape to the press is very different than soliciting dirt from a foreign government.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) I'm not supporting any of the current Republican plans. I'm arguing against all these blanket statements that Republicans are out to only help their friends and kill everyone else while Democrats care about the health of every American from the bottom of their heart. No, the ACA helped their poor constituents and their rich friends, while taking away health benefits and access from many of the people in the middle and small businesses. And how many workers had hours cut or lost their jobs due to the ACA. But it's all about which party is right, not what the right thing to do is. I don't think the bolded is true. For one thing, the ACA has plenty of tax increases to the wealthy - tax increases that every R plan attempts to roll back. The ACA is many things, but it is not a giveaway to the rich. And to the extent that the insurance companies like it, that's simply because the Ds didn't have the political capital to push for a real single payor system. For another, it's simply too broad. I acknowledge that there's an income level that saw their premiums go up under the ACA. But you can't possibly say with a straight face that there aren't middle income, and small businesses who benefitted from the pre-existing condition ban, or letting their kids stay on their health plan until 25, or the elimination of lifetime caps. Healthy, young, and middle income (who didn't get coverage through their employers) were those that lost under the ACA - those who had the good fortune to not need to consume healthcare. Because the quality of the healthcare doesn't really matter when you don't use it except in the event of a catastrophe.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) Evil and cruel is what every Democrat has campaigned for on insurance since 2009. Health care is a right for the poor and the rich. But if you are in the middle of that group, you better work for one of our friends large corporations or you will lose most of your coverage and doctors access, but premiums will still skyrocket. Serious question - what do any of the Republican plans do for you? Maybe you can get catastrophe coverage, so you pay lower premiums, but less is covered? Or am I missing something? I don't think you will find many people in this forum who think that the ACA is perfect. I think you will find a lot of people in this forum that think government's involvement in health care should be to expand access and reduce cost. Rather than working to fix the ACA, Republicans have continually pushed policies over the last year that will reduce the number of people covered, and will not lower the cost of coverage.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) So should police back off at some point? Let the person go? Backing off of a high speed chase does not equal letting a person go. High speed chases are really, really dangerous and carry a high risk of collateral damage (damage that generally is not recoverable by the innocent victim who is caught up in the chase). Backing off of the chase and circulating plate numbers and the heading of the vehicle to the rest of the force is sometimes a way safer option for everybody involved.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 04:35 PM) How many wild statements are we going to allow? At some point the fighting words will be answered. With Trump as president don't be surprised at some vicious USA response at some point. China? How bout stepping up before we drop a few nukes on N. Korea. Them are fighting words from N. Korea ... again. How long can we just ignore them? https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea-thre...-045536190.html When it's just words? Forever. Do you really want to start World War III because North Korea said some provocative stuff?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 11:11 AM) If you do any kind of debt erasure, then you're pissing off all the people who paid for college without loans, or took loans and already paid them off. I think it would be as simple as dropping the interest rate on existing government loans to 0% and making existing loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. That would provide relief to those with assets that keep them out of bk (getting rid of the interest burden) and provide an avenue out to the millions in default on their loans. Ultimately, beyond the fact that I hate paying my student loan debt and get off my lawn, you are only solving one part of the higher ed issue if you get to free college for all. There is still a ton of existing student loan debt that is impossible to get rid of (in bankruptcy or otherwise), in ridiculous amounts (over $1T with millions in default). https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) I'm not even sure a free college for all plan is a good idea. We need the dam to break on the cost of obtaining a degree. The whole system isn't workable. We need more people to forego college for trade schools or vocational schools or even new colleges that will provide specific degrees at a reduced rate. The 4 year liberal arts degree needs to go away. And yes, unless there's a huge relief on my own debt, i'm not agreeing to pay for someone else to get a degree for free. Yeah, one of the things I have seen is that more and more entry level jobs that traditionally did not require a degree now require one - they don't necessarily require a specific degree, but do require a degree from a 4-year college. I'm talking about jobs like administrative assistants. If the market is requiring a degree to get even those jobs, then you have to make obtaining that degree cheaper and more accessible. I'm going to respectfully disagree on the value of a 4-year liberal arts degree.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 14, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) Again, read the link I provided. When it comes to an issue like free college, polling shows that only the dem base supports that idea. A large number in the middle think it's unfair to provide free college while they're paying back their own college debt. That's not an issue that is going to get people to vote D in the next few elections. As someone who both supports free college for all, and is paying back my own college debt, I have to say that it would be really difficult to support a free college plan that didn't also address the outstanding student loan debt...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 28, 2017 -> 08:57 AM) You could tell that story in 9 hours. Only if you really put a major emphasis on Bran in the next season. I mean, Bran hasn't really done anything with his powers this season except warg into ravens to spy on the Night King, and I guess compile evidence against LF and figure out Jon's parentage? For them to effectively tell a time traveling story where Bran is responsible for all the acts and is effectively two people in one timeline would be a pretty audacious story to tell and have it make sense within the narrative. Worst moment for me yesterday was Cersei letting Jaime leave. She literally just told him her double cross plan and then lets him leave to presumably tell that plan to Team Targ? If Cersei is done with Jaime, and isn't ready to kill him, wouldn't she have just arrested him?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 22, 2017 -> 01:06 PM) That is what Sansa said, I think it was something like shes not going to King's Landing to be a Lannister prisoner. A lot of it was kind of jumbled because prior it seemed like Sansa was going to use Brienne as protection against Arya. (edit) Also Im pretty sure the 3 eyed raven story is how Jon finds out he is a Targaryen. Because Bran said something like "I need to talk to Jon." Maybe to Bran that is really the only relevant issue, everything else is just noise. I have a pretty hard time understanding why the fact that Jon is a Targ is all that important in the war with the Night King. Other than the fact that we all assume it means Jon can ride a dragon, unless there is some unknown mythology re: Targ + Stark means you can kill the Night King, Jon's parentage means a lot more to succession than anything to do with winning the war. I assume that Bran has to have a much more important role to play than that...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 22, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) I have to believe that Jon has communicated his plan to go north of the wall and get the wight to her at some point. Even if he didn't, that explanation would have been provided in the invite to the summit with Cersei since that's the whole point - come see proof of the army that we all must defeat. She'd be pretty negligent in her duties as Queen of the North if she doesn't at least attend a meeting to discuss a possible coalition to defeat an army that is so close to her territory. And she needs to send someone she can trust. I don't buy that she can't trust Littlefinger (with her life anyway). He's had several opportunities to kill her if he wanted to and hasn't. He had no obligation to bring the knights of the Vale to save her and Jon and win back Winterfell. And I think she's still surrended by northern bannerman. Littlefinger would be foolish to kill her at this point. I dunno, I don't see a problem there. Sansa said she hadn't heard from Jon in weeks. So that, to me, meant he hadn't communicated his terrible plan to her. Sansa sent Brienne away after Arya started coming at her, and after Baelish said, "hey maybe Brienne could help you with Arya." There are literally any number of Northern lords that could have gone to this summit. Sansa sending her bodyguard away as her proxy makes absolutely no sense.