I just read an article that references “STEAM fields” (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics). Formerly, and properly, known as STEM.
Good call. Whenever a challenging technological problem presents itself, we always look to the artists.
This educational trophy [BLEEP] needs to stop.
(12-19-2023, 02:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I just read an article that references “STEAM fields” (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics). Formerly, and properly, known as STEM.
Good call. Whenever a challenging technological problem presents itself, we always look to the artists.
This educational trophy [BLEEP] needs to stop.
There are some proven reasons that show it should be part of it. A lot of art is mathematical and it does help people use different parts of their brain. This isn't art history or useless degrees, it would be hands on creating something.
When I started my 1st job, they actually had an art history major in our group. The university hire training had some lite coding in it and he had no clue. I guess they thought he would bring a different perspective but he didn't make it very long in the job.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Speaking of STEM:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/stem-h...10b5&ei=11
STEM high school students stage sit-in protest, urge harsh punishments for bias incidents, improve DEI policy
A video of a protest by high school students at Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) was posted on Twitter Thursday, showing the students urging leaders to implement stricter policies that address "racism" and "discrimination."...
...A list of students’ demands includes a "public outline of the possible consequences for students following a bias incident report" and "those consequences must have concrete impacts for the offender."
IMSA’s current Bias Incident Reporting Form prompts a student or staff member to select the type of bias that occurred, which includes "race," "color," "gender," "ability," "weight," "political affiliation," and "microaggressions."
Such consequences include "detentions, removal from leadership positions, suspensions, expulsions, and notification to parents and potential future colleges."
IMSA students' demands go further because they want consequences for staff and faculty members following a biased incident report as well.
The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion must publish a student’s report that details their initiatives for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) and details any progress that reflects that mantra.
Furthermore, students want "marginalized students" to be involved in the development of DEI and for all staff including teachers, residential counselors, and other students to receive training.
In addition to training and the push for more stringent bias-incident reports, IMSA students call for "diversity" to be prioritized in hiring practices for "student-facing staff and faculty."
Students added that the "administration must assume more responsibility and accountability for enacting change against racism and other discrimination."...
(12-19-2023, 07:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine being so terrified of a candidate that you have to go through these measures lolol
And this is the reason why I'll never dump Trump..
https://twitter.com/ByronDonalds/status/...D2Jtw&s=19
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/17...QV-2A&s=19
This will get overturned at the federal level.
(12-19-2023, 10:30 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of STEM:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/stem-h...10b5&ei=11
STEM high school students stage sit-in protest, urge harsh punishments for bias incidents, improve DEI policy
A video of a protest by high school students at Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) was posted on Twitter Thursday, showing the students urging leaders to implement stricter policies that address "racism" and "discrimination."...
...A list of students’ demands includes a "public outline of the possible consequences for students following a bias incident report" and "those consequences must have concrete impacts for the offender."
IMSA’s current Bias Incident Reporting Form prompts a student or staff member to select the type of bias that occurred, which includes "race," "color," "gender," "ability," "weight," "political affiliation," and "microaggressions."
Such consequences include "detentions, removal from leadership positions, suspensions, expulsions, and notification to parents and potential future colleges."
IMSA students' demands go further because they want consequences for staff and faculty members following a biased incident report as well.
The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion must publish a student’s report that details their initiatives for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) and details any progress that reflects that mantra.
Furthermore, students want "marginalized students" to be involved in the development of DEI and for all staff including teachers, residential counselors, and other students to receive training.
In addition to training and the push for more stringent bias-incident reports, IMSA students call for "diversity" to be prioritized in hiring practices for "student-facing staff and faculty."
Students added that the "administration must assume more responsibility and accountability for enacting change against racism and other discrimination."...
(12-19-2023, 07:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine being so terrified of a candidate that you have to go through these measures lolol
And this is the reason why I'll never dump Trump..
https://twitter.com/ByronDonalds/status/...D2Jtw&s=19
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/17...QV-2A&s=19
This will get overturned at the federal level.
Oh, in a heartbeat.. But this might even raise Trump's poll numbers in Colorado lololol
Everything has been blowing up in their own faces, and I'm here for it!!
The United States Supreme Court is likely to rule that the Colorado Supreme court does not have the authority to decide this question. However it is a close question. SCOTUS, in the 1980s, decided that states could not enforce term limits on congressional candidates. They determined that states could not add eligibility requirements to candidates for federal office. I think that decision was wrong, and I think we'd be in a better place today if we actually let states experiment with these things, but SCOTUS would basically have to overturn that decision before they could let the Colorado case stand as written.
That said, the bigger part of the Colorado case is a "finding of fact" that Trump committed an insurrection. SCOTUS will have a hard time ignoring these findings. Trump told people that he knew or should have known were armed to go to the Capitol and then told them to "stay peaceful" after he already knew that they were not being peaceful and had breached the building. He violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, as a matter of fact. But that doesn't answer the questions of procedure and authority, which are just as important.
In one interpretation of the 14th amendment, the fact that he participated in insurrection is as plain and self executing as the fact that he is more than 35 years old and was born in the United States. This seems to be how the people who were alive when it was written felt, if you look at the Amnesty Act that they wrote later. But in another interpretation, section 3 can not execute itself and has to wait for Congress to pass a law, for a prosecutor to criminally charge Trump, and for a jury to convict before he can be removed from a ballot.
In the first interpretation, courts get to define "engaged in insurrection" for themselves. As Colorado just did. But in the second interpretation, section 3 is mostly redundant because before the 14th was passed Congress already had the authority to write criminal laws that would have the consequence of the loss of ability to run for office when a person was convicted. Congress didn't need that grant of authority.
So both interpretations are logical but both present problems. The Supreme Court of the United States should respect Colorado's finding of fact, and give Trump's lawyers one last chance to dispute it, then order that he be disqualified from all ballots in all states unless they are somehow persuaded on the facts. But it's more likely that they will find for the second interpretation, that no one can be disqualified from federal office except by impeachment or by jury conviction under a federal criminal statute.
(12-19-2023, 11:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The United States Supreme Court is likely to rule that the Colorado Supreme court does not have the authority to decide this question. However it is a close question. SCOTUS, in the 1980s, decided that states could not enforce term limits on congressional candidates. They determined that states could not add eligibility requirements to candidates for federal office. I think that decision was wrong, and I think we'd be in a better place today if we actually let states experiment with these things, but SCOTUS would basically have to overturn that decision before they could let the Colorado case stand as written.
That said, the bigger part of the Colorado case is a "finding of fact" that Trump committed an insurrection. SCOTUS will have a hard time ignoring these findings. Trump told people that he knew or should have known were armed to go to the Capitol and then told them to "stay peaceful" after he already knew that they were not being peaceful and had breached the building. He violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, as a matter of fact. But that doesn't answer the questions of procedure and authority, which are just as important.
In one interpretation of the 14th amendment, the fact that he participated in insurrection is as plain and self executing as the fact that he is more than 35 years old and was born in the United States. This seems to be how the people who were alive when it was written felt, if you look at the Amnesty Act that they wrote later. But in another interpretation, section 3 can not execute itself and has to wait for Congress to pass a law, for a prosecutor to criminally charge Trump, and for a jury to convict before he can be removed from a ballot.
In the first interpretation, courts get to define "engaged in insurrection" for themselves. As Colorado just did. But in the second interpretation, section 3 is mostly redundant because before the 14th was passed Congress already had the authority to write criminal laws that would have the consequence of the loss of ability to run for office when a person was convicted. Congress didn't need that grant of authority.
So both interpretations are logical but both present problems. The Supreme Court of the United States should respect Colorado's finding of fact, and give Trump's lawyers one last chance to dispute it, then order that he be disqualified from all ballots in all states unless they are somehow persuaded on the facts. But it's more likely that they will find for the second interpretation, that no one can be disqualified from federal office except by impeachment or by jury conviction under a federal criminal statute.
Simple question. Show on the doll where Trump insurrected you?
Seriously, show a link where Trump is charged or convicted of insurrection.
Since you can't, the entire case should be thrown out. You can't use something that says you have to have committed an insurrection if you haven't been convicted or even charged with doing that.
Also go read the ruling, it's a political show. The ruling has a stay in it until 1/4. If it is appealed, the stay is automatically extended until all the appeals are done. The SOS has to include Trump on the primary ballot while the stay is in place.
So the ruling does absolutely nothing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
This Colorado thing cannot stand. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. And if a person can be disqualified based on an allegation, then state courts could disqualify anyone for any trumped-up reason (no pun intended). It would make our democracy unworkable.
(12-20-2023, 02:14 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2023, 11:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The United States Supreme Court is likely to rule that the Colorado Supreme court does not have the authority to decide this question. However it is a close question. SCOTUS, in the 1980s, decided that states could not enforce term limits on congressional candidates. They determined that states could not add eligibility requirements to candidates for federal office. I think that decision was wrong, and I think we'd be in a better place today if we actually let states experiment with these things, but SCOTUS would basically have to overturn that decision before they could let the Colorado case stand as written.
That said, the bigger part of the Colorado case is a "finding of fact" that Trump committed an insurrection. SCOTUS will have a hard time ignoring these findings. Trump told people that he knew or should have known were armed to go to the Capitol and then told them to "stay peaceful" after he already knew that they were not being peaceful and had breached the building. He violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, as a matter of fact. But that doesn't answer the questions of procedure and authority, which are just as important.
In one interpretation of the 14th amendment, the fact that he participated in insurrection is as plain and self executing as the fact that he is more than 35 years old and was born in the United States. This seems to be how the people who were alive when it was written felt, if you look at the Amnesty Act that they wrote later. But in another interpretation, section 3 can not execute itself and has to wait for Congress to pass a law, for a prosecutor to criminally charge Trump, and for a jury to convict before he can be removed from a ballot.
In the first interpretation, courts get to define "engaged in insurrection" for themselves. As Colorado just did. But in the second interpretation, section 3 is mostly redundant because before the 14th was passed Congress already had the authority to write criminal laws that would have the consequence of the loss of ability to run for office when a person was convicted. Congress didn't need that grant of authority.
So both interpretations are logical but both present problems. The Supreme Court of the United States should respect Colorado's finding of fact, and give Trump's lawyers one last chance to dispute it, then order that he be disqualified from all ballots in all states unless they are somehow persuaded on the facts. But it's more likely that they will find for the second interpretation, that no one can be disqualified from federal office except by impeachment or by jury conviction under a federal criminal statute.
Simple question. Show on the doll where Trump insurrected you?
Seriously, show a link where Trump is charged or convicted of insurrection.
Since you can't, the entire case should be thrown out. You can't use something that says you have to have committed an insurrection if you haven't been convicted or even charged with doing that.
Also go read the ruling, it's a political show. The ruling has a stay in it until 1/4. If it is appealed, the stay is automatically extended until all the appeals are done. The SOS has to include Trump on the primary ballot while the stay is in place.
So the ruling does absolutely nothing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I quote myself:
Quote:Trump told people that he knew or should have known were armed to go to the Capitol and then told them to "stay peaceful" after he already knew that they were not being peaceful and had breached the building.
(12-20-2023, 05:23 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]This Colorado thing cannot stand. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. And if a person can be disqualified based on an allegation, then state courts could disqualify anyone for any trumped-up reason (no pun intended). It would make our democracy unworkable.
"Due process of law" doesn't always mean a jury trial ending in conviction. But I do agree that having different states come to different conclusions about the same facts is not how it's supposed to work.
(12-19-2023, 03:20 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2023, 02:00 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I just read an article that references “STEAM fields” (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics). Formerly, and properly, known as STEM.
Good call. Whenever a challenging technological problem presents itself, we always look to the artists.
This educational trophy [BLEEP] needs to stop.
There are some proven reasons that show it should be part of it. A lot of art is mathematical and it does help people use different parts of their brain. This isn't art history or useless degrees, it would be hands on creating something.
When I started my 1st job, they actually had an art history major in our group. The university hire training had some lite coding in it and he had no clue. I guess they thought he would bring a different perspective but he didn't make it very long in the job.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
You contradicted yourself in the same post.
(12-20-2023, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-20-2023, 02:14 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Simple question. Show on the doll where Trump insurrected you?
Seriously, show a link where Trump is charged or convicted of insurrection.
Since you can't, the entire case should be thrown out. You can't use something that says you have to have committed an insurrection if you haven't been convicted or even charged with doing that.
Also go read the ruling, it's a political show. The ruling has a stay in it until 1/4. If it is appealed, the stay is automatically extended until all the appeals are done. The SOS has to include Trump on the primary ballot while the stay is in place.
So the ruling does absolutely nothing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I quote myself:
Quote:Trump told people that he knew or should have known were armed to go to the Capitol and then told them to "stay peaceful" after he already knew that they were not being peaceful and had breached the building.
(12-20-2023, 05:23 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]This Colorado thing cannot stand. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything. And if a person can be disqualified based on an allegation, then state courts could disqualify anyone for any trumped-up reason (no pun intended). It would make our democracy unworkable.
"Due process of law" doesn't always mean a jury trial ending in conviction. But I do agree that having different states come to different conclusions about the same facts is not how it's supposed to work.
TLDR: I really, really, really want this to happen but know it doesn't have the legal standing to do so.
----------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who doesn't see the rich irony of p_rushing asking for a link?
(12-20-2023, 09:22 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2023, 03:20 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]There are some proven reasons that show it should be part of it. A lot of art is mathematical and it does help people use different parts of their brain. This isn't art history or useless degrees, it would be hands on creating something.
When I started my 1st job, they actually had an art history major in our group. The university hire training had some lite coding in it and he had no clue. I guess they thought he would bring a different perspective but he didn't make it very long in the job.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
You contradicted yourself in the same post.
Not really. The contradiction would be if it's art history. Adding arts to STEM isn't bad because it does help expand different parts of the brain. It isn't useless art history or degrees. It would focus on playing instruments, painting, writing music, etc.
(12-20-2023, 09:27 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]----------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who doesn't see the rich irony of p_rushing asking for a link?
I did it on purpose because he always asks for a link. I already know there's nothing in this, even the leftist are saying it's a bad ruling.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
This is adorable. Kelly Ann Conway's unbetter half, George Conway, who is the personification of Trump Derangement Syndrome, attempted to play legal analyst and skeptic of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, but says they were *gasp* correct. Can you believe it!
Of course, the left eats this kind of phony [BLEEP] up, which is who he's playing to with this act. There is, quite literally, few people on earth less biased against Donald Trump than Mr. Kelly Ann Conway. And when the SCOTUS shoots this down, he'll look stupid and unhinged again.
The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind (msn.com)
![[Image: 20231219-183531.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/gJtBfDs7/20231219-183531.jpg)