OK, so they eliminated $2.6 billion in federal grants. Now they're preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students.
Sounds bad, right? Definitely for the students, but even if you assume $100,000 per year per student, that's "only" $680 million. So their second attack is with reduced leverage. If your goal is to crush Harvard into compliance, you want the attacks to amplify, not weaken each time. So it's already feeling like a deflated balloon.
They want to strip Harvard of its tax exempt status, but that's around 20% in capital gains, which are only realized when they sell assets. So if I'm the president of Harvard, I ride it out; I sell just enough to get by for the next year until it winds its way to the Supreme Court and gets overturned. So they just need to sell $3 billion in assets and pay about $600 million in taxes. After a verdict is rendered, they might even get that amount back in the judgement.
Either way, once again a weaker attack than the previous one (assuming, as the Trump administration must) that any revocation of tax-exempt status will be overturned.
And what's left? Arresting the president and board of overseers? There aren't many things to realistically try after this. Time and momentum seem to be on Harvard's side.
Chile, late '80s, Pinochet scheduled a referendum and was voted out. He tried to backtrack, but no one would help so he ultimately left office peacefully.
Ukraine after the 2004 protests.
Ghana in 2000 after decades under Jerry Rawlings.
(Not counting the times when violence and international pressure led to elections that were honored, like Mandela winning in South Africa in the '90s.)
I guess we'll find out. And sure, Trump will definitely continue to have sway over the GOP in or out of office until he dies. The comment wasn't "what if Trump never existed"
“If they would’ve left us alone, and wouldn’t have cheated on the election, and wouldn’t have rigged it, I would’ve been retired right now. I would’ve been happily doing something else, and instead they have me for four more years, can you believe that?” Trump continued.
Two things:
He's right. If we would have known he'd be reelected, it would have been better in retrospect to just get it over with.
He would have taken the heat from post-covid inflation.
We would've been spared all the 2020 rigged election nonsense that undermined confidence in elections for half the country.
We would've avoided Jan 6 and most importantly the lack of any material consequences for the perpetrators (Trump and several Congressional Republicans).
They wouldn't have had four years to plan the destruction of America.
His last remark, I think he really does mean it. He ran in 2024 out of pure spite. He's never actually liked the job. I think he knows any attempt to prolong his presidency beyond Jan 2029 won't work, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually looking forward to being done on his terms.
Edit: It's good to see nuance is alive and well on the Internet, lol
She said she immediately knew what was happening when she walked into her weekly one-on-one with her supervisor; the meeting had an unexpected attendee. An HR representative rose from a seat in the corner as Ferreira entered the office. She was told she was being let go because she wasn't fulfilling her position's responsibilities, "effective immediately."
"When I was about to open my mouth, she waved her hand at me, and was like, 'No, we're not doing that,'" Ferreira said. "I'm hearing ringing in my head."
"They didn't let me speak in my own meeting."
The cruelty and arrogant dismissiveness of that response is infuriating to me.
This was exactly how it was in the US until the 1883 Pendleton Act, which created the civil service. It was called the spoils system (as in "to the victor go the spoils"). Nominees were primarily awarded their positions out of loyalty or patronage than merit.
The 19th century sucked in a lot of ways, and government corruption and economic incompetence was a part of that. Welcome to the 19th century.
I'm not the person you were originally replying to, but I think laws should be put in place to prevent extremist parties from being put on the ballot at all. Germany has the right idea.
But failing that, if a democratically-elected government comes to power and then proceeds to dismantle democracy, then it is in the most literal sense a tyrannical government, and tyrants must be overthrown by any means necessary.
Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic.
Bottom line: democracy has limits when it comes to groups that would dismantle democracy, even if they are voted in, because if elected, no one would ever have a voice again. Likewise, a free and fair society must be intolerant of intolerance.
It's just not interesting for anyone else to read. The majority of us just want to keep up to date with video game news and occasionally discuss it. We aren't interested in taking up the cause.
OK, so they eliminated $2.6 billion in federal grants. Now they're preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students.
Sounds bad, right? Definitely for the students, but even if you assume $100,000 per year per student, that's "only" $680 million. So their second attack is with reduced leverage. If your goal is to crush Harvard into compliance, you want the attacks to amplify, not weaken each time. So it's already feeling like a deflated balloon.
They want to strip Harvard of its tax exempt status, but that's around 20% in capital gains, which are only realized when they sell assets. So if I'm the president of Harvard, I ride it out; I sell just enough to get by for the next year until it winds its way to the Supreme Court and gets overturned. So they just need to sell $3 billion in assets and pay about $600 million in taxes. After a verdict is rendered, they might even get that amount back in the judgement.
Either way, once again a weaker attack than the previous one (assuming, as the Trump administration must) that any revocation of tax-exempt status will be overturned.
And what's left? Arresting the president and board of overseers? There aren't many things to realistically try after this. Time and momentum seem to be on Harvard's side.