Technically they can't ban them but they can't throw you in prison for using one. And they can throw people in prison for running them of course.

This is the ultra wealthy and the ruling elite moving the take over the last form of media where regular people can access information without their consent.

But hey, the girl who hands you your coffee says Merry Christmas now so that's a fair trade right?

And if you don't understand what that means that's the problem.

Education - college education in particular, but education quite generally, actually - was never about a person's ability to earn money.

I find it funny that you ended that last sentence with the one word that lets everyone know not to pay attention. Those pundits know they're talking crap, but they want clicks. It is incumbent upon the audience to recognize that and respond accordingly.

Biden tried and failed, because it wasn't legal. He didn't have the authority to cancel debts to the Treasury, so he couldn't do it. Trump had the authority to reallocate certain defense construction funds for defense construction matters, so he could do it. He couldn't use HHS or Education funds for it, but funds allocated for military construction can be allocated for other military construction. But he definitely cannot create a new revenue stream and direct it however he chooses.

Automating the changes costs money. Apparently, more than it costs to have someone walk around with a stack of tags. These stores survive by keeping costs as low as possible.

In the end, I think the whole issue is being overblown to benefit whoever needed a byline. It's clearly not something that bothers customers enough to change their habits, so the stores won't bother to change theirs. It's not something fraudulent, like the headline suggests, it's just a banal shelf-tag issue.

It would have been better to just publish this as a consumer advisory note, reminding people to pay attention at the register. Like we're supposed to and our parents did.

Since when are you a political realist?

And there's a difference between peaceful relations and handing someone a tool to manipulate you with.

Why do you insist on telling me that you are unable to restrain your emotions? It's like you want me to know I shouldn't listen to you. The problem there is that I end up worrying about your mental health instead of just not listening.

You sound like you're really stressed out. Cities are bad for mental health. The pollution, noise, and the perverse estrangement of crowds isn't good for you. NYC is not worth living in. It's worth visiting on occasion, but it is not worth the cost or stress of being there all of the time. I lived in Orange County. You can be in the city in 40 minutes, which is fun if you're young, or not be in the city at all, which is ideal. Think about it. More affordable, less stressful, and there are train stations all over. Or just move to a free State where you won't be nickel and dimed to death to pay for things that don't work.

We were actively hiding the cost of college by giving colleges direct Cash subsidies from state and federal governments. They were passing those cash subsidies onto the students in the form of lower tuition. I do not know how much simpler I can explain this to you.

If you look at the actual operating expenses of colleges they have not increased substantially in the last 40 years. You will find some increases because there is more technology. Yes 70 years ago colleges did not need computers or advanced medical equipment to train doctors on. They also didn't need staff to keep all those computers and all that equipment running. So there is some increase due to do technology.

But that increase is relatively small. And can easily be accounted for by the new technology.

Meanwhile all of those subsidies are gone.

Suppose what we should have done is when you went to college we should have handed you a check and had you walk it to the finance office so that you would understand what the cost of college actually was instead of hiding that from you.

The reason we didn't do that is we were fighting a war with people who pretended to be socialists. So you needed to get socialism because that made America stronger country that could actually stand up to those enemies but we didn't want you to get comfortable with socialism so we hid socialism from you.

We did the same thing with the housing market where trillions of dollars were spent on infrastructure to subsidize baby boomer houses so that they could actually afford to buy houses. We also heavily subsidized the loans they got for those houses.

But if you really want to piss off somebody over 50 try explaining to them that they received a massive amount of benefit from socialism.

If you're aware that "everything Trump does changes daily", why don't you include that in your analysis? Why keep falling for his trolling and the other side's overreactions? Just wait another day for things to settle.

It may have been more useful to have already known that it would not be possible for Trump to do what you described. Congress would have to create that fund. The President can only direct funds at his discretion if the Congress has allocated those funds for him.

Trump is more open than other Presidents. He'll discuss things being considered with the press. If someone presented him with a list of ideas for the money, he'd probably mention a few of them. And then the press would run wild and report it like those were firm plans, instead of being vague notions that will be discarded the next day.

Everything is a grift. Capitalism is breaking down, or rather it's being broken down by monopolies and billionaires. So people have to try to find money any way they can and since you can't do it the traditional way of competing in a free market, because there is no free market anymore, you have to try to grift your way to a living.

Then why does he keep having to go to court?

I know you don't like him, but such hyperbole doesn't benefit debate or your mental health. It does make you look bad.

Oh, where did you find the data showing that Red States had more drug convictions than Blue States? And during what timeframe? I was 18 in the mid 90's, when Biden's crime bill was in effect (and Georgia was a Blue State). I also lived in New York, which had some of the most severe penalties for weed - the "Rockafeller drug laws". NY threw a whole lot of folks into prison for simple possession, I think mostly blacks and Puerto Ricans.

Wait, are you suggesting that law enforcement agents are arresting people who get violent with them, even if they didn't commit a crime OTHER than getting violent with law enforcement? Well, I'm actually okay with that.

I'm also okay with our immigration laws and the enforcement thereof. I don't see any sincere justification for the current resistance. I do see plenty of lies being thrown around, and very disingenuous arguments against.

Basically, someone got you all whipped up into a frenzy so you would stop thinking and just react to the thing they don't want for entirely selfish reasons. You've clearly lost your temper, which is what they want. Now you can't think clearly about what it means to let people flood into the country. You can't think clearly about how that destroys communities, or changes culture faster than society can handle. You aren't thinking about what it does to wages and employment, you can't see what it does to schools and community resources, and you can't hear the pleas of everyday citizens now living in fear while surrounded by strangers who aren't interested in assimilation.

Thanks to you and the people pulling your strings, we are now in a situation where we will have to end immigration for another 60 years so society can stabilize and immigrants can assimilate. It's almost funny, since those same sting pullers used to be on the other side. Back when they cared about American workers and their wages.

Will it decrease your taxes? Maybe. That depends on who wins the next round or three of Federal elections (and you know which party wants lower taxes). Will it fund infrastructure? Probably. Unless it's earmarked for something else, it will go into the general fund and be spent on everything the government spends money on.

I don't think his ideas are new. It looks to me like everything he suggests has already been done, and the end result has been college education becoming more expensive and less valuable. They do hire "experience designers" (whoever invented that term deserves a punch), and they overspend on amenities to the detriment of academia's actual purpose.

We already have Arizona State.

We don't need to make kids mortgage their futures for them to make friends. This is a stupid, stupid idea from someone way dumber than he has been led to believe.

Come to think of it, didn't this already happen? They changed how dorms are designed in a way that enhances socialization but hampers learning. They keep adding social amenities that provide distractions instead of education. They've hired people to make things more fun instead of making learning better. I'm not sure what this guy is thinking about that hasn't already been done, and it's a big part of the problem.