- Dołączono
- 27 Paź 2021
Wut? What do loans have to do with dip?Maybe back in your day. Today, you’d have to be fucking retarded to take those kinds of college loans, and Laqueefa already got the job
And if you're curious, plenty of people go to college and grad school. About 11.3 million people are in 4-year schools in the US, and another 5.1 million in 2-year schools, most full-time. Another source showing that 2010 was a sharp peak at 18.1 million total and are somewhat off but climbing in 2024 at around 16 million; in 2000 it was 13.2 million; in 1990, 12 million.
Relatively speaking, about 39% of young adults are in college. That is down about 2% vs 2012, but hardly disastrous.
And per one source, law school enrollment was around 119k in 1980, rose gradually then sharply to a high in 2010 at around 147k, took a deep dive 2011-17* down to a low of around 110k, and is back up to around 115k. The more you know.
*Nick was in law school 2011-2015 (iirc he took 3.5 years, likely went PT for all or part of it). Make of that what you will.
Relatively speaking, about 39% of young adults are in college. That is down about 2% vs 2012, but hardly disastrous.
And per one source, law school enrollment was around 119k in 1980, rose gradually then sharply to a high in 2010 at around 147k, took a deep dive 2011-17* down to a low of around 110k, and is back up to around 115k. The more you know.
*Nick was in law school 2011-2015 (iirc he took 3.5 years, likely went PT for all or part of it). Make of that what you will.
That is not "the position" anyone took, as far as I have seen - and again, would love to see it if I missed it.Ummm... the OBVIOUS fact that the court record reflected that as being the case prior to the recent change to the record. Ergo, people were permitted to walk into the courthouse and view the bodycams. Something that would NOT have been permissible if the record did not reflect they were presented to the court.
The change to the record was necessary to shut that off. As well as shut off Null's ability to get a copy to show on the Internet.
Sean basically took the same position yesterday on his evening show.
You ever heard of fuckups? That would be what happens when something is marked "received" when it wasn't. But please, show me in the transcript and the original order where those items were confirmed or listed as received. Happy to be wrong.
Again, based on those documents (the only ones I recall seeing, fair enough, so enlighten me), they weren't received into evidence, and, as I've said a couple of times and relying on @Folgers Can 's references to the statutory language, the question then becomes whether the items are deemed "presented," and what, if any, effect of either non-acceptance or a hearing agreement that they would be "removed" has on the analysis.
And I don't need a lecture on pestering Null for documents. Never have; never would, and didn't suggest we should have them, only whether we did, because I haven't read them.