Vash108 wrote: Either way we should agree that news casters should be bias and what they are both doing is wrong and should not be tolerates by the public. But giving one a pass because the other one did is also not helpful.
This whole this is now getting out of hand and we the people as a whole are suffering for it that news is now being withheld/blocked.
News has always been biased. We've always been dependent on gatekeepers that decided what was newsworthy and how stories were written and reported. Even if we could somehow enforce having only factual news we'd still have to deal with who decides what stories are covered and what facts are presented.
The only reason why Iran was on that list is because the huge majority of US citizen are completely uneducated on this and believe in stupid, harmful stereotypes. Idiocracy at its finest.
That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
We would be much better off as a country and the ME would be better off too if we worked to normalize relations with Iran and took a more hardline stance against KSA. It's not 1980 anymore Frazz.
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
We would be much better off as a country and the ME would be better off too if we worked to normalize relations with Iran and took a more hardline stance against KSA. It's not 1980 anymore Frazz.
I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service. Of course you could argue well people could climb over or dig under it, but it would be a better use of public money than night time patrols over large areas that have a hit and miss chance of catching anyone. It will if anything make it harder for the illegal drug trade to ruin peoples lives, and to a lesser extent those dubious characters that won't get a visa. So I think the wall is a good thing.
As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it. Personally I have a problem with companies doing this from any nation. They should have a moral obligation to stay where they are based, as over time little by little the draw of build cheaper overseas and re-import takes hold. What you are left with is designed in X home country but manufactured elsewhere.
It's billions paid by US poor&middle class. This will result in less spending which in turn will result less works. It archieves nothing but boost Trump's ego. Which is his goal. He doesn't care about good of US. He cares his ego and US can go to hell.
And Mexico won't be paying. That's the point. Bill will be paid by US citizens. Specifically poor&middle class. While accomplishing nothing but help Trump's ego.
And FYI wall doesn't help with jobs moving elsewhere. In fact effect for work in US will be negative since spending goes down due to poor&middle class in US having less money to spend which will result layovers which hurts poor&middle class more.
Oh and the patrols? They will stay too so no help there either. Wall without patrols is useless. Wall without patrols worked in china wall because china wall was built to stop herds. That's not applicable here...
If I was in control, the wall would be more than just a wall it would be generating money for the US economy. Firstly it should be architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind. A sort of Great Wall of America where by tourists could walk along it and there could be school visits to see your states stretch. As for environmental concerns there could be small wildlife hatches (obviously not big enough for human use) so that animals could pass through. All that capital could be regenerated, however I don't see the Trump administration making money out of it. Perhaps there could be a toll station built into the border control gates? So that anyone passing back through paid a set amount.
Lets see there are many walls designed to keep those unwanted at bay and now generate for local economies:
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
I don't really agree with Frazzled on this, but it needs to be said that he didn't say they should be excluded from private universities, and I believe they are the overwhelming majority of 4 year universities in the US. I may be wrong on the "majority" thing, but the initial statement stands.
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Lets be real. CNN has been "all Trump hate all the time" since Trump was nominated.
TBF, most of America has been "all Trump hate all the time"...
Vankraken wrote: All the American cable news stations are guilty of pushing certain narratives/agendas but Fox News has been pushing a far right bias for a long time and is the most deliberate at being bias of the big three (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News). That being said MSNBC has really upped their bias ga,e in the last few years while CNN's political leaning is often outweighed by their general ineptitude at journalism or programming. Feels like 9/11 was the Slaaneshi like birth of instant gratification news media with the booming headlines and 24/7 "Breaking News".
Didn't CNN have reporters actually colluding with the Clinton campaign? Wouldn't that indicate a hell of a bias?
Did it? I remember a lot of noise from fringe sites about collusion but I didn't see anything of substance.
Donna Brazile isn't a journalist she was just a paid contributor/analyst but she did collude with Hillary's campaign by sending them debate questions in advance.
Unacceptable behavior, to be sure, but not quite the network collusion implied though.
Not a big deal? This is way worse than biased reporting. I find it hard to think of a better way for a News agency to influence an election.
And it was more than Brazile:
From CNN: Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, John Berman, and Kate Bolduan.
...
The nascent Clinton campaign invited Jeff Zucker and Phil Griffin, the presidents of CNN and MSNBC, respectively. Zucker declined while Griffin RSVPed “yes.” Wikileaks’ release of emails from the Democratic National Committee showed then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduled or attempted to schedule private meetings with both executives.
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.
The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.
In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.
Most of that (with the exception of the allegation of passing the Colton team the debate questions.) seems to be normal journalist/politician relationship. Politicians court news outlets for posative editorial coverage. As long as journalists declare it I don't see any issue, and I can't see any alligation that they didn't. Editorial bias is well known and accepted. It is not the same as "fake news" where people were deliberately publishing lies to try and influence opinion.
Also, lol, Breightbart and HillaryforPrison as sources.
The only reason why Iran was on that list is because the huge majority of US citizen are completely uneducated on this and believe in stupid, harmful stereotypes. Idiocracy at its finest.
That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
the whole "death to america" thing is somewhat misconstrued, often intentionally so. The "death to" thing is a common colloquialism used to protest all sorts of things in Farsi, not meant to be taken directly literally (e.g. Death to potatoes was a mantra of protests after suspected bribing of the poor with potatoes for votes).
Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
While I can empathize with this view and think there's been too much done to bring in foreign students as a revenue source at the cost of natives (though this also extends to in state vs out of state students even amongst citizens), public universities worldwide take students from other nations as a matter course to further the exchange of ideas and foster academic cooperation between institutions and share specialized knowledge, and thats a good thing.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
I don't really agree with Frazzled on this, but it needs to be said that he didn't say they should be excluded from private universities, and I believe they are the overwhelming majority of 4 year universities in the US. I may be wrong on the "majority" thing, but the initial statement stands.
Easiest way to generate money is more taxes. Am I correct in saying non-US students have to pay up front? In any case if they are wealthy enough to travel overseas and pay tuition fees that are most likely more expensive than in their home country, then they can afford a special tax for the privilege. Same thing could be applied to numerate circumstances like tax on non-US citizens giving birth in US hospitals, which should be covered by their travel insurance etc etc. If Trump follows hardline Republican policies he will ease tax on corporations and increase taxes on normal people, but if he thinks outside the box and creates new taxes he can generate that revenue without causing mass hysteria. Then again he might not change anything of the such. Time will tell...
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
What part of "death to America" is...difficult for you?
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
Your argument has material;ly nothing to do with what I said. Public universities are funded by taxpayers. Therefore taxpayers should be the ones attending. Again this is not a difficult concept.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
Yes we will miss the intellectual powerhouse that is Yemen.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
I don't really agree with Frazzled on this, but it needs to be said that he didn't say they should be excluded from private universities, and I believe they are the overwhelming majority of 4 year universities in the US. I may be wrong on the "majority" thing, but the initial statement stands.
Easiest way to generate money is more taxes. Am I correct in saying non-US students have to pay up front? In any case if they are wealthy enough to travel overseas and pay tuition fees that are most likely more expensive than in their home country, then they can afford a special tax for the privilege. Same thing could be applied to numerate circumstances like tax on non-US citizens giving birth in US hospitals, which should be covered by their travel insurance etc etc. If Trump follows hardline Republican policies he will ease tax on corporations and increase taxes on normal people, but if he thinks outside the box and creates new taxes he can generate that revenue without causing mass hysteria. Then again he might not change anything of the such. Time will tell...
Whether they pay up front or not, they still take the place of a US citizen.
As noted, private unversties can do what they want. Public US universities, like any public university, is there to educate its own citizenry.
Sentinel1 the more you post the more I'm convnced you're either a troll or a pro-trumper who was chased out of here before and thinks a british flag by your name will make you look more legitimate.
The wall is absolutely fething ridiculous. Provided Trump doesn't decide to use those nuclear weapons he doesn't understand collecting dust, my nephews grand kids will be paying for that eye sore to his ego.
And it won't stop a damn thing. Immigration reform, tighter control of visas, you know stuff like that would cut down on illegals. Increased pay for migrants to encourage citizens to pick fruit, a destygmatization of those jobs so people don't turn their nose up at them and encourage illegal labor, would help too.
It's not going to be a tourist attraction, the great wall of china is because of time and the engineering marvel. This is going to be slapped together by the lowest bidder.
lonestarr777 wrote: Sentinel1 the more you post the more I'm convnced you're either a troll or a pro-trumper who was chased out of here before and thinks a british flag by your name will make you look more legitimate.
The wall is absolutely fething ridiculous. Provided Trump doesn't decide to use those nuclear weapons he doesn't understand collecting dust, my nephews grand kids will be paying for that eye sore to his ego.
And it won't stop a damn thing. Immigration reform, tighter control of visas, you know stuff like that would cut down on illegals. Increased pay for migrants to encourage citizens to pick fruit, a destygmatization of those jobs so people don't turn their nose up at them and encourage illegal labor, would help too.
It's not going to be a tourist attraction, the great wall of china is because of time and the engineering marvel. This is going to be slapped together by the lowest bidder.
Seriously, you come across as bonkers.
I'm impressed, you call another poster a troll, and then proceed to insult him.
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
What part of "death to America" is...difficult for you?
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
Your argument has material;ly nothing to do with what I said. Public universities are funded by taxpayers. Therefore taxpayers should be the ones attending. Again this is not a difficult concept.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
Yes we will miss the intellectual powerhouse that is Yemen.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
I don't really agree with Frazzled on this, but it needs to be said that he didn't say they should be excluded from private universities, and I believe they are the overwhelming majority of 4 year universities in the US. I may be wrong on the "majority" thing, but the initial statement stands.
Easiest way to generate money is more taxes. Am I correct in saying non-US students have to pay up front? In any case if they are wealthy enough to travel overseas and pay tuition fees that are most likely more expensive than in their home country, then they can afford a special tax for the privilege. Same thing could be applied to numerate circumstances like tax on non-US citizens giving birth in US hospitals, which should be covered by their travel insurance etc etc. If Trump follows hardline Republican policies he will ease tax on corporations and increase taxes on normal people, but if he thinks outside the box and creates new taxes he can generate that revenue without causing mass hysteria. Then again he might not change anything of the such. Time will tell...
Whether they pay up front or not, they still take the place of a US citizen.
As noted, private unversties can do what they want. Public US universities, like any public university, is there to educate its own citizenry.
Exactly student tariff should put some off, but I think every country should put their students first and then have a first come first serve policy on remainders for foreign nationals. Perhaps it would be a good incentive to ban students from turbulent middle eastern and African countries? The reason being said students might not want to go back and thus would be asset stripping their country of their talent. If they studied at home, they would be more likely to take an interest in building on their countries foundations, rather than letting it slip.
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
But what significance or historical lesson would be given for students visiting the Great Wall of Trump? "Here's a pretty dull looking wall that we built at great expense for no reason"? "here's a wall we built to keep illegal immigrants out, but it didn't work"? "Here's what happens when you vote for an ignorant populist"?
All of the walls above have some historical significance, and were there for some valid reason. It's also worth noting that none of the above walls actually worked at keeping people out (I don't know about the walls of Babylon, but the rest all failed in their primary function). Given that none of those walls worked, which is part of the history of them, why do you expect the Trump wall to do any better?
lonestarr777 wrote: Sentinel1 the more you post the more I'm convnced you're either a troll or a pro-trumper who was chased out of here before and thinks a british flag by your name will make you look more legitimate.
The wall is absolutely fething ridiculous. Provided Trump doesn't decide to use those nuclear weapons he doesn't understand collecting dust, my nephews grand kids will be paying for that eye sore to his ego.
And it won't stop a damn thing. Immigration reform, tighter control of visas, you know stuff like that would cut down on illegals. Increased pay for migrants to encourage citizens to pick fruit, a destygmatization of those jobs so people don't turn their nose up at them and encourage illegal labor, would help too.
It's not going to be a tourist attraction, the great wall of china is because of time and the engineering marvel. This is going to be slapped together by the lowest bidder.
Seriously, you come across as bonkers.
What, you mean "the Great wall of Trump" would not finance itself with the massive tourist revenue it'd inevitably rake in if Sentinel1 were put in charge of wall-tourism?
It's perhaps worth noting that walls generally don't become tourist destinations until after they've been abandoned. I don't see much of a tourist industry built around the contemporary Israel/Palestine wall or the North/South Korea DMZ and there weren't around the Berlin wall either during the times people were shot dead for trying to get across it.
I could possibly see the dilapidated ruins of "Trumps Folly" being a popular tourist destination some centuries into the future though, if things go real bad.
.
I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service. Of course you could argue well people could climb over or dig under it, but it would be a better use of public money than night time patrols over large areas that have a hit and miss chance of catching anyone. It will if anything make it harder for the illegal drug trade to ruin peoples lives, and to a lesser extent those dubious characters that won't get a visa. So I think the wall is a good thing.
As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it. Personally I have a problem with companies doing this from any nation. They should have a moral obligation to stay where they are based, as over time little by little the draw of build cheaper overseas and re-import takes hold. What you are left with is designed in X home country but manufactured elsewhere.
It's billions paid by US poor&middle class. This will result in less spending which in turn will result less works. It archieves nothing but boost Trump's ego. Which is his goal. He doesn't care about good of US. He cares his ego and US can go to hell.
And Mexico won't be paying. That's the point. Bill will be paid by US citizens. Specifically poor&middle class. While accomplishing nothing but help Trump's ego.
And FYI wall doesn't help with jobs moving elsewhere. In fact effect for work in US will be negative since spending goes down due to poor&middle class in US having less money to spend which will result layovers which hurts poor&middle class more.
Oh and the patrols? They will stay too so no help there either. Wall without patrols is useless. Wall without patrols worked in china wall because china wall was built to stop herds. That's not applicable here...
If I was in control, the wall would be more than just a wall it would be generating money for the US economy. Firstly it should be architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind. A sort of Great Wall of America where by tourists could walk along it and there could be school visits to see your states stretch. As for environmental concerns there could be small wildlife hatches (obviously not big enough for human use) so that animals could pass through. All that capital could be regenerated, however I don't see the Trump administration making money out of it. Perhaps there could be a toll station built into the border control gates? So that anyone passing back through paid a set amount.
Lets see there are many walls designed to keep those unwanted at bay and now generate for local economies:
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
Wildlife hatches...too small for people to use?
Tourist destinations so you can come see the expanse of barbed wire and giant 'Trump Wall' sign?
You've got to be joking. Who's going to come see this thing? Mexicans, so they can laugh about how they didn't pay for it? The hard-core Trump crowd already spent their savings on #MAGA gear made in China.
-Great wall of china - tourist destination -Hadrians wall - tourist destination -berlin wall - tourist destination -wall of Babylon - tourist destination -walls of Troy - tourist destination -Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
But what significance or historical lesson would be given for students visiting the Great Wall of Trump? "Here's a pretty dull looking wall that we built at great expense for no reason"? "here's a wall we built to keep illegal immigrants out, but it didn't work"? "Here's what happens when you vote for an ignorant populist"?
All of the walls above have some historical significance, and were there for some valid reason. It's also worth noting that none of the above walls actually worked at keeping people out (I don't know about the walls of Babylon, but the rest all failed in their primary function). Given that none of those walls worked, which is part of the history of them, why do you expect the Trump wall to do any better?
Easy. The Great Wall of Trump would be the gaudiest public work in human history...
All of the walls above have some historical significance, and were there for some valid reason. It's also worth noting that none of the above walls actually worked at keeping people out (I don't know about the walls of Babylon, but the rest all failed in their primary function). Given that none of those walls worked, which is part of the history of them, why do you expect the Trump wall to do any better?
Babylon's walls worked until Cyrus the Great lessened the flow of the Euphrates and marched his troops through the watergates. So, again, a massive fail.
Hey, maybe Trump should do a tour of all the famous walls of the world. Either he'll get the hint that none of them worked. And if he doesn't, someone could give his fat ass a swift kick off the side of the tallest one. (Is it the Great Wall of China? It seems like it)
I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service. Of course you could argue well people could climb over or dig under it, but it would be a better use of public money than night time patrols over large areas that have a hit and miss chance of catching anyone. It will if anything make it harder for the illegal drug trade to ruin peoples lives, and to a lesser extent those dubious characters that won't get a visa. So I think the wall is a good thing.
As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it. Personally I have a problem with companies doing this from any nation. They should have a moral obligation to stay where they are based, as over time little by little the draw of build cheaper overseas and re-import takes hold. What you are left with is designed in X home country but manufactured elsewhere.
It's billions paid by US poor&middle class. This will result in less spending which in turn will result less works. It archieves nothing but boost Trump's ego. Which is his goal. He doesn't care about good of US. He cares his ego and US can go to hell.
And Mexico won't be paying. That's the point. Bill will be paid by US citizens. Specifically poor&middle class. While accomplishing nothing but help Trump's ego.
And FYI wall doesn't help with jobs moving elsewhere. In fact effect for work in US will be negative since spending goes down due to poor&middle class in US having less money to spend which will result layovers which hurts poor&middle class more.
Oh and the patrols? They will stay too so no help there either. Wall without patrols is useless. Wall without patrols worked in china wall because china wall was built to stop herds. That's not applicable here...
If I was in control, the wall would be more than just a wall it would be generating money for the US economy. Firstly it should be architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind. A sort of Great Wall of America where by tourists could walk along it and there could be school visits to see your states stretch. As for environmental concerns there could be small wildlife hatches (obviously not big enough for human use) so that animals could pass through. All that capital could be regenerated, however I don't see the Trump administration making money out of it. Perhaps there could be a toll station built into the border control gates? So that anyone passing back through paid a set amount.
Lets see there are many walls designed to keep those unwanted at bay and now generate for local economies:
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
.
All those wall, especially the Great Wall, destroyed the ecosystems, tons of species went extinct in china for that wall. on both sides is two disticnt ecosystems.
Also, how will the wall help with people being smuggled in? or people coming here on Visas and just staying past it?
How will it help with immgrants to florida?
Fraz, poor taste as it may be, the guys been grinding my gears. Probably similar to how you feel when you see me post.
It's been proven, time and again, the wall is going to be a failure. Hell I doubt it will even get half finished. The fact all this money is going to be wasted on this is very sore point ontop of all the other horrible gak in store for us. No amount of sugar coating and what ifs will make this Ozymandias folly anything more than a waste of material.
Vash108 wrote: I guess we will get to see how this guys views skew his ability to interpret the law, if at all. But judging from previous cases I am going to say so.
I'm not sure if protesting Gorusch's seat is such a great idea, as much as I find the idea of stealing Garland's seat and installing another chicken-bones and goat-intestines "originalist" for the next three decades disgusting. It may be better to wait and, if another Justice retires or passes away in Trump's 4th year (or Pence's last year), then deploy the McConnell Rule to prevent the seat from being filled.
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
But what significance or historical lesson would be given for students visiting the Great Wall of Trump? "Here's a pretty dull looking wall that we built at great expense for no reason"? "here's a wall we built to keep illegal immigrants out, but it didn't work"? "Here's what happens when you vote for an ignorant populist"?
All of the walls above have some historical significance, and were there for some valid reason. It's also worth noting that none of the above walls actually worked at keeping people out (I don't know about the walls of Babylon, but the rest all failed in their primary function). Given that none of those walls worked, which is part of the history of them, why do you expect the Trump wall to do any better?
Easy. The Great Wall of Trump would be the gaudiest public work in human history...
Frazzled gets the idea! Look I am generally a very creative person, and I think for the US's future creative thinking is needed and more of a national pride in itself. More progress can be done working to make things better than blocking things on the drawing board. If everyone bar the few on this discussion were put in charge little if anything would change, apart from a different set of people bickering and moaning. I am trying to liven this conversation up rather than laying on the hate, a part from droning on has anyone got any good suggestions?
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls (some of which are " architecturally interesting") would make the project even more expensive, but I suppose the tourism will have to pull in even more than 60 billion$. (although, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
Vash108 wrote: I guess we will get to see how this guys views skew his ability to interpret the law, if at all. But judging from previous cases I am going to say so.
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
Wouldn't be too hard to imagine, I settle my case.
But what significance or historical lesson would be given for students visiting the Great Wall of Trump? "Here's a pretty dull looking wall that we built at great expense for no reason"? "here's a wall we built to keep illegal immigrants out, but it didn't work"? "Here's what happens when you vote for an ignorant populist"?
All of the walls above have some historical significance, and were there for some valid reason. It's also worth noting that none of the above walls actually worked at keeping people out (I don't know about the walls of Babylon, but the rest all failed in their primary function). Given that none of those walls worked, which is part of the history of them, why do you expect the Trump wall to do any better?
Easy. The Great Wall of Trump would be the gaudiest public work in human history...
Frazzled gets the idea! Look I am generally a very creative person, and I think for the US's future creative thinking is needed and more of a national pride in itself. More progress can be done working to make things better than blocking things on the drawing board. If everyone bar the few on this discussion were put in charge little if anything would change, apart from a different set of people bickering and moaning. I am trying to liven this conversation up rather than laying on the hate, a part from droning on has anyone got any good suggestions?
Sometimes, a massive project is just a boondoggle. Trump's ridiculous wall is one of those things.
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls would make the project even more expensive, but I reckon the tourism could pull in even more than 60 billion$. (plus, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
The McConnell rule needs to be permanent. If the GOP get their guy on SCOTUS, it will reward them for breaking the system last year, and they'll just keep doing it.
Anyone heard about the situation in LA with CBP refusing to be served a court order unless instructed to by Trump and the US Marshalls refusing to serve them the court's contempt charge unless instructed to by Trump? How is that not a crisis?
I swear, it feels like we're watching Babylon 5 and we're only about 5 episodes away from Severed Dreams...
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls would make the project even more expensive, but I reckon the tourism could pull in even more than 60 billion$. (plus, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
None of them worked either.
I think it could be argued Hadrian's wall worked. At least as long as the Roman legions stayed to man it.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
However, as noted, an in depth security screen would be better at both interdicting human trafficking and drug trafficking.
They did (do, in the case of the Korean DMZ).
But they didn't (don't) exactly bring in a lot of tourism swag to DDR of DPRK now did/do they?
And the Korean DMZ isn't exactly a continuous physical wall across the peninsula but a much more varied (and thus more effective) multi-layered defence network.
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls (some of which are " architecturally interesting") would make the project even more expensive, but I suppose the tourism will have to pull in even more than 60 billion$. (although, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
None of them worked either.
I think it could be argued Hadrian's wall worked. At least as long as the Roman legions stayed to man it.
Yes! And to all doubters the second wall (tourist wall) could be mass produced at minimal expense; via means of prefabricated construction it can be built cheaply and quickly. How may you ask? Well sections of wood/metal skeleton structure covered in realistic plaster & mesh, fiberglass, fake concrete effect etc. The results would also be quality as you could have a very realistic wall in an shape or form, just like off movie sets or series like Game of Thrones. So it is not at all far fetched. Don't forget wall merchandising too! Finally to those that say having a structure that could be ugly, interesting and a tourist destination, look no further than many other wacky places of interest around the world.
Now all points covered we should get back on solid ground before this discussion goes off the rails.
It's also worth noting East germany weren't stupid enough to build a physical wall along the entire border to West germany. That was only in Berlin and other geographically limited areas. Most of the border was guarded by simple fences, patrols etc,
There's also the major difference of a barrier aiming to keep your own population in, and keeping another population out.
I think you need to up your trolling though, Sentinel1. You're too ridiculous with this talk for people to take you serious.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
Sentinel1 wrote: I am trying to liven this conversation up rather than laying on the hate, a part from droning on has anyone got any good suggestions?
Yes.
Don't throw stupid money at a fething wall that will do nothing. Throw money at our fething schools, roads, and bridges.
Don't let us become a nation full of Sentinel1's. No offense, but turn of Fox News and read a fething book.
Kronk get it. I wish we would turn more money into our education system. We cut funding for education every year, for example look at Alabama. Around 25 years in a row funding has been cut. Some people are all for tax cuts on corporations and hand wave away the fact some CEO's make 500% or more of actual workers, but won't fight for the people who teach your fething children.
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls would make the project even more expensive, but I reckon the tourism could pull in even more than 60 billion$. (plus, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
None of them worked either.
I think it could be argued Hadrian's wall worked. At least as long as the Roman legions stayed to man it.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
Hrm, sort of. Both proved penetrable to some degree, both largely served to keep the people of one side *in* rather than the other side *out*, and employed large and active garrisons of *soldiers* (not just civilian law enforcement) and equipment and were/are actively killing people attempting to cross, and neither are seen...positively by almost anyone, and in the case of the Berlin wall proved a striking rod for opposition and ultimately were there as admissions of the failure of policies of leaders to work effectively with others.
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls would make the project even more expensive, but I reckon the tourism could pull in even more than 60 billion$. (plus, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
None of them worked either.
I think it could be argued Hadrian's wall worked. At least as long as the Roman legions stayed to man it.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
Hrm, sort of. Both proved penetrable to some degree, both largely served to keep the people of one side *in* rather than the other side *out*, and employed large and active garrisons of *soldiers* (not just civilian law enforcement) and equipment and were/are actively killing people attempting to cross, and neither are seen...positively by almost anyone, and in the case of the Berlin wall proved a striking rod for opposition and ultimately were there as admissions of the failure of policies of leaders to work effectively with others.
Would be nice if we worked on bringing people together rather than keeping them apart. The human race will never evolve this way.
I think no one can disagree with this. The only problem is we will never be a perfect society, unfortunately there will still be stupid wars, corruption and extremists blocking the path.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
ND House Defeats Blue Law Change Because Wives Spend Too Much And Should Bring Husbands Breakfast In Bed
Yesterday the North Dakota House of Representatives voted against removing North Dakota’s ‘blue laws’ that prevent businesses from opening before noon on Sunday. The bipartisan change in HB 1163, introduced by Democratic-NPL Representative Pam Anderson, would have allowed businesses to decide when to open their doors.
In North Dakota, we pride ourselves on limited government or at least that is what you hear every election cycle. “Get government out of the way.” or “We must eliminate burdensome government regulations on business.” or “Free market capitalism!” What bigger government regulation is there than telling a business when they can and cannot be open to turn a profit.
I watched the floor debate to get a better understanding of why legislators decided this specific government barrier on business must stay. Here is what I learned:
My wife has no problem spending everything I earn in six and a half days. – Rep. Vernon Laning
Governments generally have taken enough steps, and individuals on their own accord have done enough to push God out of their lives. – Rep. Sebastian Ertelt
Maybe you don’t go to church. I’ve got some suggestions…Make him [husband] breakfast and bring it to him in bed. – Rep. Bernie Satrom
So let me see if I’m following correctly. North Dakota government should continue to tell businesses they cannot be open on Sunday’s before noon because hopefully your wife spent the money you earned on groceries during one of the six and a half days the store is allowed to be open so that she can make you breakfast in bed. And though Rep. Ertelt typically wants you to stay home and make more babies, you should at least get out of the house for church on Sunday morning.
UPDATE: The ND House just reconsidered HB 1163 and it passed 48-46. It will now move onto the Senate. Rep. Laning, Ertelt, and Satrom remained on the ‘no’ side.
N. dakota crops up quite often with ..err....... oddities ...like this.
kronk wrote: Hey honey! Let's go to BFE West Texas where it's 100F in the shade, nothing to do but feth or meth, and stare at an ugly wall!
Hey now. Under the guidance of wall-tourism administrator Sentinel1 the wall wouldn't be ugly, but " architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind."
I guess building double walls would make the project even more expensive, but I reckon the tourism could pull in even more than 60 billion$. (plus, Mexico is paying anyway right?)
-Great wall of china - tourist destination
-Hadrians wall - tourist destination
-berlin wall - tourist destination
-wall of Babylon - tourist destination
-walls of Troy - tourist destination
-Great wall of Trump - ?
None of them worked either.
I think it could be argued Hadrian's wall worked. At least as long as the Roman legions stayed to man it.
East Berlin.
Korean DMZ.
These walls worked quite well.
Hrm, sort of. Both proved penetrable to some degree, both largely served to keep the people of one side *in* rather than the other side *out*, and employed large and active garrisons of *soldiers* (not just civilian law enforcement) and equipment and were/are actively killing people attempting to cross, and neither are seen...positively by almost anyone, and in the case of the Berlin wall proved a striking rod for opposition and ultimately were there as admissions of the failure of policies of leaders to work effectively with others.
Would be nice if we worked on bringing people together rather than keeping them apart. The human race will never evolve this way.
To quote the greatness of Megatron:"heroic nonsense."
Frazzled wrote: What part of "death to America" is...difficult for you?
The part where “Death to America” means “Here is a good reason to ban Iranians from entering in the US”.
“Death to America” is a four words sentence, which means that the person saying it wishes bad things to happen to the United States of America. Hence I could understand not wanting to allow the people that utter this phrase to enter the US. I don't understand the weird logical leap where this justify a ban of people who never said that phrase in their life. Enlighten me.
Frazzled wrote: Yes we will miss the intellectual powerhouse that is Yemen.
Your derisive jape is very representative of what I mentioned earlier about how uneducated on the subject, ignorant US citizen base themselves purely on harmful, stupid stereotypes. And you have no excuses, because I already shown how Iranian immigrants in the US are usually very skilled people that have a lot to bring to the US.
Let me write this all again for you to read, maybe this time you will do it.
Here is what the Wikipedia article introduction has to say about Iranian Americans: “Iranian Americans are among the highest educated people in the United States. They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities.” Don't just stop there, go read the entire article, where you will find more, and don't forget to check the actual sources listed in the article.
Other excerpts from the Wikipedia article:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a study that found Iranian immigrants among the top 20 immigrant groups with the highest rate of business ownership, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy. According to the report, there were 33,570 active and contributing Iranian American business owners in the U.S., with a 21.5% business ownership rate. The study also found that the total net business income generated by Iranian Americans was $2.56 billion. Almost one in three Iranian American households have annual incomes of more than $100K (compared to one in five for the overall U.S. population). Ali Mostasahri a founding member of the Iranian Studies Group, offers a reason for the relative success of Iranian-Americans compared to other immigrants. He believes that unlike many other immigrants who left their home countries because of economic hardships, Iranians left due to social or religious reasons like the 1979 revolution. About 50 percent of all working Iranian Americans are in professional and managerial occupations, greater than any other group in the United States (Bayor, 2011).
As further stipulated by Prof. Ronald H. Bayor, from the very beginning, Iranian immigrants differed from other arrivals by their highly educational and professional achievements. According to Census 2000, 50.9 percent of Iranian immigrants have attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.0 percent national average. According to the latest census data available, more than one in four Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral degree, the highest rate among 67 ethnic groups studied.
I am going to take a guess that you, Frazzled, have never worked in academics, have you? As someone who hold a Ph.D. and is a published author of scientific articles, I am telling you that you should definitely drop the misplaced nationalism about “intellectual powerhouse”. You are not an intellectual powerhouse, and you are not part of an intellectual powerhouse, and you wouldn't be able to determine if someone is a skilled researcher or not if your life depended on it, would you? Maryam Mirzakhani is an intellectual powerhouse though. But you wouldn't let her in the US because, uh, she comes from the same country that someone who postured “Death to America” when they really thought “Death to Saudi Arabia”. Oh wait, I said “in the same country, that was giving you too much credit as you somehow switched from Iran to Yemen for no reason.
Your whole discourse point to a lack of reflection and a huge reliance on prejudice. “Death to America” is not a counter-argument, it's a vague appeal to emotions from a short-sighted person unable to make the distinction between one Iranian and another. Repeating it as if it was a self-evident truth is the end of rational discourse. But hey, it's ”common sense” that “brown middle-eastern people” are uneducated idiots that are radical Muslims and hate America, right? If reality disagree you will just rely on “alternative facts”.
Ahah I said you were not qualified on judging people's academic worth, I'm so banned for breaking Rule #1 right now .
Because it gives better result. Look at history.
Here, this is an interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal Look at the list of recipients. Those are clearly among the very, very best mathematicians. Now, look at those who work in the US, and check where they were born. Here is the question: do you want the most intelligent people working in a US university, for the profit of the US, or do you want them working somewhere else, and with a grudge against the US? As I said though, it's all the better for Europe.
Nations that dont play well with others tend to fall behind. Autarky is not an effectice economic model...anywhere. the greatest empires have ensured their success through trade and exchange, not through isolation.
Frazzled wrote: What part of "death to America" is...difficult for you?
The part where “Death to America” means “Here is a good reason to ban Iranians from entering in the US”.
“Death to America” is a four words sentence, which means that the person saying it wishes bad things to happen to the United States of America. Hence I could understand not wanting to allow the people that utter this phrase to enter the US. I don't understand the weird logical leap where this justify a ban of people who never said that phrase in their life. Enlighten me.
Frazzled wrote: Yes we will miss the intellectual powerhouse that is Yemen.
Your derisive jape is very representative of what I mentioned earlier about how uneducated on the subject, ignorant US citizen base themselves purely on harmful, stupid stereotypes. And you have no excuses, because I already shown how Iranian immigrants in the US are usually very skilled people that have a lot to bring to the US.
Let me write this all again for you to read, maybe this time you will do it.
Here is what the Wikipedia article introduction has to say about Iranian Americans: “Iranian Americans are among the highest educated people in the United States. They have historically excelled in business, academia, the sciences, arts, and entertainment – but have traditionally shied away from participating in American politics and other civic activities.” Don't just stop there, go read the entire article, where you will find more, and don't forget to check the actual sources listed in the article.
Other excerpts from the Wikipedia article:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a study that found Iranian immigrants among the top 20 immigrant groups with the highest rate of business ownership, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy. According to the report, there were 33,570 active and contributing Iranian American business owners in the U.S., with a 21.5% business ownership rate. The study also found that the total net business income generated by Iranian Americans was $2.56 billion. Almost one in three Iranian American households have annual incomes of more than $100K (compared to one in five for the overall U.S. population). Ali Mostasahri a founding member of the Iranian Studies Group, offers a reason for the relative success of Iranian-Americans compared to other immigrants. He believes that unlike many other immigrants who left their home countries because of economic hardships, Iranians left due to social or religious reasons like the 1979 revolution. About 50 percent of all working Iranian Americans are in professional and managerial occupations, greater than any other group in the United States (Bayor, 2011).
As further stipulated by Prof. Ronald H. Bayor, from the very beginning, Iranian immigrants differed from other arrivals by their highly educational and professional achievements. According to Census 2000, 50.9 percent of Iranian immigrants have attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.0 percent national average. According to the latest census data available, more than one in four Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral degree, the highest rate among 67 ethnic groups studied.
I am going to take a guess that you, Frazzled, have never worked in academics, have you? As someone who hold a Ph.D. and is a published author of scientific articles, I am telling you that you should definitely drop the misplaced nationalism about “intellectual powerhouse”. You are not an intellectual powerhouse, and you are not part of an intellectual powerhouse, and you wouldn't be able to determine if someone is a skilled researcher or not if your life depended on it, would you? Maryam Mirzakhani is an intellectual powerhouse though. But you wouldn't let her in the US because, uh, she comes from the same country that someone who postured “Death to America” when they really thought “Death to Saudi Arabia”. Oh wait, I said “in the same country, that was giving you too much credit as you somehow switched from Iran to Yemen for no reason.
Your whole discourse point to a lack of reflection and a huge reliance on prejudice. “Death to America” is not a counter-argument, it's a vague appeal to emotions from a short-sighted person unable to make the distinction between one Iranian and another. Repeating it as if it was a self-evident truth is the end of rational discourse. But hey, it's ”common sense” that “brown middle-eastern people” are uneducated idiots that are radical Muslims and hate America, right? If reality disagree you will just rely on “alternative facts”.
Ahah I said you were not qualified on judging people's academic worth, I'm so banned for breaking Rule #1 right now .
Congrats. I haven't put someone on ignore in years.
Sentinel1 wrote: The problem with intellectuals is they think they have the answer, but in reality just aren't practical.
Thats an issue with people in general, not intellectuals. The idea that "intellectuals" are all pie in the sky ivory tower types that have no concept of the real world is somewhat ridiculous, they live and breathe their subject matter and its relation to the real world, and such characterizations are, in many cases, inaccurate or used to shift blame.
Often the issue is people either executing things incorrectly or having political intransigence shoot it down, not because the ideas are fundamentally impractical.
One of my econ professors in college, a naval reserve officer and professional agricultural economist, was once burned in effigy (no joke) in a protest by a..."intransigent" farm trade group over one of his proposals in Montana years ago and was similarly labelled as being "too impractical" and "out of touch" (and other...less flattering things). Well, funnily enough, the end result was just that nobody in that trade group had any clue of what they were talking about and were just reacting because the proposal came from the "wrong" party in their eyes, but once put through saved most of them 5-10% in water usage and gobs of legal wrangling and the apocalypse did not come to pass. But had they had their way, this professor would have been tossed out and his proposals quashed.
Sure, there are "ivory tower" types, but not as many as are made out to be, particularly in areas of their subject expertise.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Every time someone talks about "this is the most emberrasing moment in senate history" I get flashbacks of Inhoffe throwing a snowball in the senate because "I has snowball = global warming fake".
Sentinel1 wrote: The only academics coming out of Mogadishu today are Al-Shabab fanatics.
I'm assuming you have evidence for this sweeping statement or is just what has been read in the Daily Fail? Sweeping statements about people from a certain region is bigotry and to be avoided. Unsurprisingly academics like to have actual evidence before such things are said. It does not surprise me in the least that some folks are willing to disregard research when their own research might have shown their own statements are blatantly wrong. After all if there were no academics in Mogadishu you would have to wonder why they have an entire University...
Sentinel1 wrote: I am trying to liven this conversation up rather than laying on the hate, a part from droning on has anyone got any good suggestions?
Yes.
Don't throw stupid money at a fething wall that will do nothing. Throw money at our fething schools, roads, and bridges.
Don't let us become a nation full of Sentinel1's. No offense, but turn of Fox News and read a fething book.
IDK, Books are worse then TV sometimes, you can get anything published if you self publish. My uncle is a self publisher of his beliefs in aliens.
Right, but generally speaking someone is better off reading a book than watching TV. Maybe not buying your books from fringe website is another good suggestion, that way you avoid some of the self-published crap.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
wuestenfux wrote: Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states. And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.
I think the problem with Muslimaphobia will be much worse in Germany than the US, since Angry Merkle opened the countries borders to everyone, now the state police are over paranoid about hunting potential terrorists down to protect people. I know it hasn't helped with the Christmas market attack, but if a terrorist wants to get into a country they will find a way, no matter what. If I may pose a hypothetical question, the E.O plan was drawn up by the Obama administration. If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?
It's a very hypothetical question since the utterly shambolic execution of the EO on all levels is ample proof that Trump didn't have a plan.
Its not national pride. I am talking about public universities, publicly funded by taxpayers for (present and future) taxpayers. I would not expect the public university of any nation to accept non-citizens. It directly violates their purpose
Not to be offensive, but I would posit that you may misunderstand their purpose to some degree. Public universities all over the world in every developed country accept foreign students. Thats a fundamental part of how they build academic connections, share knowledge and subject matter experts, collaborate on research projects, open people's minds to previously unexplored ideas and concepts, show off how cool they are, and pilfering the best and brightest from other countries, something the US has done in vast amounts to our great benefit.
Now, again, concerns that they may be displacing native students in favor of the extra funding foreign students generate is fair, but thats not unique to foreign students either (out of state students are another, often bigger issue), however foreign students absolutely have a place in public universities all over the world.
Edit: hell even I took courses at a foreign public university. They have a duty to educate their local populace, but part of that is often interaction with foreigners, and theyre not just supposed to be diploma mills for townies, but also research institutions that help drive local industry as well, which involved grabbing talent from anywhere you can get it.
The very purpose of universities, science, research, and intellectual property law (patents) is to improve the lot of humanity in general by developing new knowledge and making it publicly accessible.
Science at its root cannot function without the publication of hypotheses, experiments, data and analysis of results.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very purpose of universities, science, research, and intellectual property law (patents) is to improve the lot of humanity in general by developing new knowledge and making it publicly accessible.
Science at its root cannot function without the publication of hypotheses, experiments, data and analysis of results.
That is true, and may I take the time to apologise for any previous post of the subject of academics/intellectuals. I didn't mean for it to come across quite how it did, I am a very tolerant person. I do not want to be banned or have all my posts removed. If I am breaking any forum rules please message me, I must admit I do come across a little Jeremy-Clarkson-like in this debate. Now I will leave this debate for tonight, but fear not I will be back!
Yeah, it could be proof of his desire to undermine the constitution. But it could just as easily be his motivation for getting into law, because people like that are out there in Government.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote./quote]
Hmn, isn't a political quorum kind of pointless if you can just remove the need for the opposition party to be present? That's unsettling, "hey we want to do x, y, z, oh and yeah, we can do that without you have a say so".
Just a few more words to elaborate on what I said about academics before I get in forced vacations. I think I sufficiently proved that Iranians, right now, do represent a fair share of contribution to scientific progress that wanting to reject would be stupid. If you think I am wrong, I advise you to try to look for data to prove me wrong, just by doing so you would do a much better job at defending my point that I could ever do. But this is not the only people you would miss out on. Research works better with collaboration, and a huge part of it is congress, symposium, conferences, seminars and the like. If you ban some researchers, sometime the best researchers in their respective fields, from entering the US, all the scientific events in the US lose a lot of prestige and interest. Similarly, if many very skilled researchers go to Europe because the US is closed to them, European universities become much more interesting and attractive for every researchers around the world. And that include… US born researchers. You are not just going to lose on Iranian medal Fields owner; you are also going to lose on all the US researchers that would love to work with a medal Field owner.
Yeah, it could be proof of his desire to undermine the constitution. But it could just as easily be his motivation for getting into law, because people like that are out there in Government.
I'm pretty sure the essence of that comment on Kissinger's part was a self-reflection on his time in government in a time when the US government was seen as making a gradual slide into increasingly severe constitutional violations. Stuff like the FBI waging shadow wars with groups like AIM and the Black Panthers, when the CIA and NSA were constantly interfering in the affairs of foreign states, and when the US happily violated international law for Freedom! The comment isn't about working your way to violating the Constitution, but about the danger that comes from breaking laws in the first place even as the law. If the law breaks the law, it is only a matter of time before the foundation starts to crack.
It's an obscure quote, and not one I think someone would use without some sense of it's context. Which isn't to say he's automatically a great guy, but this quote though maybe bizarre out of its proper context, isn't some great sign of a guy with an insidious plot.
A couple weeks ago I was venting, rather loudly, about the absolutely unacceptable nature of the Russian meddling in our election process. This is something that I warned that if it was to just be overlooked...as Trumpy obviously wants to do and "move on"...then we'd see the same gak happening in other areas of the world and I mentioned Europe, with Germany's elections in particular, as something to watch. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost.
"It doesn't matter whether Trump's election was inspired or instigated or encouraged or facilitated by Russia," said Keir Giles, an expert on Russian security policy at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. Russia "will be emboldened to attempt the same thing in (Germany)." -Exactly the point I was making. And now, our Dupe-in-Chief is soft-peddling lifting sanctions. I imagine it's going to be hard to 'MAGA' when an enemy state is working to...and allowed to...subvert our, and our allies', democracy.
LordofHats wrote: It's an obscure quote, and not one I think someone would use without some sense of it's context. Which isn't to say he's automatically a great guy, but this quote though maybe bizarre out of its proper context, isn't some great sign of a guy with an insidious plot.
You're talking about the Dakka OT. No matter who is quoting or whom is being quoted, proper context only applies to the "other guy's" comments.
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
Why do you find a way to bring race into the debate? There's been absolutely NO mention of it in this discussion, but here you are leading with the race card.
Slighty OT here, but I thought American dakka members might like to know that Brexit is ON!
Parliament voted by a majority of 384 to activate Article 50, the process to leave the EU.
You may have noticed it in my avatar
God knows if it will work, come back to me in 10 years,
but if it fails, I will grab a few crates of forge world stuff, move to America, and make my fortune selling FW at vastly inflated prices.
I will then use the money to buy my way into the GOP, create a dynasty of power, and in 60 years time, my grandson or grand daughter will be your next President.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Slighty OT here, but I thought American dakka members might like to know that Brexit is ON!
Parliament voted by a majority of 384 to activate Article 50, the process to leave the EU.
You may have noticed it in my avatar
God knows if it will work, come back to me in 10 years,
but if it fails, I will grab a few crates of forge world stuff, move to America, and make my fortune selling FW at vastly inflated prices.
I will then use the money to buy my way into the GOP, create a dynasty of power, and in 60 years time, my grandson or grand daughter will be your next President.
That's plan B.
No you won't. If it fails, Sterling will go below parity with USD and we'll be able to buy all the FW we want cheap and import it ourselves. Good luck to my second favorite country.
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
As a rather liberal professor at a public university, I totally oppose racial quotas. I get why they are there, but the quota idea is misplaced, even if well intended. It puts a number and simple identifier on a complex human being. A better solution to the problem would be to look at qualities beyond just standardized test scores and free throw percentages. Of course that requires time and money to hire more people in the acceptance boards that goes to better scoreboards and stadiums and "quality of life" accoutrements to student dorms like fireplaces in residence halls. It's a cheap band aid to a complex wound. One, ironically, that the fiscal conservatives in the higher eschelons of the acedemic system totally support.
cuda1179 wrote: So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
So you have racial quotas in college admission in the US? I don't know much about those, but afaik your colleges are prohibitively expensive, which certainly doesn't help to get the brightest.
Do you know that here in France, the student that pass the entrance competitive exam to enter the École Normale Supérieure (literally Normal Superior School), or the École polytechniques (literally Polytechnic school), two of the most prestigious teaching body, get a full salary for the 3/4 years of their study? In exchange they sign an engagement to work for the state for at least 10 years.
And even with this I don't think we manage to get the brightest there, because there are many socioeconomic factors that will prevent some people from even thinking about taking the exam. I don't know about affirmative action, but I am pretty sure both a good scholarship system, and various way to incite people that don't come from an educated background to still try their chances at college are beneficial for academics.
Unexpected fact about affirmative action in academia: did you know that in Iran, there is some “affirmative action” in the higher level courses, to promote better gender diversity there? Yeah, the regime was unhappy that there was not enough men and too many women at the higher levels, so they decided to open some male-only courses to try to get closer to gender parity. I don't think that will work though .
It is expensive, but a bright student who is self determined will never have to pay for more than textbooks. Millions of dollars every semester at every university go unspent and back into the coffers to collect interest or build the provost a new house because students don't take the time to actually apply for all sorts of granted scholarship money. For example, I work in an English Dept. Of a Midwest univ. Last semester my tiny department had $1,236,000 that could have gone to students but went unclaimed because nobody applied for the fellowships, grants and scholarships. Universities don't like to advertise the money they will give students because when that money is given, it cannot accrue interest and cannot be spent elsewhere. One change that needs to be enacted in high schools in America is to require a Junior year class of "college acceptance and success". One class like that, just explaining how the college/university system works, what it requires for acceptance, what opportunities exist for "free" learning and how to obtain them, what the basic idea of acedemia is would do wonders for the nation's universities, and make for a better nation ready to move forward as the "low skill labor" jobs inevitably disappear.
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
Why do you find a way to bring race into the debate? There's been absolutely NO mention of it in this discussion, but here you are leading with the race card.
I was trying to point out hypocrisy of some people's thoughts. A bit of a " I believe this to be true, unless it inconveniently conflicts with my other opinions" situation. Similar to people believe in gay marriage, but oppose plural marriage because it's yucky.
I was trying to point out hypocrisy of some people's thoughts. A bit of a " I believe this to be true, unless it inconveniently conflicts with my other opinions" situation. Similar to people believe in gay marriage, but oppose plural marriage because it's yucky.
Going OT a bit here, but I'll point out my government examined the issue of plural marriage a few years ago, when the FLDS splinter group that had set themselves up in Bountiful, BC, challenged the law on those grounds. The court upheld the ban because it nearly all cases it examined, the plural marriage was merely a cover for child sexual abuse.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It is expensive, but a bright student who is self determined will never have to pay for more than textbooks. Millions of dollars every semester at every university go unspent and back into the coffers to collect interest or build the provost a new house because students don't take the time to actually apply for all sorts of granted scholarship money. One change that needs to be enacted in high schools in America is to require a Junior year class of "college acceptance and success". One class like that, just explaining how the college/university system works, what it requires for acceptance, what opportunities exist for "free" learning and how to obtain them, what the basic idea of acedemia is would do wonders for the nation's universities, and make for a better nation ready to move forward as the "low skill labor" jobs inevitably disappear.
My son is a HS Sophomore and we just had the first admissions and financial aid seminar for the year at his school...it's for Juniors, but Sophomores are encouraged to attend...and they had one of the admissions officers there from University of Chicago to explain the whole scholarship, financial aid, etc. environment and your sentiment about missed opportunity/resources was mirrored by that individuals' explaining that it's amazing how much simple laziness, i.e. missing filing deadlines, annually costs students absurd amounts of money they'd be able to take advantage of through the different programs available to them.
I'm also glad to report that his Junior year curriculum does have a class covering college application, testing, etc.....College? Where the hell did the time go?
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
Tell me more about it, Frazzled. Explain how this had to do with it. Please, go ahead. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what you are talking about, but I will definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, so please, impress me and prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
That's a great idea if you believe that US citizens are more intelligent than foreigners.
But what you will actually get is much better scientists in European and Asian universities than in US universities, with this policy.
Go ahead, voluntarily cut yourself from immigration that actually benefits your country.
So, I take it that if you support the smartest people going to college that you also oppose racial quotas in college admissions? After all the brightest need to have priority, right?
Why do you find a way to bring race into the debate? There's been absolutely NO mention of it in this discussion, but here you are leading with the race card.
I was trying to point out hypocrisy of some people's thoughts. A bit of a " I believe this to be true, unless it inconveniently conflicts with my other opinions" situation. Similar to people believe in gay marriage, but oppose plural marriage because it's yucky.
Seemed like what you did was presume to know what was going through someone's mind and then race-bait the discussion by bringing it into the conversation. If you want to point out hypocrisy, great, everybody's all for it. But pointing out hypocrisy that hasn't happened except in your own stated assumption, "...I take it that if you support..." is non-starter.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It is expensive, but a bright student who is self determined will never have to pay for more than textbooks. Millions of dollars every semester at every university go unspent and back into the coffers to collect interest or build the provost a new house because students don't take the time to actually apply for all sorts of granted scholarship money. One change that needs to be enacted in high schools in America is to require a Junior year class of "college acceptance and success". One class like that, just explaining how the college/university system works, what it requires for acceptance, what opportunities exist for "free" learning and how to obtain them, what the basic idea of acedemia is would do wonders for the nation's universities, and make for a better nation ready to move forward as the "low skill labor" jobs inevitably disappear.
My son is a HS Sophomore and we just had the first admissions and financial aid seminar for the year at his school...it's for Juniors, but Sophomores are encouraged to attend...and they had one of the admissions officers there from University of Chicago there to explain the whole scholarship, financial aid, etc. environment and your sentiment about missed opportunity/resources was mirrored by explaining that it's amazing how much simple laziness, i.e. missing filing deadlines, costs students absurd amounts of money they'd be able to take advantage of through the different programs.
I'm also glad to report that his Junior year curriculum does have a class covering college application, testing, etc.....College? Where the hell did the time go?
Good for him and thumbs up to your system. I hope he does well. Keep prodding him to save sample essays and assignments, teacher comments, basically all that he does, in a portfolio. Or you as the parent do it. It will make the acceptance requirements and fees irrelevant to you and your child. Keep up the good work, you parent, you. Your time goes into your child. It is well spent.
As an aside, Frazz has a boy newly attending Univ. I hope he is adjusting well. Let's all give credit to the man for rearing a prospective human who is not like his old man at all except for in the ways that matter. (Don't worry Frazz, a son never listens to yet never forgets his old man and the lessens he taught him).
That article isn't really surprising. But the interesting part is indeed the signs showing Trump is already campaigning for his second mandate. Securing his motto for it was clearly one of those signs. The very question is ; will he be able to maintain the pace for that long? Four years of that non stop, it's very long and tiring. Even for a man like Trump.
But yeah, interesting times. By that, I mean the world's reactions. It's just the beginning.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Millions of dollars every semester at every university go unspent and back into the coffers to collect interest or build the provost a new house because students don't take the time to actually apply for all sorts of granted scholarship money.
Well, that's quite a problem! Not sure how to get students to actually get those scholarship they could have, and this seems a problem similar to convincing people from disenfranchised backgrounds that really they could succeed in academia and that they should not rule that out as a career option.
cuda1179 wrote: I was trying to point out hypocrisy of some people's thoughts. A bit of a " I believe this to be true, unless it inconveniently conflicts with my other opinions" situation. Similar to people believe in gay marriage, but oppose plural marriage because it's yucky.
Oh. I guess I should then reassure you on this too. I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I think people that are related by blood should be allowed to marry with a lot of safeguard put up to prevent abusive situations that could very easily arose in such marriage. I obviously oppose multiple marriage in situation where only one gender is allowed to take multiple partners, but I don't have any specific opposition to multiple marriage as long as it's an agreed upon and relatively symmetrical thing. Do I pass the hypocrisy tests? Do you have more tests for me?
My apologies. I confused you with someone else from the previous US politics thread that stated that being the smartest doesn't mean you should get into college.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It is expensive, but a bright student who is self determined will never have to pay for more than textbooks. Millions of dollars every semester at every university go unspent and back into the coffers to collect interest or build the provost a new house because students don't take the time to actually apply for all sorts of granted scholarship money. One change that needs to be enacted in high schools in America is to require a Junior year class of "college acceptance and success". One class like that, just explaining how the college/university system works, what it requires for acceptance, what opportunities exist for "free" learning and how to obtain them, what the basic idea of acedemia is would do wonders for the nation's universities, and make for a better nation ready to move forward as the "low skill labor" jobs inevitably disappear.
My son is a HS Sophomore and we just had the first admissions and financial aid seminar for the year at his school...it's for Juniors, but Sophomores are encouraged to attend...and they had one of the admissions officers there from University of Chicago there to explain the whole scholarship, financial aid, etc. environment and your sentiment about missed opportunity/resources was mirrored by explaining that it's amazing how much simple laziness, i.e. missing filing deadlines, costs students absurd amounts of money they'd be able to take advantage of through the different programs.
I'm also glad to report that his Junior year curriculum does have a class covering college application, testing, etc.....College? Where the hell did the time go?
Good for him and thumbs up to your system. I hope he does well. Keep prodding him to save sample essays and assignments, teacher comments, basically all that he does, in a portfolio. Or you as the parent do it. It will make the acceptance requirements and fees irrelevant to you and your child. Keep up the good work, you parent, you. Your time goes into your child. It is well spent.
As an aside, Frazz has a boy newly attending Univ. I hope he is adjusting well. Let's all give credit to the man for rearing a prospective human who is not like his old man at all except for in the ways that matter. (Don't worry Frazz, a son never listens to yet never forgets his old man and the lessens he taught him).
Boy about to graduate undergrad (4.0 average or whatever the average is with no Bs) and was accepted to the U of I PhD program and then start paying him (well more, he's a TA now) and no more tuition!
Girl accepted to School of Science at UT Austin. She likes her some biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. She likes da gene splicin to create mutant creapies yo dog, and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Boy about to graduate undergrad (4.0 average or whatever the average is with no Bs) and was accepted to the U of I PhD program and then start paying him (well more, he's a TA now) and no more tuition!
Girl accepted to School of Science at UT Austin. She likes her some biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. She likes da gene splicin to create mutant creapies yo dog, and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Looks like you might get mutant attack weenies after all!
cuda1179 wrote: My apologies. I confused you with someone else
Even with my… quite unmistakable avatar? Doesn't he look good in that garb? I had even better in my signature but apparently a mod deleted my signature when I wasn't looking?
Boy about to graduate undergrad (4.0 average or whatever the average is with no Bs) and was accepted to the U of I PhD program and then start paying him (well more, he's a TA now) and no more tuition!
Girl accepted to School of Science at UT Austin. She likes her some biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. She likes da gene splicin to create mutant creapies yo dog, and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Looks like you might get mutant attack weenies after all!
... and has a fascination with Dr. Horrible. I think we know where this is going...
Musical theatre?
He could wish. Happy paid retirement home in happy town USA with shuffleboard and viagra as far as the eye could see. Good luck, Frazz. Best internet wishes to you and yours.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
Sure, just how the D's had every right to suspend the 60 votes needed for conformation. But that doesn't change that fact that him calling this "unprecedented" is hilariously false, when his own party (and I don't remember him speaking out about it) did far worse with the main conformation process (them filibustering every nominee). His outrage is wholey partisan and hypocritical.
In unrelated news, the subreddit /r/altright just got banned (for reputedly violating site rules, including repeatedly advocating violence and genocide). The fascists (and they are actual fascists, this isn't just a word I'm using) are kicking up a fuss and it's hilarious.
Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
Co'tor Shas wrote: Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
If it wasn't for the Russian/Exxon ties/conflict potential...ongoing, disturbing theme with this administration...I'd actually be very much for Tillerson. That job is a motherfether and Tillerson has the international chops to handle it, IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
I don't know. There's Ben Carson? Or that gak EPA head who's made it his life's work to sue the EPA? That's some heady competition for the administration's Gakky McGakmaster title.
“We took some unprecedented actions today due to the unprecedented obstruction on the part of our colleagues. As I noted earlier, the Senate Finance Committee has traditionally been able to function in even the most divisive political environments. Personally, as longtime member of this committee, I have been proud of that distinction. And, in my time as both Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee, I have bent over backwards to preserve its unique status as one of the few places where Republicans and Democrats not only work together, but achieve results. That all changed yesterday. Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference. Now, I get that my colleagues think these nominees are controversial. I get that they don’t want to see them confirmed. We’ve all been in that situation. It comes part and parcel with the job of being a Senator. And, this is hardly the first time a nominee deemed to be controversial has come before this committee.”
Dude.. Hatch is the old guard Senator who would usually be counted on to NOT change the senate's filibuster rule... after this? I'm not sure it's a good idea for democrats to piss him off...
Hatch just removed the rule that required both parties present for quorom.... meaning, Steve Mnuchin and Tom Price moves to Senate floor for confirmation vote.
That's rich, coming from the same people who refused to OK even the most uncontroversial and non-political of Obama's nom. But anything to go "Grr, liberals grr," I guess.
Separation of Powers is a bitch...
So you agree his outrage is hypocritical and fake?
Nope. Hatch has every right to suspend the rules of quorum when the Democrats were outside in the hallway.
Sure, just how the D's had every right to suspend the 60 votes needed for conformation. But that doesn't change that fact that him calling this "unprecedented" is hilariously false, when his own party (and I don't remember him speaking out about it) did far worse with the main conformation process (them filibustering every nominee). His outrage is wholey partisan and hypocritical.
In unrelated news, the subreddit /r/altright just got banned (for reputedly violating site rules, including repeatedly advocating violence and genocide). The fascists (and they are actual fascists, this isn't just a word I'm using) are kicking up a fuss and it's hilarious.
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
I prefer the term "unpresidented". It's delicious.
In all fairness both sides of the political isle have been abusing the term "unprecedented" for quite a while now. It seem that neither politicians or the media seem to know what that word actually means.
I prefer the term "unpresidented". It's delicious.
This simple little spelling error may be one of the funniest and most harmless things he'll ever tweet XD
Co'tor Shas wrote: Let's hope so. I'm upset about Tillerson, but at least he has some experience, what with running a multi-national and making deal with countries. But DeVos is just a nutjob.
If it wasn't for the Russian/Exxon ties/conflict potential...ongoing, disturbing theme with this administration...I'd actually be very much for Tillerson. That job is a motherfether and Tillerson has the international chops to handle it, IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Yeah, out of all of Mr. PeePants nominees, I think she is the worst. Of course it is the one I know the most about and how she could affect the system, others might be just as bad or worse. I just don't have the knowledge to determine how good or bad they are or could be, so I won't comment on them
I don't know. There's Ben Carson? Or that gak EPA head who's made it his life's work to sue the EPA? That's some heady competition for the administration's Gakky McGakmaster title.
Like I said, I can only speak to what I know. Carson's role is relatively small in the grand scheme. We need a black guy? Put him there, he's "urban". The EPA person I have serious reservations about, but again, I don't know well enough myself to really comment on.
I don't know about you but my multi-billion dollar oil business is tired of paying meager fees to pump a fortune from your ground, so just sell it to me for nothing and let me be richer already.
While the BUndy's might have brought this to national attention as an issue, the irony is that the sale of public land is highly unlikely to really benefit people like Bundy. Ranchers don't have the money to buy up lands like this their profit margins are too narrow. Large agri-corps are more likely to be the ones who actually buy the land for such uses, or mining and oil companies. I do agree that if people realized the depth of public lands in the US, they probably would oppose this almost universally. Few people live far from a national part, or public land trust.
It's part of the general stupidity of Republican economic ideology that "public" = "no profit." As pointed out, public lands produce billions in revenue for sporting, hunting, and hiking around the country. Highways facilitate so much commerce the idea of labeling them as "nonprofit" is ludicrously absurd. Public works have always been a source of huge amounts of revenue and economic opportunity, it's just not necessarily a direct one.
cuda1179 wrote: Um....yeah, it was supposed to be a zero cost bill, but isn't there a massive build-up of debt in the not too distant future?
Sort of. There was an accounting trick inside ACA where they made it zero cost over 10 years but having revenue items kick in sooner than some expenditures. But the effect of this is way overstated, so that after the 10 year period ACA will cost more than it brings in, the amount is pretty negligible if the system is left as it is.
There is another issue though, in that the current mandate penalty is quite low, to the point where the price difference for a healthy person getting insurance is too great compared to just paying the mandate. The difference can be fixed with an increase to the mandate penalty or an increase in insurance subsidies, and it is likely ACA was built knowing this fix would have to come in down the line. Given the popularity of the mandate, it's likely a hypothetical fix will rely more on subsidies than on a mandate increase. So that will make the deal more expensive.
But still, the numbers we're talking about are dwarfed by the money government already kicks in for health insurance, and dwarfed by Bush's medicare fix in the early 2000s. The idea that those kinds of expenditures are just accepted, but a much cheaper scheme that expands healthcare coverage by 20 million and prevents rejection due to pre-existing conditions should be dismissed as too expensive is a fundamentally broken analysis.
Also, I don't have a high-end policy (Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield), and I still have seen an 86% increase in my premiums in the last 5 years, with a raise in deductibles, all while having ZERO claims.
We've been through this before, you are one person. Your experience does not define the experiences of 300 million people.
What IS the experience of 300 million people, though? I mean, people cherry pick success stories, too; that's not really more accurate than the examples of people with nearly-useless insurance, but they are often used to dismiss any criticisms. And this whole bit of "# of people covered" is kind of a meaningless statistic when a) it's mandatory and b) it doesn't tell you how effective said coverage even is.
Oh FFS. This is one of those things you're supposed to be very cautious about, since there's no going back once you give up that resource. But I guess we don't need careful management of state-owned resources when we can just privatize the whole thing for the benefit of wealthy campaign donors. Drain the swamp indeed...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even some republicans thing this is a really stupid idea. From a previous sale proposal:
"Selling off our public lands to reduce the deficit would be like selling the house to pay the light bill," said Philip Carlson, Utah coordinator for the group Republicans for Environmental Protection. "America's public lands are a lasting endowment that supports local economies. They're magnets that attract sportsmen, backcountry trail riders, hikers and campers year after year. It makes no sense to sell off this endowment, especially in a down economy."
I wouldn't get too worked up about the land sale. It sounds like it's just a small cadre of interested Republicans in states with huge amounts of public land (Utah, Nevada, Wyoming) who are backing it. And that said, there probably is a lot of public that that is functionally useless and could be sold, such that just dismissing any and all proposals is probably unreasonable.
My concern would be that land is being sold with no consideration for how it might effect animal migrations, environmental toxicity, or actual use by the public (just to name a few), not that someone wants to sell that land in the first place. I can't say I care much for the in article example of a public forest that has been cordoned off by the rich so they can monopolize a public resource for private use. That's just sleazy. Eminent Domain that gak.
Sentinel1 wrote: I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service.
The fact that border protection comes in as #4 on your list should tell you something about the stupidity of this wall. Anyway, to go through your list;
1) Arguing for spending more money in order to justify a plan to spend more money is called the sunk cost fallacy. What you've already spent is gone, the only economic argument is a comparison of the likely new costs, against the expected benefit.
2) The idea that a long wall will have a large moral component is a fundamentally weird claim. If you're after moral benefit why not host some parades, or have government pay for free tacos for everyone, or something.
3) Justifying government spending through employment is silly, because that same effect comes from any government spending. The same argument can be used to justify paying people to dig holes, and then paying other people to fill the holes up again. Government will spend money, that will create employment, and so the question on where government spends money comes down to the merits of that project.
4) It's a pretty clear indication of the effectiveness of the wall and it's need that you drop this claim in here at #4. The need for greater border protection is dubious given that more illegals are now returning home than are coming in, and there's little to indicate a wall will provide any effective measure against people attempting to enter the country. There are reasons that people who are active in border security have called for funding for surveillance, patrols and active location of illegal immigrants who are in the US, and none of them have been asking for a wall.
As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it.
Ford is still building their small cars in Mexico. They just cancelled plans to build a new plant, and are instead building the car from an existing Mexican plant. Ford and Trump just played a con job on this, by announcing 700 new jobs in the to build totally unrelated batteries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rootbeard wrote: What IS the experience of 300 million people, though? I mean, people cherry pick success stories, too; that's not really more accurate than the examples of people with nearly-useless insurance, but they are often used to dismiss any criticisms. And this whole bit of "# of people covered" is kind of a meaningless statistic when a) it's mandatory and b) it doesn't tell you how effective said coverage even is.
Total industry studies have shown across all people that insurance has increased considerably more slower under ACA than it did before. And on top of that there's now an extensive subsidy system in place, so that the final price of insurance for many people is much than the sticker price.
It's just plain fething comical that people complain about weak coverage under ACA. One of the big complaints against ACA was that it brought in minimum levels of insurance, so that the old, very cheap plans that offered very little were gone. So what the feth do people actually want? The freedom to have schemes with very little insurance coverage, or the guarantee that you're insurance will be worth a damn. Truth is people will moan either way - that's the nature of health, people feel entitled to everything and resent every penny they have to spend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: You are giving Trump and the Cabinet Secretaries too much credit. The federal depts were created by Congress and can only be fundamentally changed by Congress. Let's look at the Dept of Esd for example. Sure Betsy Devos is very different politically and in terms of her education philosophy than Obamas appointee Arne Duncan so she'll give different speeches and advocate different approaches. However just like Duncan her ability to actually affect public education in the US will be severely limited. Congress created the Dept of Ed and only Congress can dismantle it. Congress determines the funding for the Dept of Ed and Congress passes the federal laws that create the federal programs that determine how that funding is allocated. All the Dept of Ed does is administrate the federal laws created by Congress. Devos can't change public education in the US with a memo. At best she can make changes to operational guidelines. It's a caretaker position because the president needs somebody to delegate to that can report on the efficacy and enforcement of Federal education laws and programs. The Dept of Ed pretty much just sends federal money to the states and provides token oversight and record keeping. The Dept of Ed has 5000 employees, the state of CA alone has over 10000 public schools for K-12 education the Ed Sec has at best/worst a minimal impact on the US public school system.
You're confusing formality with actual power. While formal power may be vested in congress, real actual power exists with the person with the ability to make strategic decisions about the direction of the agency on a daily basis.
Nor do employee numbers matter, what matters is how DeVos chooses to allocate funds, and how she chooses to enforce existing laws. We've already seen her ambivalence to enforcing existing laws on measuring the post education employment of colleges eligible for government funds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hence why, Trump got something like $2 Billion dollars of "favorable free airtime" during the primary, that effectively drowned out the other candidates. Hence, the Clintons chose their form of destructor, poorly:
That argument makes zero sense. Trump also got vastly more free airtime than Clinton during the general election. And Trump got a much higher percentage of favourable coverage than Clinton. Trying to claim that as a media conspiracy to help Clinton is an active rejection of reality.
Trump got piles of free media attention, both in the primaries and afterwards because Trump is a circus act, and an irresponsible media was drawn to covering that freak show. It's that simple. It's the same reason that media attention focused in on the constant stream of scandals, both real, beat up and utterly fictional, and spend barely any time at all on policy at all. Because covering scandals, even stupid and pretend ones, is exciting, whips up the bases of both parties and gets them watching, while policy coverage means people have to like pay some real attention, think and maybe even learn something important. That's hard work, and so it doesn't rate. And so the media doesn't cover it.
This is the real lesson here. All this nonsense about what media is biased is just a noisy distraction. The real story is that stuff covered during 2016 was irrelevant crap, no matter which candidate it favoured. And if people keep accepting that kind of coverage of politics, then idiots like Trump will continue to flourish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Also, refresh my memory here, but didn't someone get fired for unethical behavior, then immeidiately get hired by the Clinton Campaign in a rather cushy position?
You're probably thinking of Roger Stone, who was fired from his position as CEO of FOX news when his decades of sexual abuse of female staff members was uncovered. He was immediately hired by Trump as a campaign advisor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: That whole "death to America" thing and launching missiles against treaties might have a little something to do with it too.
During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, John McCain sang 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'. This did not in fact mean that all Americans are bloodthirsty loons who want to destroy Iran. Only a total would make that conclusion.
And yet many people hold that opinion about Iran, based on some made for TV protests by a radical minority in Iran.
So yeah, the hostility against Iran really is an idiocracy thing.
Of course, US public universities should be exclusively for US citizens.
Did you know US students come and study at institutions around the globe? Because of the hyper specialisation of the tertiary sector, often the very best in lots of niche studies are to be found in one place in the world, and that can be anywhere in the world. So students travel, because gaining the most knowledge in any field is a global endeavour. Tertiary education is a global affair, your half baked nationalism has no place there.
And more than that, even on the level of teaching more base line education, it is clearly in the US best interests to draw the best and brightest to its colleges. Many stay and take on the role as the next key drivers of progress and economic growth. And the ones that return go home with very positive views of your country, because the US is a much more fun place to be than Iran. This is called softpower, and it matters way more in bringing the world around to a US POV than all those tanks and fighter jets you love spending piles of cash on.
Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
You know, if Trump ever picked up a book he'd know we exist only by the grace of our allies, which he is bound and determined to piss off at every turn.
I just want someone in Washington to kick in the door to the oval office and start smacking him till he grows the feth up...
Prestor Jon wrote: Party affiliation of the voter doesn't matter in presidential elections or mid term elections either. Every voter in the district gets the same ballot with the same choices on it. For presidential elections everyone in their respective state has the same president and Vice President candidates to choose from regardless of the voter's affiliation, Democrat, Republican, Independemt or 3rd party. The fastest growing political affiliation is registered Independent but Independents are still less numerous than the 2 big parties and win an Independent doesn't reflect your voting record. A voter can be an Independent and still consistently vote for one particular party's candidates, being Independent just means they're not an official Party member.
Yes they are given same options but if somebody votes for R no matter who he is(I refer to example provided shortly after by my post about girlfriend's mother who basically said she's forced to vote for Trump because she always votes for R) it's irrelevant what options he/she is given. He/she will vote for the candinate of party he/she always votes.
I'm talking about voting behaviour. Not whether they are official member of party. That's irrelevant. What matters is whom they vote and huge swathes vote for R no matter who he/she is if he/she is R. So once Trump got through primaries he was quaranteed votes of those persons because they always vote for R. Even if Trump had said he would launch nuclear war right off the bat they would STILL vote for R.
If I was in control, the wall would be more than just a wall it would be generating money for the US economy. Firstly it should be architecturally interesting and a viable tourist destination! You could have the official wall of barbed fences in front and then a lovely tourist wall slightly behind. A sort of Great Wall of America where by tourists could walk along it and there could be school visits to see your states stretch. As for environmental concerns there could be small wildlife hatches (obviously not big enough for human use) so that animals could pass through. All that capital could be regenerated, however I don't see the Trump administration making money out of it. Perhaps there could be a toll station built into the border control gates? So that anyone passing back through paid a set amount.
Okay now I know you are just trolling but ah well. You do realize what you propose is actually counter-effective for fighting illegal immigration? That happens a lot by simply coming as a "tourist" and then overstaying. Now you are suggesting to use it to encourage tourism. Instant way to bypass the wall then. Ahahaha.
And you also would stiffle tourism with all those tolls etc. And btw none of those walls you mentioned were tourists attractions before they were abandoned. Chinese wall by like centuries. So still US poor&middle class would have to pay and their lives would suffer. Do they care it might generate more cash after they die? No.
And again: If you want to stop illegal immigration there's actually ways to do that that work. But instead money is used to this. With only purpose to boost Trump's ego at the cost of normal peoples lives.
I honestly think the money spent on a stupid wall would be more effectively spent literally paying people to go somewhere else.
Makes me think of all the silly plans for investigating welfare receipients for "cheaters" that are magnitudes more expensive than just shrugging and handing out checks.
If the goal is to do a task and save money, piling security on top of security is ineffective. The easiest solution to US immigration issues is to nation build. Once our immediate neighbors have economies of their own, the people who live there will have less incentive to come here and other countries having strong consumer economies isn't exactly a bad thing for us if our goal is generating new opportunities for people (who live here).
Y'know..........
I didnt like Obama when he was elected or when he left. I didnt like bush.
But I didnt go to bed scared thinking "Oh god, what did the president do now"
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I honestly think the money spent on a stupid wall would be more effectively spent literally paying people to go somewhere else.
Makes me think of all the silly plans for investigating welfare receipients for "cheaters" that are magnitudes more expensive than just shrugging and handing out checks.
If the goal is to do a task and save money, piling security on top of security is ineffective. The easiest solution to US immigration issues is to nation build. Once our immediate neighbors have economies of their own, the people who live there will have less incentive to come here and other countries having strong consumer economies isn't exactly a bad thing for us if our goal is generating new opportunities for people (who live here).
And of course you could say...Hunt down the companies that hire those illegals. Like Trump's own companies.
Make sure there's no jobs available for illegal immigrants and what you think they are going to do? No work, no money, life sucks.
edit:
U.S. officials said that he used his calls with both Turnbull and Peña Nieto to mention his election win or the size of the crowd at his inauguration.
So let's see...Narrow win in elections, one of the worst differences in popular votes and notably smaller crowd in inauguration...Guess that's reason to be proud of? For some? Me I would rather try to boast on something that's actually positive for me.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
People actually voted for, actively chose and desired, this guy for President of the United States, and think this is how responsible and effective government should be run...way to step up to the job bub, get in a stupid phone-rant and twitter fight with one of America's closest allies over a intentionally misconstrued and almost irrelevant number of refugees to score brownie points in the echo chamber...
Just as a comment on the earlier thing where people were talking about Trump refusing to deal with CNN and how it's because the station is biased.
I know the right wing has been primed for decades to hate the MSM, whatever. But assuming Trump's feud with CNN is about biased coverage is letting yourself be manipulated. As you all said during the primary, Donald Trump isn't a conservative, he just plays one on TV. And his feud with CNN is just another example, Trump dresses it up in ideological terms (and even turns the term 'fake news' back on the left, reminds me of Hitler calling Churchill a warmonger ). But in reality the feud with CNN is all personal, just like everything with Trump. See, CNN is run by Jeff Zucker. Trump and Zucker go way back, Zucker was the executive at NBC who brought The Apprentice to that network. Trump had assumed that given his close relationship with Zucker, he would get friendly treatment from CNN, much the same way that NBC gave him softball bs with Saturday Night Live and Jimmy Fallon.
When that didn't happen, Trump got pissed and vindictive, because that is what Trump does. And now instead of just acknowledging that the president is having a hissy fit, Republicans are falling back on their tried and tested lines about the meanie MSM.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
I posted about this before. The joke of it is that Trump has some good reasons to walk away from the deal - Obama signed it as he walking out the door, and it's a pretty weird deal in general (Australia doesn't want to let these refugees in here because it might give an economic incentive for people to risk their lives attempting to arrive by boat... but having them settled in the US hardly removes that economic incentive). And Australia is always going to prioritise close US relations over the placement of some refugees. So there's was plenty of room for Trump to back out of the deal gracefully.
Of course, Trump doesn't do gracefully. He does angry, blowhard and crazy.
It's hit the papers over here now - Trump's rant at the Australian Prime Minister.
I was under the impression that Trump was a business expert, able to handle these types of discussions and negotiations with ease...
What a shambles!
Business expert? Guy has managed to bankrupt his companies multiple times. He's rich more thanks to his dad than own merits. As finns(not complementarily) says pappa betalar(swedish actually but you hear that often enough it might just as well be finnish also by now).
So far Trump has done nothing surprising with his presidency. He's predictable clown. Too bad clown with power :(
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
I'm not going to claim too much credit for seeing that Trump was a narcisstic manchild who confused bullying and shouting with negotiation. I think there was quite a few million people before me who made that observation
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
Well in some ways I could understand getting annoyed with Australia, we all know he doesn't want Refugees and wants to change things, so he would get up set at having to honour a previous deal. If you read into it, it makes Australia look bad too, they have 1,250 Refugees they don't want and are trading them to another nation like bargaining chips. Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement, as Australia is a huge and very wealthy country with a relatively small population. I don't know the reasons behind this deal but it looks like a case of pass-the-refugee-parcel no one wants. The problem is people and also Trump himself forget his was never a politician, he seeks to run the USA like his business which could be a good thing, but speaking to foreign leaders in such a way could be quite bad. As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
Well I don't know what they were talking. Point was it could be PM making something that even remotely critizes Trump.
Could also have been "don't build the wall" or "reconsider your stance on enviroment protection" or "don't tighten work imigration rules" or "could you consider toning down tone in your twitter tweets" or "too bad your inauguration crowd was so small". Trump feels it's critique at him and he can slash out at will.
He has huge massive bloated ego to protect. Only way to avoid getting slashed out is basically keep repeating "yes my lord! yes your majesty!" to whatever he says. If not you will be facing his wrath.
Sentinel1 wrote: Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement
Because part of being able to make deals with other nations is having a reputation for being trustworthy. If every other country knows that any deals they make with the US are subject to change as soon as a new president comes in then why should they bother making a deal in the first place? Are those ~1000 refugees really such an unacceptable burden on the US that it's worth trashing our reputation and sacrificing our future bargaining power to avoid them?
And let's not overlook the fact that this is Australia we're talking about. You know, a close ally that we actually care about, not some irrelevant minor country that can be discarded at will if it's convenient to do business elsewhere. Breaking a deal, in a spectacularly public and insulting manner, is just unbelievable incompetence. It's absolutely inexcusable that the president of the US would be such an arrogant clown.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
It's hit the papers over here now - Trump's rant at the Australian Prime Minister.
I was under the impression that Trump was a business expert, able to handle these types of discussions and negotiations with ease...
What a shambles!
Business expert? Guy has managed to bankrupt his companies multiple times. He's rich more thanks to his dad than own merits. As finns(not complementarily) says pappa betalar(swedish actually but you hear that often enough it might just as well be finnish also by now).
So far Trump has done nothing surprising with his presidency. He's predictable clown. Too bad clown with power :(
Being bankrupt in the USA is different from being bankrupt in Britain or Finland.
It's no big deal in the USA. Nobody takes you seriously unless you've been bankrupt at least twice
Most American dakka members have probably been bankrupt at one time
tneva82 wrote: Somebody with mind of a child. Australian prime minister probably said something like "you should reconsider the ban" and Trump got pissed off cutting phone off right away.
Just to clarify, the dispute here isn't just over Trump's muslim ban. It relates to a specific deal between the US and Australia, part of which involves the US taking some refugees currently sitting in detention camps in Australia.
I'm not going to claim too much credit for seeing that Trump was a narcisstic manchild who confused bullying and shouting with negotiation. I think there was quite a few million people before me who made that observation
You identified this story first - days before British media outlets. Everybody else is just catching up.
Sentinel1 wrote: Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement
Because part of being able to make deals with other nations is having a reputation for being trustworthy. If every other country knows that any deals they make with the US are subject to change as soon as a new president comes in then why should they bother making a deal in the first place? Are those ~1000 refugees really such an unacceptable burden on the US that it's worth trashing our reputation and sacrificing our future bargaining power to avoid them?
And let's not overlook the fact that this is Australia we're talking about. You know, a close ally that we actually care about, not some irrelevant minor country that can be discarded at will if it's convenient to do business elsewhere. Breaking a deal, in a spectacularly public and insulting manner, is just unbelievable incompetence. It's absolutely inexcusable that the president of the US would be such an arrogant clown.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.
What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
I hear what you're saying, but as an example, Vietnam was a war that didn't really have to be fought. Yugoslavia should have been better handled by Europe (the EU was useless in that regard) and both Iraq wars were highly dubious in my book, given that the USA had been supporting Saddam for years.
The last 15 years however, have not been America's finest hour...
Yodhrin wrote: "Donald Trump (jokingly?) threatens to invade Mexico during diplomatic call with Mexican President"
Really? So first talks about occupying Iraq and now this? And he was supposed to be the non-warhawk...I sure hope you are just joking.
And so far he has been pretty much spot on on what he says to do and what he does. Lies about reasons and effects but not what he says he's going to do.
edit: "Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it" Ugh so not a joke. Though at least this seems to be referring to drug cartels but sheesh you don't send in military uninvited into another country even to chase criminals.
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Such a change would reflect Trump's election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase "radical Islam" in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.
The CVE program aims to deter groups or potential lone attackers through community partnerships and educational programs or counter-messaging campaigns in cooperation with companies such as Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook (FB.O).
Some proponents of the program fear that rebranding it could make it more difficult for the government to work with Muslims already hesitant to trust the new administration, particularly after Trump issued an executive order last Friday temporarily blocking travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Still, the CVE program, which focuses on U.S. residents and is separate from a military effort to fight extremism online, has been criticized even by some supporters as ineffective.
A source who has worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the program said Trump transition team members first met with a CVE task force in December and floated the idea of changing the name and focus.
In a meeting last Thursday attended by senior staff for DHS Secretary John Kelly, government employees were asked to defend why they chose certain community organizations as recipients of CVE program grants, said the source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
Although CVE funding has been appropriated by Congress and the grant recipients were notified in the final days of the Obama administration, the money still may not go out the door, the source said, adding that Kelly is reviewing the matter.
The department declined comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
PROGRAM CRITICIZED
Some Republicans in Congress have long assailed the program as politically correct and ineffective, asserting that singling out and using the term "radical Islam" as the trigger for many violent attacks would help focus deterrence efforts.
Others counter that branding the problem as "radical Islam" would only serve to alienate more than three million Americans who practice Islam peacefully.
Many community groups, meanwhile, had already been cautious about the program, partly over concerns that it could double as a surveillance tool for law enforcement.
Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said she was told last week by people within DHS that there was a push to refocus the CVE effort from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism.
"That is concerning for us because they are targeting a faith group and casting it under a net of suspicion," she said.
Another source familiar with the matter was told last week by a DHS official that a name change would take place. Three other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said such plans had been discussed but were unable to attest whether they had been finalized.
The Obama administration sought to foster relationships with community groups to engage them in the counterterrorism effort. In 2016, Congress appropriated $10 million in grants for CVE efforts and DHS awarded the first round of grants on Jan. 13, a week before Trump was inaugurated.
Among those approved were local governments, city police departments, universities and non-profit organizations. In addition to organizations dedicated to combating Islamic State's recruitment in the United States, grants also went to Life After Hate, which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists.
Just in the past two years, authorities blamed radical and violent ideologies as the motives for a white supremacist's shooting rampage inside a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina and Islamist militants for shootings and bombings in California, Florida and New York.
One grant recipient, Leaders Advancing & Helping Communities, a Michigan-based group led by Lebanese-Americans, has declined a $500,000 DHS grant it had sought, according to an email the group sent that was seen by Reuters. A representative for the group confirmed the grant had been rejected but declined further comment.
"Given the current political climate and cause for concern, LAHC has chosen to decline the award," said the email, which was sent last Thursday, a day before Trump issued his immigration order, which was condemned at home and abroad as discriminating against Muslims while the White House said it was to "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals."
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
At long last the Dylan Roof's of this world can get the man off of their backs.
Good time to buy shares in fertiliser manufacturers perhaps.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What's this about a Democrat trying to get a bill through Congress for using military force against Iran?
And I read that Trump's putting Iran on notice
I can't be the only one that has noticed this, but the USA seems more and more like an oligarchy that's always in a perpetual state of war.
1950s - Korean War
1960s/1970s Vietnam
1980s Grenada
1990s Iraq/Yugoslavia
and of course the last 15 years have seen us with a shambolic war on terror.
This is not new in history. The British Empire were always fighting somebody year after year, but the USA was supposed to be the opposite of Britain when it was formed...
the liberal world order needs to make up its mind, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq war (1990's) and Yugoslavia, all wars fought to help others, not for our personal glory, and wars I might add that others fought beside us. Should the US aid in defending others or not?
I hear what you're saying, but as an example, Vietnam was a war that didn't really have to be fought. Yugoslavia should have been better handled by Europe (the EU was useless in that regard) and both Iraq wars were highly dubious in my book, given that the USA had been supporting Saddam for years.
The last 15 years however, have not been America's finest hour...
The south Vietnamese were willing, but not able to fight, they deserved a chance. Where I might concede that the second Iraq war was dubious, the first certainly was not,. Liberating Kuwait is likely one of the best things we have done in the last 100 years.
Is it just me or should USA look into a two state solutions?
All I see on the news is how much the left is killing the right. How badly the right leads. Each one of them is more interested in destroying the other then making your country better.
Canada is no better but at this rate 50% hates the other 50% when is the civil war starting? I do not understand the protests and the constant hate if anything that shows the USA becoming weak, it would be the constant disrespect amongst the masses........daily. Good thing is ever since the news went after trump the blm people moved on now that the news doesn't hunt for random killing by the police ( good shoot or not)
Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.
UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."
What if Trump's wall was not to prevent Mexican from entering? What if it was actually about preventing US citizens from leaving after he turned the US into an awful dictatorship?
Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.
UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."
At the same time, I'd argue that the left is better represented by the majority of students who were unhappy with how the protest went down.
Of course, this was a stupid and childish action that only plays into Yiannopoulos' narrative and to his advantage. It's likely why he continues to hold events at colleges, knowing that there's a subsection of students that will always overreact and allow him to cancel the show and play the victim.
The better way to protest his events would be to attend and to make sure everyone stays completely silent. Don't give him the reactions he wants, and let the small sections of his fans make themselves obvious by their tiny minority. Let his toxic words hang in the air, because the best way to beat these kinds of trolls is just to let them speak.
Yes, that would be one way to appropriately protest while respecting the 1st Amendment.
But alas, that's not what happened.
And I think Milo Y. attends these college events because college student groups are inviting him and paying him to do so. They have a right to free speech. They have a right to peaceful assembly.
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that arguing that the left should stop using their free speech rights is doing exactly what you're condemning them for doing, right?
There's free speech, and then there's taking violent action. Wasn't the Yannipolis event cancelled due to threats of violence and the discharge of roman candles and molotovs?
If that's free speech, then I suppose Kristelnacht and MLK getting shot was too.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that arguing that the left should stop using their free speech rights is doing exactly what you're condemning them for doing, right?
What CthulhuSpy said. Destruction, violence, mayhem...these are not examples of free speech or peaceful assembly.
If these indeed are viewed by the left as valid forms of free speech or peaceful assembly, it only underscores that the left has left me behind. My liberal values are still in place, but they seem to be eroding on the left.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that arguing that the left should stop using their free speech rights is doing exactly what you're condemning them for doing, right?
"The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack."
That's free speech?
While left is generally better than right it's not like they are perfect and this kind of action MUST stop.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that arguing that the left should stop using their free speech rights is doing exactly what you're condemning them for doing, right?
You misperceive, rioting is not free speech. Free speech would have been a march or peaceful gathering.
"In Somalia, killing IS negotiation." -Some Somali supporter of Farah Adid.
A federal judge has ordered a golf club owned by President Donald Trump to refund nearly $6 million to members who said Trump's team essentially confiscated refundable deposits after taking over the country club in 2012
U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that the Trump National Jupiter Golf Club violated the contracts with members by retaining the fees and locking out many members who had declared their plans to resign.
In a footnote, the judge acknowledged Donald Trump's status as the nation's chief executive. "At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Donald J. Trump was a private citizen. As a result the Court will refer to him as such in this decision. In doing so, the Court means no disrespect to him or the esteemed position he now holds," wrote Marra, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, that would be one way to appropriately protest while respecting the 1st Amendment.
But alas, that's not what happened.
And I think Milo Y. attends these college events because college student groups are inviting him and paying him to do so. They have a right to free speech. They have a right to peaceful assembly.
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
A couple things.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
infinite_array wrote: Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
Yes. But it wasn't done in peaceful manner. That's the problem.
@Infinite Array: But it was not done in a peaceful manner. And I have seen several examples of people using violence to keep people from going to these Milo events. Someone was even shot at one. If this were an isolated event, I likely would not even have commented. But a pattern is emerging.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this is not becoming mainstream in the left.
infinite_array wrote: Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
Yes. But it wasn't done in peaceful manner. That's the problem.
Jasper's comment about peaceful assembly, and my own, were in referral to Yiannopolos and his supporters, not the protesters. Or so I assume from his wording.
jasper76 wrote: @Infinite Array: But it was not done in a peaceful manner. And I have seen several examples of people using violence to keep people from going to these Milo events. Someone was even shot at one. If this were an isolated event, I likely would not even have commented. But a pattern is emerging.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this is not becoming mainstream in the left.
It's as mainstream to the left as the people who flash guns at pro-immigration protesters or shoot into crowds at BLM demonstrations are to the right.
Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.
UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."
At the same time, I'd argue that the left is better represented by the majority of students who were unhappy with how the protest went down.
Of course, this was a stupid and childish action that only plays into Yiannopoulos' narrative and to his advantage. It's likely why he continues to hold events at colleges, knowing that there's a subsection of students that will always overreact and allow him to cancel the show and play the victim.
The better way to protest his events would be to attend and to make sure everyone stays completely silent. Don't give him the reactions he wants, and let the small sections of his fans make themselves obvious by their tiny minority. Let his toxic words hang in the air, because the best way to beat these kinds of trolls is just to let them speak.
And the protest was peaceful until once again the anarchists showed up and started doing their thing
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
infinite_array wrote: Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
infinite_array wrote: Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
Yes. But it wasn't done in peaceful manner. That's the problem.
Jasper's comment about peaceful assembly, and my own, were in referral to Yiannopolos and his supporters, not the protesters. Or so I assume from his wording.
jasper76 wrote: @Infinite Array: But it was not done in a peaceful manner. And I have seen several examples of people using violence to keep people from going to these Milo events. Someone was even shot at one. If this were an isolated event, I likely would not even have commented. But a pattern is emerging.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this is not becoming mainstream in the left.
It's as mainstream to the left as the people who flash guns at pro-immigration protesters or shoot into crowds at BLM demonstrations are to the right.
I've not seen where protesters shot up BLM demonstrations. Can you reference?
I took the time to contact Senator Inhofe and Senator Lankford this morning to give them my input on a couple of nominations (No on Devos, Yes on Shulkin and Gorsuch). I'll see if I get a response from them.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
Well in some ways I could understand getting annoyed with Australia, we all know he doesn't want Refugees and wants to change things, so he would get up set at having to honour a previous deal. If you read into it, it makes Australia look bad too, they have 1,250 Refugees they don't want and are trading them to another nation like bargaining chips. Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement, as Australia is a huge and very wealthy country with a relatively small population. I don't know the reasons behind this deal but it looks like a case of pass-the-refugee-parcel no one wants. The problem is people and also Trump himself forget his was never a politician, he seeks to run the USA like his business which could be a good thing, but speaking to foreign leaders in such a way could be quite bad. As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
Whilst there are nuggets of truth in your statement, to be sure. It's not the message, but the messenger. The problem with his "feth you" approach to, well, everything, is that it's a recipe for the undermining of diplomatic relationships and alliances that have taken, in some cases, centuries to build and in other cases, are day-to-day and fragile at best. Ever lose a friend? Of course, we all have and it's amazing how years and years of trust, kinship, etc. can just go "poof" overnight. The potential for that on a global scale, is frightening.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.
UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."
At the same time, I'd argue that the left is better represented by the majority of students who were unhappy with how the protest went down.
Of course, this was a stupid and childish action that only plays into Yiannopoulos' narrative and to his advantage. It's likely why he continues to hold events at colleges, knowing that there's a subsection of students that will always overreact and allow him to cancel the show and play the victim.
The better way to protest his events would be to attend and to make sure everyone stays completely silent. Don't give him the reactions he wants, and let the small sections of his fans make themselves obvious by their tiny minority. Let his toxic words hang in the air, because the best way to beat these kinds of trolls is just to let them speak.
And the protest was peaceful until once again the anarchists showed up and started doing their thing
Yes, that's the eternal problem with protests. You get three sorts of people: those that generally believe in the cause, 2) those not quite sure but feel its the right thing to do, 3) those that use a protest to protest aggressively because they can and enjoy doing so. One way or another Trump won't care, even bad publicity is publicity for him, that's one reason he won the election, he controlled the media coverage from himself and didn't always have to pay people for it.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
infinite_array wrote: Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
As d-usa said, you're saying that the protesters should have assaulted the rioters? The one who apparently had molotovs and other incendiary devices?
And looking at California's constituion, I can't find a section that applies to Yannopoulos' event. No law was passed to stop him from speaking, and Berkeley isn't a publisher or a station.
Sentinel1 wrote: that's one reason he won the election, he controlled the media coverage from himself and didn't always have to pay people for it.
Nah he did squat do. Clinton failed to energize her followers.
There was no energy in Clinton from the start it was like a reality tv show with the script already rehearsed, that and Bill Clinton in the background put people off.
Thanks. What an asshat. The first thing they teach you is call the PoPo (and stay if can or move to a nearby safe location and stay until PoPo arrive).
Especially as it was a protest...at a police station.
Sentinel1 wrote: that's one reason he won the election, he controlled the media coverage from himself and didn't always have to pay people for it.
Nah he did squat do. Clinton failed to energize her followers.
The Clinton failing, a big "yes". But you can't understate Trump's manipulation and domination of the media's coverage which sucked all the air out of the GOP Primaries. The smart, rational voices in that group were never heard, hence we find ourselves with President Dumbfeth.
OgreChubbs wrote: Ah yes a typical college raction from kids. I disagree with you and do not have a valid reason so I break stuff. My 3 year old use to do that aswell.
If this behavior is typical, and if I should expect adult college students to act like 3 year olds, maybe I need to move even deeper into the woods.
Yeah, the source who posted the video ito youtube is certainly biased. It's just the video that popped up during a search that wasn't just a CNN report with theAnderson Cooper (which it ultimately turned into anyways)
In any case look past the title. I think the images speak for themselves.
BigWaaagh wrote: Just in case there was any inkling left as to what an economy-size donkey-cave Trump is. I mean, really!? Who the feth gets "hostile" towards Australia?
People actually voted for, actively chose and desired, this guy for President of the United States, and think this is how responsible and effective government should be run...way to step up to the job bub, get in a stupid phone-rant and twitter fight with one of America's closest allies over a intentionally misconstrued and almost irrelevant number of refugees to score brownie points in the echo chamber...
There are no words.
Would love to be the fly on the wall during that conversation...
Regarding Drumpf's 'invade mexico' ordeal:
Aclaración de la #SRE a nota @DoliaEstevez @AristeguiOnline @ProyectoPuente pic.twitter.com/f1EhtFTqYd
— SRE México (@SRE_mx) February 1, 2017
Mexico's State Department says that .@potus did not threaten to send US military to Mexico during call with @epn, despite news reports https://t.co/rs3jbbyrdp
— Salvador Hernandez (@SalHernandez) February 1, 2017
CNN: @POTUS said: "You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league"
— Rodrigo (@RodrigoEBR) February 2, 2017
So, according to @CNN, @AP and @DoliaEstevez were quoting a readout. @CNN is reporting the actual transcript
jasper76 wrote: In case anyone is interested in a visual of what we've been discussing:
Oh dear, its a case of lets smash everything to fix what we see as wrong! I bet in years to come they will feel ashamed of their actions, if there is any irony perhaps some of them couldn't even be bothered to vote at the time.
Something else that's ironic...I would never even have heard of Milo Y. or become exposed to his ideas if the protesters were not so outrageous. They have become his best advertisers.
MrDwhitey wrote: He's very good at what he does, provoking idiots to act like idiots and milking the attention.
There have always been people like him floating around all sides of he political spectrum. He's a provocateur. Nothing new. He certainly does seem talented at what he does.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, that would be one way to appropriately protest while respecting the 1st Amendment.
But alas, that's not what happened.
And I think Milo Y. attends these college events because college student groups are inviting him and paying him to do so. They have a right to free speech. They have a right to peaceful assembly.
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
A couple things.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
So... where's the denouncements from the usual left/liberal crowd.
In fairness, on CNN, they're very somber about it and doesn't seem to be going out of their way to spin it... as of last night, they were 'just facts ma'am' mode...
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
MrDwhitey wrote: He's very good at what he does, provoking idiots to act like idiots and milking the attention.
There have always been people like him floating around all sides of he political spectrum. He's a provocateur. Nothing new. He certainly does seem talented at what he does.
MrDwhitey wrote: He's very good at what he does, provoking idiots to act like idiots and milking the attention.
There have always been people like him floating around all sides of he political spectrum. He's a provocateur. Nothing new. He certainly does seem talented at what he does.
He also provides a useful "But there's this guy who is gay and has sex with black men who agrees with me so I can't be homophobic or racist" person for certain groups.
Looking into his actual written thoughts on homosexuality should easily dispel any notion of "cant be homophobic", at least.
Edit: It should be noted though that I don't believe he believes a lot of what he peddles. He's in it for the money and attention, so he'll say what gets him it.
jasper76 wrote: Something else that's ironic...I would never even have heard of Milo Y. or become exposed to his ideas if the protesters were not so outrageous. They have become his best advertisers.
I know, so much for peaceful protest, I don't known why they didn't just debate it out when he arrived instead of looking like anarchists. Its also bad for U.C Berkley because it will put people off wanting to go there. In any case the damage caused to the campus will have to be paid by someone, and Trump has already hinted that if free speech isn't allowed he may cut Berkley's federal funding and any other places that try the same. It is a massive P.R disaster for the Lefties and a big 'own goal' for the students at Berkley.
@MrDwhitey: Yes, I find his views on homosexuals, particularly lesbians, to be very cartoonish. And I think they're expressed more for attention than conviction.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
The rights to free speech and peaceful assembly from the US Constitution is incorporated (ie, applied) to the states.
Cool. So, point out the part where it says that a public university can't cancel a speaker's presentation, or people can't protest in order to have a speaker's events cancelled.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, I find his views of homosexuals, particularly lesbians, to be very cartoonish.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
You know, when he was just a Breitbart stooge, I rolled with the drivel that spewed from his mouth. Now that he's become a top aide and worked his way onto the National Security Council, these words of his haunt me. They should scare the gak out of everyone. Fascism 101, distract the population with a boogey man and war makes for great ratings.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
The rights to free speech and peaceful assembly from the US Constitution is incorporated (ie, applied) to the states.
Cool. So, point out the part where it says that a public university can't cancel a speaker's presentation, or people can't protest in order to have a speaker's events cancelled.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, that would be one way to appropriately protest while respecting the 1st Amendment.
But alas, that's not what happened.
And I think Milo Y. attends these college events because college student groups are inviting him and paying him to do so. They have a right to free speech. They have a right to peaceful assembly.
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
I would posit that perhaps people shouldn't assume that Oakland hoodlums rolling over to Berkely shouldn't be taken as representative of "the left" as a whole, much like Milo shouldn't be taken as representative of "the right" as a whole. This is part of the problem with politics today, taking the most extreme elements and casting that as the whole of "the other side".
Lets also not forget that Milo is basically a professional troll who puts a lot of effort into generating exactly this kind of reaction, much like Michael Strickland who ran "Laughing at Liberals" did when he got himself into trouble. You put the most extreme elements of both sides in a highly polarized environment and you're going to get something awkward.
OgreChubbs wrote: Ah yes a typical college raction from kids. I disagree with you and do not have a valid reason so I break stuff. My 3 year old use to do that aswell.
Hrm, no, Milo has been to dozens of campuses with zero issue. Casting this as "typical college kids" has zero basis in reality. What this is is a typical example of what happens when you put some of the most extreme elements from both sides together in an environment practically tailor made for a confrontation.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
Still does nothing to excuse the riots, nor the violation of the rights of the students who paid to see him to free speech and peaceful assembly.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with this in regards to the rioting. The students who paid should be refunded with an apology. The university isn't required to give him a platform however, but I would find it a scummy move had they cancelled it themselves without a riot as a reason.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
The rights to free speech and peaceful assembly from the US Constitution is incorporated (ie, applied) to the states.
Cool. So, point out the part where it says that a public university can't cancel a speaker's presentation, or people can't protest in order to have a speaker's events cancelled.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress
I was pointing out that isn't correct... especially since this is a PUBLIC university.
Furthermore, they can't simply cancel it because of what he's going to say... the college republicans invited Milo to the campus and even paid for extra security for this speech.
The University has to be careful here and I'm sure their justification will be because they believe it's a safety issue, not because some snowflake's fee-fees might get schlonged. But, the optics is really bad.
The danger here is that this riot is a form of a heckler's veto... and that's should be anathema to a public university.
These are the kinds of things that get Trumpesto elected.
These are the kinds of things that'll ostracize the left/liberals, alienates the moderate libs/democrats, turns off the indies and rallies everyone on the right side of the center.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
Still does nothing to excuse the riots, nor the violation of the rights of the students who paid to see him to free speech and peaceful assembly.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with this in regards to the rioting. The students who paid should be refunded with an apology. The university isn't required to give him a platform however, but I would find it a scummy move had they cancelled it themselves without a riot as a reason.
Unless I missed something, the only reason the show was cancelled was for safety due to the riots. UC Berkeley did not cancel the show for political reasons.
(I'm not suggesting you are implying otherwise, but others on the thread seem to be asserting that UC Berkeley cancelled the show because they disagreed with the speakers views, which I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this was the case. IME, the university did nothing wrong here.)
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress. If private citizens, organizations, or corporations don't want to listen, then they have the right to cancel speakers as they wish. Had this been done in a more peaceful manner, then there wouldn't have been as much controversy.
The rights to free speech and peaceful assembly from the US Constitution is incorporated (ie, applied) to the states.
Cool. So, point out the part where it says that a public university can't cancel a speaker's presentation, or people can't protest in order to have a speaker's events cancelled.
Second, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly only apply to laws made by Congress
I was pointing out that isn't correct... especially since this is a PUBLIC university.
Furthermore, they can't simply cancel it because of what he's going to say... the college republicans invited Milo to the campus and even paid for extra security for this speech.
The University has to be careful here and I'm sure their justification will be because they believe it's a safety issue, not because some snowflake's fee-fees might get schlonged. But, the optics is really bad.
The danger here is that this riot is a form of a heckler's veto... and that's should be anathema to a public university.
These are the kinds of things that get Trumpesto elected.
These are the kinds of things that'll ostracize the left/liberals, alienates the moderate libs/democrats, turns off the indies and rallies everyone on the right side of the center.
I'm not moving the goal posts at all. I'm not even sure why I'm responding, as you seemingly haven't bothered reading anything else I've written regarding the Berkeley protest, and have instead homed in on one technical detail where I wasn't entirely correct.
In other news, it's Black History Month! Or as we'll now call it, Trump Complains About His Own Problems Month:
Cheeto Benito wrote:Well the election, it came out really well. Next time we’ll triple the number (of black votes) or quadruple it. We want to get it over 51, right. At least 51.
Well, this is Black History Month, so this is our little breakfast, our little get-together. And just a few notes. During this month, we honour the tremendous history of the African-Americans throughout our country. Throughout the world, if you really think about it, right. And their story is one of unimaginable sacrifice, hard work, and faith in America. I’ve gotten a real glimpse during the campaign; I’d go around with Ben to a lot of places that I wasn’t so familiar with. They’re incredible people. And I want to thank Ben Carson, who’s going to be heading up HUD (Housing and Urban Development), and it’s a big job, and it’s a job that’s not only housing, it’s mind and spirit, right? And you understand that. Nobody’s going to be better than Ben.
Last month we celebrated the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office. And it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favourite things — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. And we have other. But they said the statue, the bust, of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. It’s very unfortunate.
I am very proud now that we have a museum, National Mall, where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Doug — Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact. I’m proud to honour this heritage and will be honouring it more and more.
Folks at the table, in almost all cases, have been great friends and supporters. And Darrell, I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance, right. And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community; he’s all by himself. Seven people and Paris. I’ll take Paris over the seven. But I don’t watch CNN, so I don’t get to see you as much. I don’t like watching fake news. But Fox has treated me very nice, wherever Fox is, thank you. We’re going to need better schools, and we need ‘em soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages, a lot better wages. We’re going to work very hard on the inner city. Ben’s going to be doing that, big league, that’s one of his big things that we’re going to be looking at. We need safer communities and we’re going to do that with law enforcement. We’re going to make it safe. We’re going to make it much better than it is right now. Right now it’s terrible.
I saw you talking about it the other night, Paris, on something else that was really — you did a fantastic job the other night on a very unrelated show. I’m ready to do my part, and I will say this, we’re going to work together. This is a great group, this is a group that’s been so special to me, you really helped me a lot. If you remember, I wasn’t going to do well with the African-American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting, I won’t go into details, but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who had run in the past years. And now we’re going to take that to new levels. I want to thank my television star over here — Omarosa’s actually a very nice person. Nobody knows that. I don’t want to destroy her reputation. She is a very good person and she’s been helpful right from the beginning with the campaign and I appreciate it, I really do. Very special. So I want to thank everybody for being here.[/quote
Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
Vash108 wrote: Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
Still does nothing to excuse the riots, nor the violation of the rights of the students who paid to see him to free speech and peaceful assembly.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with this in regards to the rioting. The students who paid should be refunded with an apology. The university isn't required to give him a platform however, but I would find it a scummy move had they cancelled it themselves without a riot as a reason.
Unless I missed something, the only reason the show was cancelled was for safety due to the riots. UC Berkeley did not cancel the show for political reasons.
(I'm not suggesting you are implying otherwise, but others on the thread seem to be asserting that UC Berkeley cancelled the show because they disagreed with the speakers views, which I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this was the case. IME, the university did nothing wrong here.)
I solemnly hope this is as far an escalation as such an event goes. I am deeply worried that another 'Berkeley' could happen elsewhere, only next time someone starts shooting Trump supporters, then all hell would break loose. if anything the events at Berkeley will put off any other Universities to host debate topics or public speakers in case such a riot happens again, sadly this could spell the end of student debates without fear of violence at the minute.
Vash108 wrote: Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
Vash108 wrote: Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
Still does nothing to excuse the riots, nor the violation of the rights of the students who paid to see him to free speech and peaceful assembly.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with this in regards to the rioting. The students who paid should be refunded with an apology. The university isn't required to give him a platform however, but I would find it a scummy move had they cancelled it themselves without a riot as a reason.
Unless I missed something, the only reason the show was cancelled was for safety due to the riots. UC Berkeley did not cancel the show for political reasons.
(I'm not suggesting you are implying otherwise, but others on the thread seem to be asserting that UC Berkeley cancelled the show because they disagreed with the speakers views, which I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this was the case. IME, the university did nothing wrong here.)
I solemnly hope this is as far an escalation as such an event goes. I am deeply worried that another 'Berkeley' could happen elsewhere, only next time someone starts shooting Trump supporters, then all hell would break loose. if anything the events at Berkeley will put off any other Universities to host debate topics or public speakers in case such a riot happens again, sadly this could spell the end of student debates without fear of violence at the minute.
Very good point. These type of events have a chilling effect that is antithetical to the liberal values of free speech and the right to peaceful assembly. Very worrisome to me, as well. And you don't have to wait for someone to open fire at a Milo event...it's already happened.
Because he's a sociopath who's willing to act as a token minority in return for fame and money.
Still does nothing to excuse the riots, nor the violation of the rights of the students who paid to see him to free speech and peaceful assembly.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with this in regards to the rioting. The students who paid should be refunded with an apology. The university isn't required to give him a platform however, but I would find it a scummy move had they cancelled it themselves without a riot as a reason.
Unless I missed something, the only reason the show was cancelled was for safety due to the riots. UC Berkeley did not cancel the show for political reasons.
(I'm not suggesting you are implying otherwise, but others on the thread seem to be asserting that UC Berkeley cancelled the show because they disagreed with the speakers views, which I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this was the case. IME, the university did nothing wrong here.)
I solemnly hope this is as far an escalation as such an event goes. I am deeply worried that another 'Berkeley' could happen elsewhere, only next time someone starts shooting Trump supporters, then all hell would break loose. if anything the events at Berkeley will put off any other Universities to host debate topics or public speakers in case such a riot happens again, sadly this could spell the end of student debates without fear of violence at the minute.
Methinks we're being a bit exaggerative here. Berkeley is a microcosm unto itself in the world of politics, and what happened here largely people coming over from Oakland to start trouble just because the opportunity existed. That said, it should also be recognized that the speaker in this instance in many ways seeks exactly this kind of reaction, which is why the actual Berkeley students giving responses were displeased with what went down.
Thus far, as far as I'm can recall, the only guns pulled at a protest in recent memory that wasn't from a police officer was the Michael Strickland affair and a protestor being shot after a street rival recognized him.
jasper76 wrote: And you don't have to wait for someone to open fire at a Milo event...it's already happened.
Vash108 wrote: Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
MrDwhitey wrote: He's very good at what he does, provoking idiots to act like idiots and milking the attention.
However, the left wing guys are idiots too.
I don't see where I said they weren't. In fact, given his provoking is expressly tailored for triggering extreme left elements, I would think I said the opposite.
Vash108 wrote: Trump re-upped his pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment this morning at a prayer breakfast.
So it begins, separation of church and state is under attack.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, that would be one way to appropriately protest while respecting the 1st Amendment.
But alas, that's not what happened.
And I think Milo Y. attends these college events because college student groups are inviting him and paying him to do so. They have a right to free speech. They have a right to peaceful assembly.
The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
I would posit that perhaps people shouldn't assume that Oakland hoodlums rolling over to Berkely shouldn't be taken as representative of "the left" as a whole, much like Milo shouldn't be taken as representative of "the right" as a whole. This is part of the problem with politics today, taking the most extreme elements and casting that as the whole of "the other side".
Lets also not forget that Milo is basically a professional troll who puts a lot of effort into generating exactly this kind of reaction, much like Michael Strickland who ran "Laughing at Liberals" did when he got himself into trouble. You put the most extreme elements of both sides in a highly polarized environment and you're going to get something awkward.
OgreChubbs wrote: Ah yes a typical college raction from kids. I disagree with you and do not have a valid reason so I break stuff. My 3 year old use to do that aswell.
Hrm, no, Milo has been to dozens of campuses with zero issue. Casting this as "typical college kids" has zero basis in reality. What this is is a typical example of what happens when you put some of the most extreme elements from both sides together in an environment practically tailor made for a confrontation.
On IHE it is being reported that the violent protesters are actually a violent nonBerkeley Oakland group.
Sentinel1 wrote: Well in some ways I could understand getting annoyed with Australia, we all know he doesn't want Refugees and wants to change things, so he would get up set at having to honour a previous deal. If you read into it, it makes Australia look bad too, they have 1,250 Refugees they don't want and are trading them to another nation like bargaining chips. Certainly from Trumps point of view I don't see why he should honour the agreement, as Australia is a huge and very wealthy country with a relatively small population. I don't know the reasons behind this deal but it looks like a case of pass-the-refugee-parcel no one wants.
feth it, I'll explain it a third time. You are right that Trump has reasons to drop out of this deal. But it isn't the buck passing you say (as both Australian and the US have refugee intake commitments, and so this doesn't impact the total number of refugees either country will admit in 2017). But the deal being made late in the Obama presidency, and the fact that it does nothing to substantiate Australia's supposed position that allowing them in to Australia provides an economic motivation for dangerous boat journeys (as ending up settled in the US is as good as settling in Australia).
The issue is Trump's incompetence and personality defects in blowing this thing up. He could have just walked the deal back, renegotiated it until it was nothing. Instead he has Sean Spicer give a press conference confirming the deal, then later that day he sends his staffers out ringing journalists to walk that statement back, then the next day he shouts at the leader of a close ally on the phone.
It makes me worry for when Trump will face an actual difficult issue.
The problem is people and also Trump himself forget his was never a politician, he seeks to run the USA like his business which could be a good thing, but speaking to foreign leaders in such a way could be quite bad.
I don't get this idea that you should run government like a business. I think most people would recognise that a teacher who wanted to run their classroom like a business was off their meds, and certain to fail. Because people know a classroom isn't a business.
Government also isn't a business. It has different a purpose, different rules, and very different powers.
As he said, he is putting America first, so hopefully that should mean no foreign appeasement for a change.
It never ceases to amaze that so many people in so many countries are absolutely certain that their politicians are putting other countries ahead of their own. How is this even possible, for every single country to simultaneously get the wrong end of the stick?
In reality, politics is about deal making, and that goes double for international politics. You don't always get everything you want, but neither does the other side. But this reality is seen through an all too common mindset that only ever looks for the bad in any deal, and so concludes that every deal must be a screw over for their own country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Well I don't know what they were talking. Point was it could be PM making something that even remotely critizes Trump.
Could also have been "don't build the wall" or "reconsider your stance on enviroment protection" or "don't tighten work imigration rules" or "could you consider toning down tone in your twitter tweets" or "too bad your inauguration crowd was so small". Trump feels it's critique at him and he can slash out at will.
No, it was about the refugee deal. First up, Trump moved strongly against the deal yesterday, and then had his call with Turnbull. The idea that any heated words were about something else is hearing hooves and decided it might not be a horse, it might not even be a zebra, but a whole new species of hooved cat.
Also, world leaders don't call other world leaders to lecture them about their domestic policies, all that would do is cause friction, and it certainly wouldn't change the policy.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.
But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You identified this story first - days before British media outlets. Everybody else is just catching up.
Thanks, but seriously I'm not all that. I just went with what came from people who knew Trump, former business partners, biographers (both unauthorised and ghost writers for his various books). They all treated him with something pretty close to absolute contempt, especially in regards to his business nous.
Violent protest is bad, but make sure you have your guns handy in case we need to overthrow the government of the US when it becomes tyrannical.
Anyway, authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere from the left and the right. These are strange times indeed. I am still wondering what is the best way to combat it no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from. What is a moderate to do?
I am honestly not sure anymore. We had plenty of talk and facts in the 20's and 30's leading to Fascism and Communism. We had had plenty of talk and facts leading up to the current rise of authoritarianism and populism. I am honestly not sure if discourse works anymore.
Well he did say he was going to kill their families so it is no surprise that he wasted American lives killing terrorists families
Evidently the terrorist murderers were shooting from a building. Air cupport was called in and hit the building. The building had their families in it as well.
Ancient Budha say, don't bring your family's to a terrorist camp?
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.
But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.
But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.
In their defense getting in the way of a molotov cocktail is bad. I wouldn't were a cop I'd open up on him in self defense. If I am a peaceful protester I am getting away from him as he's less lazy than a guy with a flamethrower and is eventually going to throw that thing or drop it.
In other news, Trump just lost another lawsuit. He bought a gold course for song, just $6 million. The catch was that the club came with $50m owed to members who wanted their refundable memberships returned to them. Trump's management team told these members that they could only get their refund when a replacement member had been found, and in the meantime they were no longer allowed to use the club, and had to keep paying membership fees.
In a move that will surprise no-one on any planet, the court ruled that denying members access to their club was denying them their membership. The plaintiffs won $6m. The whole con was still a winner for Trump, because most people don't actually like dragging things through the courts for five years, they either accepted their restored memberships, or just walked off years ago forfeiting their deposits.
This is how Trump operates as a businessman - he acts so obnoxiously that people and companies will cut their losses just to be rid of him.
sebster wrote: In other news, Trump just lost another lawsuit. He bought a gold course for song, just $6 million. The catch was that the club came with $50m owed to members who wanted their refundable memberships returned to them. Trump's management team told these members that they could only get their refund when a replacement member had been found, and in the meantime they were no longer allowed to use the club, and had to keep paying membership fees.
In a move that will surprise no-one on any planet, the court ruled that denying members access to their club was denying them their membership. The plaintiffs won $6m. The whole con was still a winner for Trump, because most people don't actually like dragging things through the courts for five years, they either accepted their restored memberships, or just walked off years ago forfeiting their deposits.
This is how Trump operates as a businessman - he acts so obnoxiously that people and companies will cut their losses just to be rid of him.
And 60m of you just voted him in as president.
Pretty sure there are many stories like this for his hotels.
Going back to Trumps wall here is an interesting article about El Paso and how it is really helping the border controls, a drop from 10,000 to 500 crossings a day seems pretty successful. I hypothesize that most doubters don't have Mexico on their doorstep. What I didn't know was that El Paso has had fencing for over 25 years, so its not a new concept, its just fallen from grace because of Trump. Your thoughts?
Sentinel1 wrote: No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.
Okay, this is a complex issue so I'll just give a quick run down.
Over the last thirty odd years a lot of people have attempted to reach Australia by boat. A lot of them have drowned. The most common attempt is to go from Indonesia to Christmas island, and they mostly use derelict fishing boats to make the journey. Go look at google maps to see where Christmas Island is to get an idea of how crazy dangerous that boat journey is.
So we've tried a lot of stuff to get people taking that trip. The biggest thing has been mandatory offshore detention - ie sitting on a shithole pacific island for years, being told that even if you are confirmed as a refugee it won't be in Australia. That's why we cut deals to get other countries to take people from these islands.
There's a whole lot of other complicating factors, though. For one, it's debatable whether the offshore detention works - it seems to have dropped refugee numbers but its hard to tell for sure, and it's possible that most good work was actually done by getting Indonesia to police human tracking moving through their country. But more than that, life in these offshore camps is really ugly. As in beatings, rapes, suicides, people sewing their mouths shut, all kinds of stuff like that. Just awful.
But also awful was the images of one boat that run up on the cliffs of Christmas Island, complete with dead bodies in the water. So feth if I know how to solve this. We've been trying to solve the issue for more than 20 years, and have gotten absolutely nowhere.
Sentinel1 wrote: Going back to Trumps wall here is an interesting article about El Paso and how it is really helping the border controls, a drop from 10,000 to 500 crossings a day seems pretty successful. I hypothesize that most doubters don't have Mexico on their doorstep. What I didn't know was that El Paso has had fencing for over 25 years, so its not a new concept, its just fallen from grace because of Trump. Your thoughts?
“It is a big deterrent, it is effective ... It gives us that deterrence ... (so) we can be more effective.” Border Patrol Agent Martin Wilson.
So the wall's been around for 25 years, but apparently wasn't much of a deterrence until 2007-2009... when the recession hit and made the US a less attractive place for immigrants to make their money.
thekingofkings wrote: The south Vietnamese were willing, but not able to fight, they deserved a chance.
The issue wasn't will but a lack of ability, the issue was that the government was a thuggish kleptocracy that undermined its own army to line its pockets. There was no reason to defend that government, except that the US had their silly geo-political domino theory.
Mind you, at the time of the Korean war South Korea also had a thuggish kleptocracy that undermined its own army to line its pockets... and after the US led force there won, South Korea somehow became a stable and prosperous democracy. So things are a bit complicated
Where I might concede that the second Iraq war was dubious, the first certainly was not,. Liberating Kuwait is likely one of the best things we have done in the last 100 years.
I do agree that the US has a strong record of picking good, and necessary fights. It's telling that the US seems to be criticised both for its reluctance in entering in to wars, and for entering them. Yugoslavia is the classic example - the US was bagged for delaying their response, and now they're bagged for responding at all. Y'all can't win.
But all that said.. dude, you might concede the second Iraq was dubious? There's no clearer example of a foreign policy blunder than Iraq II.
Sentinel1 wrote: Going back to Trumps wall here is an interesting article about El Paso and how it is really helping the border controls, a drop from 10,000 to 500 crossings a day seems pretty successful. I hypothesize that most doubters don't have Mexico on their doorstep. What I didn't know was that El Paso has had fencing for over 25 years, so its not a new concept, its just fallen from grace because of Trump. Your thoughts?
“It is a big deterrent, it is effective ... It gives us that deterrence ... (so) we can be more effective.” Border Patrol Agent Martin Wilson.
So the wall's been around for 25 years, but apparently wasn't much of a deterrence until 2007-2009... when the recession hit and made the US a less attractive place for immigrants to make their money.
So if Trump destroys the economy, he can claim victory on immigration?
jasper76 wrote: The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.
You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.
But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.
In their defense getting in the way of a molotov cocktail is bad. I wouldn't were a cop I'd open up on him in self defense. If I am a peaceful protester I am getting away from him as he's less lazy than a guy with a flamethrower and is eventually going to throw that thing or drop it.
I think we can agree that the only logical response as a left/right peaceful protester to a left/right violent protester with a firebomb is simply "feth this gak, I'm out"
“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”
Sentinel1 wrote: Going back to Trumps wall here is an interesting article about El Paso and how it is really helping the border controls, a drop from 10,000 to 500 crossings a day seems pretty successful. I hypothesize that most doubters don't have Mexico on their doorstep. What I didn't know was that El Paso has had fencing for over 25 years, so its not a new concept, its just fallen from grace because of Trump. Your thoughts?
“It is a big deterrent, it is effective ... It gives us that deterrence ... (so) we can be more effective.” Border Patrol Agent Martin Wilson.
So the wall's been around for 25 years, but apparently wasn't much of a deterrence until 2007-2009... when the recession hit and made the US a less attractive place for immigrants to make their money.
So if Trump destroys the economy, he can claim victory on immigration?
Either that, or have Puzder reduced the working wage of Americans to a point where Mexico has the better deal.
jasper76 wrote: The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.
You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.
This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.
If the right would stop focusing on posting on an international forum for plastic toys then maybe they could actually run the country!
Sentinel1 wrote: No you completely missed my point, I am not disagreeing that the USA shouldn't honour agreements, I was questioning the morality of the deal in the first place. Here are 1,250 who landed in Australia seeking refuge there, the Ausies don't want them so make a deal with Obama to get rid of them. Is it not wrong for Australia to treat them in this way? Surely said deal makes them as bad as Trump on such matters. Regarding honouring the agreement, many politicians when coming to power scrap or U-turn policies they have never agreed with. Whether Trump can force this one through, I don't know.
Okay, this is a complex issue so I'll just give a quick run down.
Over the last thirty odd years a lot of people have attempted to reach Australia by boat. A lot of them have drowned. The most common attempt is to go from Indonesia to Christmas island, and they mostly use derelict fishing boats to make the journey. Go look at google maps to see where Christmas Island is to get an idea of how crazy dangerous that boat journey is.
So we've tried a lot of stuff to get people taking that trip. The biggest thing has been mandatory offshore detention - ie sitting on a shithole pacific island for years, being told that even if you are confirmed as a refugee it won't be in Australia. That's why we cut deals to get other countries to take people from these islands.
There's a whole lot of other complicating factors, though. For one, it's debatable whether the offshore detention works - it seems to have dropped refugee numbers but its hard to tell for sure, and it's possible that most good work was actually done by getting Indonesia to police human tracking moving through their country. But more than that, life in these offshore camps is really ugly. As in beatings, rapes, suicides, people sewing their mouths shut, all kinds of stuff like that. Just awful.
But also awful was the images of one boat that run up on the cliffs of Christmas Island, complete with dead bodies in the water. So feth if I know how to solve this. We've been trying to solve the issue for more than 20 years, and have gotten absolutely nowhere.
I don't want to sound evil, but I think your country has the right idea. Once you open your doors, they come en masse and the human traffickers reap the rewards. I don't think its fair on the immigrants to be portioned off to whoever will take them. As for traveling by little boats, that is their own choice. Life in Indonesia and surrounding islands isn't as bad as say a warzone so I don't sympathise for their actions. What the Australian Navy should do is process them on the island and then send them straight back to mainland Indonesia or where ever they came from. If say said person is from an obscure place it would make sense to keep them until you have a group to take. I know you would have to overcome international law etc but it is the only solution I see. Some may point out it wouldn't work because they don't have a passport to return to their home nation. Couldn't the Australian government create temporary Aussie passports, do paperwork for return visas and then confiscate passports after arrival?
Sorry for leading this off-shore on this topic but I am curious.
“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”
Really? Would we keep their oil too?
I mean, both sides have tried playing the conversation off as "lighthearted," but if Trump can't get through an entire phone conversation with on of America's closer relations without getting mad and hanging up halfway, I can't see him getting along with someone who's leading the country blamed for a large chunk of American's woes, and expected to pay for Trump's vanity project.
First, I would love to see a world where the freedom of movement is only constrained by individual desire and one’s own resources and health. It would mean that the world has moved beyond the desire to do each other harm or to seek enriching one’s self at the expense of others. But we are not there yet and I believe that every nation, just as every individual, has the right to choose who can enter their country (home), even when there are seemingly humanitarian reasons to grant entry (thinking of the lifeboat analogy).
As a large and prosperous nation, the US has a huge capacity to accept a sizeable number of refugees and immigrants. Just how many and where they should be settled is debatable, as is the states’ and taxpayer’s interest and obligation to support their transition, and the refugees and immigrants obligations to assimilate and integrate into US society. Given the disagreement on all of the above it is not surprising the swings in policy and action we are seeing.
So that said, with regard to the Australian refugee deal, from what I have read so far, it seems that the Australian PM committed to and is attempting to follow through on an immigration policy similar to Trump’s while attempting to address the long running criticism of Australia’s own handling of immigrants and refugees, and found in the Obama administration a party that would be willing to help him achieve his political goals. Consequently, I am having a hard time understanding why Australia doesn’t take in the refugees and instead wants to send them to the US? Is it because the Australian PM does want to seem to be back tracking, or doesn't want to encourage a new wave of refugees and asylam seekers (in the same way that Obama's dreamer's act seemed to encourage a surge in unaccompanied immigrant minors?), or are there legimate logistical issues?
It sounds like that part of the dust up is that Australia tried to get clarification on the implementation of the deal and how Trump's EO was going to impact it and Trump and his key advisors possibly not being as aware of the existing deal expressed their frustration accordingly since implementation before the 90 review is complete would violate Trump's EO, hence the "frank" discussion between the two. But there still seems to be a root cause issue, particularly in Australia, that is not being addressed. The whole thing seems to smack of passing the buck at the expense of the refugees.
jasper76 wrote: I sincerely hope you are correct that this is not becoming mainstream in the left.
This kind of thing is never mainstream. Outside of college kids and a tiny number of ideological nuisances, most people just have better things to do with their time. Protesting for most begins and ends with a mass rally, and some boring ass speeches that most of the crowd can't even hear. Stuff like property damage and confrontations with police has always been the work of a tiny few, and most of them are probably more attracted to the idea of getting a social justification for their destructive tendencies than any actual ideological commitment.
Stupid college kids getting boisterous is as old a thing as there is. It doesn't reflect on the greater left wing.
I mean, I've been saying for a while to watch for radicalistion on the left, because it is coming. But it isn't in stuff like this.
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
What if Trump's wall was not to prevent Mexican from entering? What if it was actually about preventing US citizens from leaving after he turned the US into an awful dictatorship?
It still won't work.
Well, it might, if you build it 100ft into the ground, extend it 2-3 miles out to see, make it 300ft high and post an armed guard every 100ft. But people would still find other ways around it (like VISA overstays, bribery, smugglers, defection, and so on).
You could do some amazing projects with the money which might actually solve the problem, but a wall is just a total waste of time unless you cease all interaction with Mexico and shoot anyone that goes anywhere near it.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
You were this indignant when anti-Trump protesters were actually physically assaulted and beaten on several occasions at Trump rallies during the election, right? And the POTUS actually called for a return to the "old days" when you could punch someone in the face. I don't remember.
First, I would love to see a world where the freedom of movement is only constrained by individual desire and one’s own resources and health. It would mean that the world has moved beyond the desire to do each other harm or to seek enriching one’s self at the expense of others. But we are not there yet and I believe that every nation, just as every individual, has the right to choose who can enter their country (home), even when there are seemingly humanitarian reasons to grant entry (thinking of the lifeboat analogy).
As a large and prosperous nation, the US has a huge capacity to accept a sizeable number of refugees and immigrants. Just how many and where they should be settled is debatable, as is the states’ and taxpayer’s interest and obligation to support their transition, and the refugees and immigrants obligations to assimilate and integrate into US society. Given the disagreement on all of the above it is not surprising the swings in policy and action we are seeing.
So that said, with regard to the Australian refugee deal, from what I have read so far, it seems that the Australian PM committed to and is attempting to follow through on an immigration policy similar to Trump’s while attempting to address the long running criticism of Australia’s own handling of immigrants and refugees, and found in the Obama administration a party that would be willing to help him achieve his political goals. Consequently, I am having a hard time understanding why Australia doesn’t take in the refugees and instead wants to send them to the US? Is it because the Australian PM does want to seem to be back tracking, or doesn't want to encourage a new wave of refugees and asylam seekers (in the same way that Obama's dreamer's act seemed to encourage a surge in unaccompanied immigrant minors?), or are there legimate logistical issues?
It sounds like that part of the dust up is that Australia tried to get clarification on the implementation of the deal and how Trump's EO was going to impact it and Trump and his key advisors possibly not being as aware of the existing deal expressed their frustration accordingly since implementation before the 90 review is complete would violate Trump's EO, hence the "frank" discussion between the two. But there still seems to be a root cause issue, particularly in Australia, that is not being addressed. The whole thing seems to smack of passing the buck at the expense of the refugees.
Am I missing something?
Your spot on with me, all countries should be obliged to register Refugees who enter as 'first port of call'. The problem with Australia is that none qualify as a Refugee. They are all economic migrants that Australia doesn't want. They are processed and with held from entering. The Australian government must have been jumping for joy when they job-lotted a package deal of them to the U.S.A as although it doesn't solve the problem it is 1250 less to deal with. As I have mentioned it is a pass-the-parcel policy that many European countries did with Syria Crisis. No one wants huge influxes of people, but when one country shows leniency all the others do their up most to point the flow in said countries direction. Perhaps Trump will take on a points based system like Australia. I certainly know such a scheme has been considered for post Brexit British immigration policy.
Easy E wrote: Anyway, authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere from the left and the right. These are strange times indeed. I am still wondering what is the best way to combat it no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from. What is a moderate to do?
Stay calm, continue to follow the incompetence of the Trump administration, and tell as many people as possible about as many of Trump's feth ups as possible. People have an alarming tendency to authoritarianism, but they have thankfully little time for incompetent idiots.
Hopefully the Trump disaster will turn everyone away from the extremism, they will start to realise that sensible, restrained politics is highly underrated.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
You were this indignant when anti-Trump protesters were actually physically assaulted and beaten on several occasions at Trump rallies during the election, right. I don't remember.
I was. Both sides have jack asses.
Protest peacefully all you want. But rioting and physical assaults? Unacceptable.
I think we can agree that the only logical response as a left/right peaceful protester to a left/right violent protester with a firebomb is simply "feth this gak, I'm out"
First, I would love to see a world where the freedom of movement is only constrained by individual desire and one’s own resources and health. It would mean that the world has moved beyond the desire to do each other harm or to seek enriching one’s self at the expense of others. But we are not there yet and I believe that every nation, just as every individual, has the right to choose who can enter their country (home), even when there are seemingly humanitarian reasons to grant entry (thinking of the lifeboat analogy).
As a large and prosperous nation, the US has a huge capacity to accept a sizeable number of refugees and immigrants. Just how many and where they should be settled is debatable, as is the states’ and taxpayer’s interest and obligation to support their transition, and the refugees and immigrants obligations to assimilate and integrate into US society. Given the disagreement on all of the above it is not surprising the swings in policy and action we are seeing.
So that said, with regard to the Australian refugee deal, from what I have read so far, it seems that the Australian PM committed to and is attempting to follow through on an immigration policy similar to Trump’s while attempting to address the long running criticism of Australia’s own handling of immigrants and refugees, and found in the Obama administration a party that would be willing to help him achieve his political goals. Consequently, I am having a hard time understanding why Australia doesn’t take in the refugees and instead wants to send them to the US? Is it because the Australian PM does want to seem to be back tracking, or doesn't want to encourage a new wave of refugees and asylam seekers (in the same way that Obama's dreamer's act seemed to encourage a surge in unaccompanied immigrant minors?), or are there legimate logistical issues?
It sounds like that part of the dust up is that Australia tried to get clarification on the implementation of the deal and how Trump's EO was going to impact it and Trump and his key advisors possibly not being as aware of the existing deal expressed their frustration accordingly since implementation before the 90 review is complete would violate Trump's EO, hence the "frank" discussion between the two. But there still seems to be a root cause issue, particularly in Australia, that is not being addressed. The whole thing seems to smack of passing the buck at the expense of the refugees.
Am I missing something?
You must have missed the part where we have 12mm illegal aliens here now., on top of legal refugees. We've done our bit and then some.
whembly wrote: Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:
A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017
...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.
You were this indignant when anti-Trump protesters were actually physically assaulted and beaten on several occasions at Trump rallies during the election, right. I don't remember.
I was. Both sides have jack asses.
Protest peacefully all you want. But rioting and physical assaults? Unacceptable.
Big difference being that one was a dedicated political event...Trump rally, with the POTUS there, actually instigating and verbally participating. The other is a bunch of kids rioting on a school campus, known for it's political theatre...not a dedicated, politically affiliated event...and anarchist losers, who really don't have any political affiliation but just like to act like donkey caves when the opportunity arises. So the whole "two sides" thing really is an attempt at a bit of a partisan paint job.
Sentinel1 wrote: I don't want to sound evil, but I think your country has the right idea. Once you open your doors, they come en masse and the human traffickers reap the rewards.
No-one is talking about opening the doors to let anyone in (well, outside of Merkel perhaps). Australia has a refugee quota, and if we accept a boat person then another person in a camp somewhere else doesn't get to come that year.
But you are right that accepting and processing everyone that comes here by boat means more and more arriving by boat. Not enough to swamp our quota (because it's a hell of a journey from Sri Lanka or Iran to Australia when you are travelling via human smugglers). But the more people who attempt the journey, the more who will die along the way.
I don't think its fair on the immigrants to be portioned off to whoever will take them. As for traveling by little boats, that is their own choice. Life in Indonesia and surrounding islands isn't as bad as say a warzone so I don't sympathise for their actions.
That's the kind of thing lots of people say until they actually see the bodies floating in the water. And you are wrong in thinking they could just stay in Indonesia if they want to - they are illegal aliens there and attempts to claim refugee status is simply not going to happen.
What the Australian Navy should do is process them on the island and then send them straight back to mainland Indonesia or where ever they came from. If say said person is from an obscure place it would make sense to keep them until you have a group to take.
Do you honestly think that hasn't been tried? We ask Indonesia to take refugees, they say no. We can't make them.
I know you would have to overcome international law etc but it is the only solution I see. Some may point out it wouldn't work because they don't have a passport to return to their home nation. Couldn't the Australian government create temporary Aussie passports, do paperwork for return visas and then confiscate passports after arrival?
No, a passport only has power because of the official status of the country behind it. If Australia were to create temporary, pretend passports, and have people pass through our customs just to dump them at the other end then that's it for the legitimacy of Australian passports.
And the bigger issue is that almost all people who arrive are legitimate refugees. Sending them back home is likely a death sentence.
jasper76 wrote: The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.
You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.
This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.
As I said before, if this were some isolated incident, I would likely never have brought it up. But it's part of a trend; a pattern. And the degree to which people are willing to do ju jitsu to try and dismiss these trends as insignificant is telling.
I sincerely hope you're correct, and the this type of behavior is not becoming acceptable in the mainstream of the left. Events and the responses I am seeing to them suggest otherwise, but I certainly hope you are correct.
It's also quite possible that the left is a different animal in Australia than it is in the United States.
In any case, my liberal values have not changed. I still believe in things like free speech and freedom of assembly. To the extent that the modern left does not prioritize those values, they will bleed support from those that do.
Berkeley, California (CNN)Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."
Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.
More than 1,500 protesters had gathered at Sproul Plaza, chanting and holding signs that read: "No safe space for racists" and "This is war."
The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.
As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.
Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by the Berkeley College Republicans. He has been on a college speaking tour and had planned to speak about cultural appropriation on Wednesday.
In a Facebook Live video, Yiannopoulos described what happened as "an expression of political violence."
"I'm just stunned that hundreds of people ... were so threatened by the idea that a conservative speaker might be persuasive, interesting, funny and might take some people with him, they have to shut it down at all costs."
But some protesters said the Yiannopoulos event wasn't a matter of free speech, because he espouses hate speech.
UC Berkeley said it had prepared security measures following what had happened at Yiannopoulos' previous events. One of his planned speaking engagements at UC Davis was also canceled last month in response to protests.
"Ultimately, and unfortunately, however, it was impossible to maintain order given the level of threat, disruption and organized violence," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
Most UC Berkeley students who spoke with CNN said they were relieved that Yiannopoulos wasn't able to speak, but this was not how they wanted to accomplish that goal.
One student told CNN that he didn't agree with what happened.
"It's a sad irony in the fact that the Free Speech Movement was founded here and tonight, someone's free speech got shut down. It might have been hateful speech, but it's still his right to speak," said Shivam Patel, a freshmen who stood outside of Sproul Plaza.
The Free Speech Movement started at UC Berkeley in 1964 after students protested en masse when administrators tried to restrict their political activities on campus.
Patel said he supported peaceful protests, but disagreed with the way things turned out on Wednesday.
"It allows people on the right to say, 'Look at all these liberal Berkeley snowflakes. They're intolerant of speech.' I don't think it's productive at all. It does nothing to help this country."
To be fair, the agitators came from Oakland. Even in the 90's we had problems with opportunists coming in from Oakland to take advantage of the chaos and kick some face (literally). There might be some sympathizes among the student populace (there always are), but usually the violence came first from the people who didn't have to stick around and deal with the mess. Most student protesters would prefer to be the next Mario Savio rather than the next Mumia.
jasper76 wrote: The left should seriously stop prioritizing the elimination of free speech, which is one of the most important liberal values.
Oh for feth's sake. "The left" is not defined by some college kids.
You have just picked some people acting badly, and used that define half a country. I mean seriously, you've gone from 'college kids acting like stupid college kids' to 'the left prioritizing the elimination of free speech'.
This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.
As I said before, if this were some isolated incident, I would likely never have brought it up. But it's part of a trend; a pattern. And the degree to which people are willing to do ju jitsu to try and dismiss these trends as insignificant is telling.
I sincerely hope you're correct, and the this type of behavior is not becoming acceptable in the mainstream of the left. Events and the responses I am seeing to them suggest otherwise, but I certainly hope you are correct.
It's also quite possible that the left is a different animal in Australia than it is in the United States.
In any case, my liberal values have not changed. I still believe in things like free speech and freedom of assembly. To the extent that the modern left does not prioritize those values, they will bleed support from those that do.
its only a trend in that at some of these protests you get small groups of people coming in to take advantage of the situation to cause trouble, not a larger "left" thing. Same issue in Portland, there were a handful of professional malcontents that usually hang out under the Burnside bridge use the protest as an excuse to go trash the Pearl district, the ritzy area where the iconic "smug know it all liberals", the type South Park loves to rip on, live and do their thing.
@Bob the Inquisitor: UC Berkeley certainly has asserted that those protestors came from Oakland. I'd suggest that you take that with a grain of salt...UC Berkeley has a huge PR issue to deal with because of the riots.
As it stands, I take "they were from Oakland" as something asserted rather than something proved. Most of them we masked, so I'm not sure how they were ID'd as Oakland residents.
FWIW, I am open to the concept, but I won't take it at face value since UC Berkeley has a vested interest in promoting their school as a safe environment for parents to send their kids.
First, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that "the left" is attempting to eliminate free speech when these kinds of actions are done by a minority (rioters) within a minority (protesters) within a minority (Berkeley college students) within a minority (college students). This is also in the face of actual laws coming from Republican lawmakers in several states, and threats from Trump himself, to impose harsher punishments for peaceful protesting.
Maybe that peaceful tolerant majority should have stepped up and stopped the ass hats from committing violent actions.
So the left is too violent, while at the same time not violent enough to stop the violence?
Did I call for violence? No. A line of peaceful free speech loving liberal students and faculty blocking off the rioting gak bags could have worked. Similar to the 'safety circle' they put up around one of their gatherings to keep student reporters out a while back.
But instead, they gave implicit approval by allowing the violent ass hats to deliver their message for them.
Seriously? Have you never seen nonviolent protestors smacked in the face with a padlock and then kicked in the head when they were down? That's what those Oakland guys were doing when I've seen them. There's really a limit to how much a nonviolent protestor can do to stop the violent ones.
It was the national prayer day breakfast speech or something. Trump talked as though he were in a nightclub.
He called his defence secretary mad dog, boasted about ranting at the Australian Prime Minister, and called for respect for religions!
In all my years of listening to Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama etc etc
I have NEVER heard a President give a keynote speech like that. Everybody else took the matter seriously, even if you 100% disagreed with them, or thought it was boring.
But Trump? I have never seen the office of POTUS handled like this before...
jasper76 wrote: @Bob the Inquisitor: UC Berkeley certainly has asserted that those protestors came from Oakland. I'd suggest that you take that with a grain of salt...UC Berkeley has a huge PR issue to deal with because of the riots.
As it stands, I take "they were from Oakland" as something asserted rather than something proved. Most of them we masked, so I'm not sure how they were ID'd as Oakland residents.
FWIW, I am open to the concept, but I won't take it at face value since UC Berkeley has a vested interest in promoting their school as a safe environment for parents to send their kids.
I went to Berkeley and I have lived in Oakland. There might be a few hardcore students in the populace, but I ran with the student government crowd and quite a few protestors, and the vast majority were naive and self-involved but violent they were not. They wanted the romance of standing against oppression, not actual danger and hardship. When I lived in Oakland, and even in San Francisco, I saw a surprising amount of casual violence. It was just a thing that happens every day in some places, often ten to twenty minutes' walk from the campus. Sometimes Oakland high school students and men of leisure were even bussed in to supplement the numbers on a demonstration, which always turned out to be a huge mistake. Tthe guys from Oakland had as much contempt for the students as they did for whatever they were supposed to be protesting.
On the plus side as we go forwards whenever Milo plans to speak somewhere they can just cancel it and claim a religious opposition to his homosexuality & be immune under the executive order to any punishment right ?
McCain's letter to POTUS with regards to Russ & Ukraine
Spoiler:
he also phoned Australia to.....smooth..things over
It was the national prayer day breakfast speech or something. Trump talked as though he were in a nightclub.
He called his defence secretary mad dog, boasted about ranting at the Australian Prime Minister, and called for respect for religions!
In all my years of listening to Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama etc etc
I have NEVER heard a President give a keynote speech like that. Everybody else took the matter seriously, even if you 100% disagreed with them, or thought it was boring.
But Trump? I have never seen the office of POTUS handled like this before...
God help America.
We knew what kind of speeches we were going to get when Trump went rabid and was booed at the Alfred E Smith Dinner. Look at the horrific mess that was the Black History Month breakfast speech.
I wonder if he'll speak at the Correspondents Dinner? If so, I can only imagine we'll go from Obama's jokes to Trump ranting about his win and berating the media.
It was the national prayer day breakfast speech or something. Trump talked as though he were in a nightclub.
He called his defence secretary mad dog, boasted about ranting at the Australian Prime Minister, and called for respect for religions!
In all my years of listening to Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama etc etc
I have NEVER heard a President give a keynote speech like that. Everybody else took the matter seriously, even if you 100% disagreed with them, or thought it was boring.
But Trump? I have never seen the office of POTUS handled like this before...
God help America.
We knew what kind of speeches we were going to get when Trump went rabid and was booed at the Alfred E Smith Dinner. Look at the horrific mess that was the Black History Month breakfast speech.
I wonder if he'll speak at the Correspondents Dinner? If so, I can only imagine we'll go from Obama's jokes to Trump ranting about his win and berating the media.
Trump's bashing of Schwarzenegger and the Apprentice's ratings during that speech was pathetic.
Regarding the Correspondents Dinner who do you think would possibly volunteer to MC that event? Jeff Foxworthy? Larry the Cable Guy?
What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
jasper76 wrote: @Bob the Inquisitor: UC Berkeley certainly has asserted that those protestors came from Oakland. I'd suggest that you take that with a grain of salt...UC Berkeley has a huge PR issue to deal with because of the riots.
As it stands, I take "they were from Oakland" as something asserted rather than something proved. Most of them we masked, so I'm not sure how they were ID'd as Oakland residents.
FWIW, I am open to the concept, but I won't take it at face value since UC Berkeley has a vested interest in promoting their school as a safe environment for parents to send their kids.
I went to Berkeley and I have lived in Oakland. There might be a few hardcore students in the populace, but I ran with the student government crowd and quite a few protestors, and the vast majority were naive and self-involved but violent they were not. They wanted the romance of standing against oppression, not actual danger and hardship. When I lived in Oakland, and even in San Francisco, I saw a surprising amount of casual violence. It was just a thing that happens every day in some places, often ten to twenty minutes' walk from the campus. Sometimes Oakland high school students and men of leisure were even bussed in to supplement the numbers on a demonstration, which always turned out to be a huge mistake. Tthe guys from Oakland had as much contempt for the students as they did for whatever they were supposed to be protesting.
Just out of curiosity, how long ago did you attend UC Berkeley?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: It is like having a Jr. high Jock leading our nation.
Minnesota voted in Jesse ventura for one term. Realized that non-professional politicians suck, and has never flirted with that sort of thing since.
I hope the nation learns a similar lesson.
Professional politicians haven't exactly been doing a bang up job on the federal level, to be fair. The main problems being IME:
-war after war after war
-inadequate protection of US labor
-prioritizing the well being of corporations and the very wealthy over the well being of the average citizen
These are some of the reasons Bernie was popular on the left, and Trump destroyed the GOP establishment and won the general election.
Professional wrestlers and reality TV hustlers might not be the answer, but I don't know if more of the same is either.
I hope a new center emerges from all this turmoil.
Sentinel1 wrote: What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
He's had internal revolts in the justice, state and parks departments, managed to get into multiple international spats, shown zero ability to manage and communicate his orders through the people that need to execute them, and gotten into personal twitter wars, his people have coined the term "Alternative Facts" after getting pissy over inauguration crowd woes, and thats his first couple weeks in office, on top of a lifetime record of being a scumbag.
How long are people supposed to wait until he magically becomes a different person? Like...seriously?
I really do have to credit hunters, fishers, ect here though. Someone who isn't involved may think conservationists and them would be at odds, but in reality they are some of our closest allies in the fight to keep our lands free and public for all. It's always good to see liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning groups working together for the common good.
Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
Sentinel1 wrote: What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
He's had internal revolts in the justice, state and parks departments, managed to get into multiple international spats, shown zero ability to manage and communicate his orders through the people that need to execute them, and gotten into personal twitter wars, his people have coined the term "Alternative Facts" after getting pissy over inauguration crowd woes, and thats his first couple weeks in office, on top of a lifetime record of being a scumbag.
How long are people supposed to wait until he magically becomes a different person? Like...seriously?
Sentinel1 wrote: What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
He's had internal revolts in the justice, state and parks departments, managed to get into multiple international spats, shown zero ability to manage and communicate his orders through the people that need to execute them, and gotten into personal twitter wars, his people have coined the term "Alternative Facts" after getting pissy over inauguration crowd woes, and thats his first couple weeks in office, on top of a lifetime record of being a scumbag.
How long are people supposed to wait until he magically becomes a different person? Like...seriously?
Senior US officials told the Washington Post that Donald Trump abruptly hung up on Mr Turnbull after just 25 minutes – when the pair were meant to speak for an hour.
But an indignant Mr Turnbull returned serve, telling 2GB’s Ben Fordham: ‘As far as the call is concerned, I’m very disappointed, the report the president hung up is not correct, the call ended courteously.’
...'senior US officials'???
I bet money it's Bannon, so that it's a "saving face" act in the event the Trump accepting the AU refugees.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
It may be possible that the student culture has changed. I graduated from a small liberal arts school in 1999. I still live in the general area. When I visit, the buildings look the same with a few new editions. But the student culture has definitely shifted to be much more progressive and activist than when I attended. And that was before the whole Trump thing.
Now, we have a new and generally speaking different generation in school, and let's face it, this country has never had a Donald Trump before. Now that the left has lost control of government, the stakes really are high, so I'd think it would be natural that people who may have before been on the fence as to what constitutes acceptable activism might tip over to violence because they feel they are facing an existential threat with no effective recourse.
Just a thought. Never been to UC Berkeley. I've only even been to California once in my life, and that was when I was like 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not pretending to any expertise on the culture out there.
Sentinel1 wrote: What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.
He's had internal revolts in the justice, state and parks departments, managed to get into multiple international spats, shown zero ability to manage and communicate his orders through the people that need to execute them, and gotten into personal twitter wars, his people have coined the term "Alternative Facts" after getting pissy over inauguration crowd woes, and thats his first couple weeks in office, on top of a lifetime record of being a scumbag.
How long are people supposed to wait until he magically becomes a different person? Like...seriously?
Looks like free speech and exchange of ideas are items of history at Berkly, courtesy of the protestors there.
Nothing like a little rioting, assault and vandalism to promote tolerance, in a brown shirt kind of way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
It may be possible that the student culture has changed. I graduated from a small liberal arts school in 1999. I still live in the general area. When I visit, the buildings look the same with a few new editions. But the student culture has definitely shifted to be much more progressive and activist than when I attended. And that was before the whole Trump thing.
Now, we have a new and generally speaking different generation in school, and let's face it, this country has never had a Donald Trump before. Now that the left has lost control of government, the stakes really are high, so I'd think it would be natural that people who may have before been on the fence as to what constitutes acceptable activism might tip over to violence because they feel they are facing an existential threat with no effective recourse.
Just a thought. Never been to UC Berkeley. I've only even been to California once in my life, and that was when I was like 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not pretending to any expertise on the culture out there.
That is possible. It's likely for student culture to change every generation, but from friends and family who still live in the region, it sounds like the students today are even less activist than they used to be, excluding everyone's favorite "I'm really angry, so I'm going to go topless" activism. Somehow that still brings the numbers. So, while ther could very well be a rising surge in left wing violence, my first instinct to to attribute it to the same groups whom I knew already to be violent, or their descendants.
Looks like Christian values and respect for thedead is an item of history with Christians, courtesy of the followers there.
Nothing like a little hate speech, intolerance and disrepect to promote Christ, in a bigoted kind of way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
It may be possible that the student culture has changed. I graduated from a small liberal arts school in 1999. I still live in the general area. When I visit, the buildings look the same with a few new editions. But the student culture has definitely shifted to be much more progressive and activist than when I attended. And that was before the whole Trump thing.
Now, we have a new and generally speaking different generation in school, and let's face it, this country has never had a Donald Trump before. Now that the left has lost control of government, the stakes really are high, so I'd think it would be natural that people who may have before been on the fence as to what constitutes acceptable activism might tip over to violence because they feel they are facing an existential threat with no effective recourse.
Just a thought. Never been to UC Berkeley. I've only even been to California once in my life, and that was when I was like 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not pretending to any expertise on the culture out there.
It's really a tough pickle to figure out.
On one hand we have a poster who has never been in an area making repeated arguments that this event is a symptom of a large violent uprising in the left in order to destroy the very values that the left holds dear.
On the other hand we have someone who has lived in the town, was active in the university, and witnessed events like these share his experience with how outside groups would take the opportunity to use these events to destroy things for the lulz.
Relapse wrote: Looks like free speech and exchange of ideas are items of history at Berkly, courtesy of the protestors there.
Nothing like a little rioting, assault and vandalism to promote tolerance, in a brown shirt kind of way.
So I guess you ignored the previous 3 pages discussing this and pointing out that troublemakers making trouble at events is hardly a left/right thing? And everyone acknowledging rioting is bad? But please, keep making your point.....
Relapse wrote: Looks like free speech and exchange of ideas are items of history at Berkly, courtesy of the protestors there.
Nothing like a little rioting, assault and vandalism to promote tolerance, in a brown shirt kind of way.
feeder wrote: Looks like Christian values and respect for thedead is an item of history with Christians, courtesy of the followers there. Nothing like a little hate speech, intolerance and disrepect to promote Christ, in a bigoted kind of way.
That's the problem with Christians, they just don't care about people who disagree with them. Their hate of soldiers and constant taunting of people who died is really a sign of how I didn't leave Christianity, but how Christianity left me...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
It may be possible that the student culture has changed. I graduated from a small liberal arts school in 1999. I still live in the general area. When I visit, the buildings look the same with a few new editions. But the student culture has definitely shifted to be much more progressive and activist than when I attended. And that was before the whole Trump thing.
Now, we have a new and generally speaking different generation in school, and let's face it, this country has never had a Donald Trump before. Now that the left has lost control of government, the stakes really are high, so I'd think it would be natural that people who may have before been on the fence as to what constitutes acceptable activism might tip over to violence because they feel they are facing an existential threat with no effective recourse.
Thats a wee bit of a gigantic stretch, particularly as "the left" hasnt had control of the government for a while, it had *part* of the government, not control of all of it.
As someone who lives just a few miles from where some of the most prominent election and inauguration day protests and riots went down, and lived in CA most of my life, I'm not seeing this supposition bearing out.
Relapse wrote: Looks like free speech and exchange of ideas is an item of history at Berkly, courtesy of the protestors there.
Nothing like a little rioting, assault and vandalism to promote tolerance, in a brown shirt kind of way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Jasper76, back in the late 90's and early 2000's. I lived in the Bay Are for six years, and was on campus during 9/11. I could tell some stories of the toxic radical left from that day for sure, but also some more heartwarming ones. In a leftist bastion like Berkeley, you get to see that liberals are not one solid block but a spectrum of factions, often competing with and sabotaging each other. It's true what they say about the vicious (though nonviolent) infighting when the stakes are so low.
It may be possible that the student culture has changed. I graduated from a small liberal arts school in 1999. I still live in the general area. When I visit, the buildings look the same with a few new editions. But the student culture has definitely shifted to be much more progressive and activist than when I attended. And that was before the whole Trump thing.
Now, we have a new and generally speaking different generation in school, and let's face it, this country has never had a Donald Trump before. Now that the left has lost control of government, the stakes really are high, so I'd think it would be natural that people who may have before been on the fence as to what constitutes acceptable activism might tip over to violence because they feel they are facing an existential threat with no effective recourse.
Just a thought. Never been to UC Berkeley. I've only even been to California once in my life, and that was when I was like 7 or 8 years old, so I'm not pretending to any expertise on the culture out there.
It's really a tough pickle to figure out.
On one hand we have a poster who has never been in an area making repeated arguments that this event is a symptom of a large violent uprising in the left in order to destroy the very values that the left holds dear.
On the other hand we have someone who has lived in the town, was active in the university, and witnessed events like these share his experience with how outside groups would take the opportunity to use these events to destroy things for the lulz.
I just don't know who to go with here...
But you must agree it is an interesting time to live in, everything political is upside down! Rights in, USA, UK, THEME IN EUROPEAN STATES, Out is all the Left wingers, who across the board are struggling to fight back. And now its no longer the Right Wingers on the Aggression, the Liberal Lefties are the ones out of control, if anything actions such as Berkeley will sway more people against them and towards Conservatism. So at the moment as I see it, the Left is struggling to find a footing for resistance, whilst individual groups go over the top and shoot Liberalism in the foot
On one hand we have a poster who has never been in an area making repeated arguments that this event is a symptom of a large violent uprising in the left in order to destroy the very values that the left holds dear.
On the other hand we have someone who has lived in the town, was active in the university, and witnessed events like these share his experience with how outside groups would take the opportunity to use these events to destroy things for the lulz.
I just don't know who to go with here...
As I've said repeatedly, if this were some kind of isolated incident, I likely would not even have commented on it.
Certainly, you should lend more credence to Bob the Inquisitor on matters related to UC Berkeley and Oakland than myself. I explicitly stated that I don't pretend to have expertise on the current culture at UC Berkeley and California.
Relapse wrote: Looks like free speech and exchange of ideas are items of history at Berkly, courtesy of the protestors there.
Nothing like a little rioting, assault and vandalism to promote tolerance, in a brown shirt kind of way.
Even your article states that the majority of protestors were peaceful until a known anarchist group showed up and started wrecking gak.
Where am I accusing students? This is the kind of thing that makes the right feel justified in their views of the left, much in the same way protestors tried to break into and physically disrupt Trump rallies.
Vaktathi wrote: Thats a wee bit of a gigantic stretch, particularly as "the left" hasnt had control of the government for a while, it had *part* of the government, not control of all of it.
Fair enough. I should have said that the left has gone from having some control over federal government to having almost no control over federal government.
.
). But in reality the feud with CNN is all personal, just like everything with Trump. See, CNN is run by Jeff Zucker. Trump and Zucker go way back, Zucker was the executive at NBC who brought The Apprentice to that network. Trump had assumed that given his close relationship with Zucker, he would get friendly treatment from CNN, much the same way that NBC gave him softball 
