Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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.

Man Shot, Critically Injured at Protest Outside Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos Talk
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/21/man_shot_critically_injured_at_protest_against_milo_yiannopoulos_talk_in.html

(It should be noted that the shooter claimed self defense as a motive)

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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.

Did this happen?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And you don't have to wait for someone to open fire at a Milo event...it's already happened.

Did this happen?

I amended my post with a source. Self defense was claimed as a motivation.

A man was shot in Seattle right before Milo was to speak at the University of Washington.

 d-usa wrote:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/u-s-military-sources-criticize-trump-approved-yemen-strike.html?mid=fb-share-di

More internal fallout?

Well he did say he was going to kill their families so it is no surprise that he wasted American lives killing terrorists families

 d-usa wrote:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/u-s-military-sources-criticize-trump-approved-yemen-strike.html?mid=fb-share-di

More internal fallout?

That... defies logic. More #FakeNews.

If anything, if it were poorly planned, that's on the DoD... does anyone want to challenge Mad Dog Mattis on this?

I'd say it's more of an #NeverTrumper IC lashing out.

Just goes to show, don't feth with the IC.

 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.
Discourse is the way to dismantle populists.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And you don't have to wait for someone to open fire at a Milo event...it's already happened.

Did this happen?

I amended my post with a source. Self defense was claimed as a motivation.

Looks like a very strange tale indeed.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/

Pay no attention to the conflict of interest.

Donald Trump threatens to withdraw federal funds from Berkeley University after Breitbart editor talk cancelled

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-breitbart-news-remove-federal-funding-berkeley-university-california-milo-yiannopoulos-a7558946.html

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/02/donald-trump-at-national-prayer-breakfast-i-will-totally-destroy-the-johnson-amendment/

Easy solution: tax churches just like any other business and be done with it.

Trump and the christian right won't do that and they would spin it as an attack on religion.

You beat my edit. Of course you're correct; it will never happen in the USA. Tax exemption for churches has become a sacred cow.

Churches already 'campaign' from the pulpit... they just don't actually name the candidates.

I'd say, set a threshold so that it doesn't impact the smaller/poorer churches... then tax the rest of those fethers.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looks like a very strange tale indeed.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/

Agreed.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 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.

Discourse is the way to dismantle populists.

Yes.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/02/donald-trump-at-national-prayer-breakfast-i-will-totally-destroy-the-johnson-amendment/

Easy solution: tax churches just like any other business and be done with it.

Trump and the christian right won't do that and they would spin it as an attack on religion.

You beat my edit. Of course you're correct; it will never happen in the USA. Tax exemption for churches has become a sacred cow.

Churches already 'campaign' from the pulpit... they just don't actually name the candidates.

I'd say, set a threshold so that it doesn't impact the smaller/poorer churches... then tax the rest of those fethers.

This is still a conflict between the separation of church and state. I would rather it not happen at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Discourse is the way to dismantle populists.

Yes.

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.

 Ustrello wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/u-s-military-sources-criticize-trump-approved-yemen-strike.html?mid=fb-share-di

More internal fallout?

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?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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.

So line up and submit yourself to violence?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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.

And 60m of you just voted him in as president.

 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?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/el-paso-residents-highlight-positives-living-with-border-wall.html

“It is a big deterrent, it is effective ... It gives us that deterrence ... (so) we can be more effective.” Border Patrol Agent Martin Wilson.

 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?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/el-paso-residents-highlight-positives-living-with-border-wall.html

“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.

 infinite_array wrote:

 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?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/02/el-paso-residents-highlight-positives-living-with-border-wall.html

“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'.

This is tribalism at its most ridiculous.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

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"