Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

[pknopp]

Did he tell CHRISTIAN COLLEGES that they will lose THEIR federal funding if they don't protect free speech?

Which Christian Colleges are suppressing the free speech of their students?

any christian college that denies gays, atheists, muslims, liberals, feminists, evolutionists to speak on campus.

Examples? Remember in the cases where the left has suppressed speech, it was student groups FROM THE INSTITUTION IN QUESTION that invited said speakers that were either denied access, or harassed by the admin and protesters.

In this specific case another question must be asked, do said institutions take federal grant money? (the issue of public vs private institution is moot as no religious college or university is public)

They do participate in the federal student loan programs.

Student Loans | Student Financial Services | Liberty University

Those are grants to the students, not the institutions. Liberty is quite clear on that.

Denying student loan money to students based on what accredited university they goes to violates the students rights, has nothing to do with the institution in question.

Plus most of that money is in the form of loans, not grants.

That still makes it not as clear cut as your argument made it. It's a fine line.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, you mean from the Pentagon, pimping those jingo displays?

NFL actually sent that money back. I think it was something like three-quarters of a million at the time.

That was funding?

I thought it was for ads.

You think ads run for free?

Without looking it up I believe the figure was $723,000 of taxpayer money that NFL sent back, and was supposed to be doing an audit to look for more.

You think ads run for free

I think there is a hellova difference between buying ads, and funding.

When they become the same in you world?

That was a QUESTION. You removed the question mark but it's still "[Do] you think ads run for free?"

Answer it.

*EVERY* and I mean every, commercial TV or radio station you ever see and/or hear is FUNDED by its advertisers. "Funded" because that's where its FUNDS come from.

The lack of the ? was an accident. It's been fixed.

and the ? remains,

Is buying ads the same as federal funding in your world?

(it isn't, in mine)

Federal funds paid for the illusion of jingoism on (in this case) the football field --- an activity which has zero to do with jingoism. That's paid indoctrination, and if there's any doubt that it's effective as such, read any number of whiny-little-bitch posts on this site about kneeling football players forced to pose for the national jingoanthem. Or watch the easily-led-by-the--nose orange freak whining about "fire the sumbitches" just to trawl for votes from that portion of the unwashed.

And that's your tax dollars doing that. Or it was, until the NFL sent it back.

So the answer to the question, "does the NFL get federal funding" stands.

 

[jc456]

Because the two situations are in no way related?

And it isn't speakers spewing hate, and even if it was, let them speak. the best disinfectant is sunlight, not shadows.

The speakers being denied are being CALLED fascists, but are in no way, shape, or form, fascist.

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

how did they get to the colleges? recruiting. so antifa came first at the universities and then the collapse of free speech there. that was my intention with my comment.

Gabriel Nadales: I’m a former Antifa member and enough is enough -- Antifa must be stopped

 

[iceberg]

Does the NFL get federal funding? Does the NFL purport to be open spaces for the free exchange of ideas?

What right does Trump have to condemn free speech in the NFL while condemning colleges for doing the same?

A speaker spews hate about Muslims, Mexicans and Gays and a College says he is not welcome

A football player silently protests police killings of African Americans and the President is outraged

Because the two situations are in no way related?

And it isn't speakers spewing hate, and even if it was, let them speak. the best disinfectant is sunlight, not shadows.

The speakers being denied are being CALLED fascists, but are in no way, shape, or form, fascist.

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

then who would be coming to these events threatening violence which would necessitate a need to cancel specific speaking engagement or events?

whoever those people are - arrest them if they break the law. don't give into their threats of violence by silencing those they don't like.

 

[jc456]

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

That is possibly one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on this board. SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED dumb.

It was loser college age kids who pushed the nazi's back?

Anti-fa is to actual anti-fascists as MTV currently is to music.

She's right, Marty. The curious lexicographical construction "AntiFa" may be a recent invention but anti-Fascism has been around for quite a spell. Hell Adolf Hitler was in an eternal fight against them (so was Franco but he won).

Here are two you might recognize that the government executed:

View attachment 306248​

we are talking about free speech on college campus. antifa is the reason, and they are students not just local citizens or bussed in fks.

 

[depotoo]

EO's are the realm of the lazy. If something is worth doing, fight to actually get it made into something enforceable.

with how crappy our congress / senate is these days, EO's are about all that are left to put any policy into place.

it sucks. i hated it when obama did it and not a fan of trump doing it. we're bypassing the very systems that are supposed to keep us in check - ALL SIDES - and making excuses for why it's ok.

sooner or later the dog knock over the house of cards and you wind up with a new TV vs. a canoe or sewing machine.

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Is the Trumpybear offering grants for security for our students, or do they expect the Universities or the States to pick up the tab to ensure that all our children are safe on campus when controversial or extreme Pundants are invited by a Student Group.?

The "children" are the problem. They throw a temper tantrum when someone with adult ideas enters their safe space.

My bad, I should have realize this is another sad re-hash of a hot button issue.......

Last year, the University of California, Berkeley, campus literally erupted in flames as a planned speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos devolved into violence: stones and fireworks were hurled at police, windows were shattered, riots turned injurious. Though the destruction then came from off-campus groups, for the next few months, highly public battles around free expression were waged at the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement.

President Trump raised a threat of yanking federal funds over the university’s response to Yiannopoulos (he mischaracterized the situation, saying Berkeley had not allowed Yiannopoulos to speak, when in fact the institution did give him permission).

The former Breitbart editor tried to visit the campus again several months after the protests for a “free speech week” -- declaring he would challenge the status quo grip of liberalism on the campus. The event forced the university to shell out about $1 million in security, though the planned events largely fizzled. Ann Coulter, the hot-button author, also sent her online following after the institution after she had been invited to speak there, but perceived a lack of support by administrators for her talk (she ultimately never appeared). Two conservative student groups filed a federal lawsuit against university officials asserting their free speech rights had been infringed.

But more than a year later, the Berkeley campus is seemingly free of such drama. It has hosted controversial right-wing figures such as TurningPoint USA leaders Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, commentator Heather Mac Donald and talk-radio host Dennis Prager with little incident.

Students and administrators credit the change in part to the intent of the speakers coming to the university: not to rile up the student body, but instead to engage in discussion. The speakers voiced conservative views but did not insult Berkeley students or groups of students, as others had previously.

This follows two shifts on campus. Most recently, the university’s free speech policies were revised, after being vetted by a university commission. And new student groups were founded intent on promoting “civil dialogue” in wake of the fiascos with Coulter and Yiannopoulos.

New policies, student groups change the culture of free speech at Berkeley

 

[OldLady]

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

That is possibly one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on this board. SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED dumb.

It was loser college age kids who pushed the nazi's back?

Anti-fa is to actual anti-fascists as MTV currently is to music.

Try educating yourself. It's a lot more convincing than just making up shit.
Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia

 

[Auld Phart]

That was funding?

I thought it was for ads.

You think ads run for free?

Without looking it up I believe the figure was $723,000 of taxpayer money that NFL sent back, and was supposed to be doing an audit to look for more.

You think ads run for free

I think there is a hellova difference between buying ads, and funding.

When they become the same in you world?

That was a QUESTION. You removed the question mark but it's still "[Do] you think ads run for free?"

Answer it.

*EVERY* and I mean every, commercial TV or radio station you ever see and/or hear is FUNDED by its advertisers. "Funded" because that's where its FUNDS come from.

The lack of the ? was an accident. It's been fixed.

and the ? remains,

Is buying ads the same as federal funding in your world?

(it isn't, in mine)

Federal funds paid for the illusion of jingoism on (in this case) the football field --- an activity which has zero to do with jingoism. That's paid indoctrination, and if there's any doubt that it's effective as such, read any number of whiny-little-bitch posts on this site about kneeling football players forced to pose for the national jingoanthem.

And that's your tax dollars doing that. Or it was, until the NFL sent it back.

 

[jc456]

Because the two situations are in no way related?

And it isn't speakers spewing hate, and even if it was, let them speak. the best disinfectant is sunlight, not shadows.

The speakers being denied are being CALLED fascists, but are in no way, shape, or form, fascist.

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

Yep in Italy. so what, they didn't show up at college campuses today. did they? the antifa movement at colleges started with obammy.

 

[iceberg]

Because the two situations are in no way related?

And it isn't speakers spewing hate, and even if it was, let them speak. the best disinfectant is sunlight, not shadows.

The speakers being denied are being CALLED fascists, but are in no way, shape, or form, fascist.

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

That's bullshit. The campus groups that oppose the speakers I am sure have contacts with the more radical protest groups, and I'm sure some are attending the schools in question. given Anti-fa's penchant for masks, saying "they aren't part of us" is a convinent excuse used by SJW types on campus to get what they want and proclaim their hands clean.

Make up whatever scenarios you like, Marty. You have absolutely no basis for that, except that you would like it to be true. Security personnel and left wing protest organizers tell the real story.

why would i listen to left wing protest organizers?

Violence by far-left protesters in Berkeley sparks alarm

lets just use this for example. how is this group able to dictate who can and can't speak at a college?

so far i don't get your point. my understanding so far is the college should be able to stop an event if it will become violent. if that is in fact your stance, i disagree. this simply means threaten violence and you're fine. but they can and should stop the event.

is this what you're saying? it's what i'm hearing and want to clarify first.

 

[pknopp]

EO's are the realm of the lazy. If something is worth doing, fight to actually get it made into something enforceable.

with how crappy our congress / senate is these days, EO's are about all that are left to put any policy into place.

it sucks. i hated it when obama did it and not a fan of trump doing it. we're bypassing the very systems that are supposed to keep us in check - ALL SIDES - and making excuses for why it's ok.

sooner or later the dog knock over the house of cards and you wind up with a new TV vs. a canoe or sewing machine.

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

It was the point. Leaders lead. Trump is not a leader. Leaders do not believe name calling is how you get people to work with you. Leaders do not believe lying is how you get things accomplished. Leaders lead, they do not simply accept excuses.

 

[jc456]

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

That is possibly one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on this board. SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED dumb.

It was loser college age kids who pushed the nazi's back?

Anti-fa is to actual anti-fascists as MTV currently is to music.

Try educating yourself. It's a lot more convincing than just making up shit.
Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia

actually it started here:

Anti-Racist Action - Wikipedia
The Anti-Racist Action Network (ARA) was a decentralized network of anti-fascists and anti-racists in North America which existed from 1987 until 2013.[citation needed] ARA activists organize actions to disrupt neo-Nazi, white supremacist and white power skinhead groups and individuals.[1] ARA groups also oppose sexism, homophobia, heterosexism, anti-immigration, Nativism, antisemitism, and the anti-abortion movement. ARA originated from the skinhead and punk subcultures with influence from anarchist politics.

 

[iceberg]

with how crappy our congress / senate is these days, EO's are about all that are left to put any policy into place.

it sucks. i hated it when obama did it and not a fan of trump doing it. we're bypassing the very systems that are supposed to keep us in check - ALL SIDES - and making excuses for why it's ok.

sooner or later the dog knock over the house of cards and you wind up with a new TV vs. a canoe or sewing machine.

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

It was the point. Leaders lead. Trump is not a leader. Leaders do not believe name calling is how you get people to work with you. Leaders do not believe lying is how you get things accomplished. Leaders lead, they do not simply accept excuses.

leaders get people to follow their lead.

how you choose to break that down to your own definition is fine. but that doesn't make your views on it the only views of what constitutes leadership. if you don't feel trump is a leader, great. to you he's not.

to millions of others, he is.

 

[martybegan]

Because the two situations are in no way related?

And it isn't speakers spewing hate, and even if it was, let them speak. the best disinfectant is sunlight, not shadows.

The speakers being denied are being CALLED fascists, but are in no way, shape, or form, fascist.

Who has been denied the right to speak lately? I am sure you'd all be whining about it nonstop if anyone had. The reason for the denials is usually concern about riots/out of control protests that make security impossible and puts students at risk.

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

That's bullshit. The campus groups that oppose the speakers I am sure have contacts with the more radical protest groups, and I'm sure some are attending the schools in question. given Anti-fa's penchant for masks, saying "they aren't part of us" is a convinent excuse used by SJW types on campus to get what they want and proclaim their hands clean.

Make up whatever scenarios you like, Marty. You have absolutely no basis for that, except that you would like it to be true. Security personnel and left wing protest organizers tell the real story.

Bullshit. Plenty of on campus groups protest and disrupt the speeches of right leaning groups and people. Hell they even form groups specifically for that purpose.

Violent Middlebury protesters injure professor, force invited speaker to flee lecture hall - FIRE

As soon as Murray took the stage, students stood up, turned their backs to him and started various chants that were loud enough and in unison such that he could not talk over them.

Violent Middlebury protesters injure professor, force invited speaker to flee lecture hall - FIRE

 

[martybegan]

Which Christian Colleges are suppressing the free speech of their students?

any christian college that denies gays, atheists, muslims, liberals, feminists, evolutionists to speak on campus.

Examples? Remember in the cases where the left has suppressed speech, it was student groups FROM THE INSTITUTION IN QUESTION that invited said speakers that were either denied access, or harassed by the admin and protesters.

In this specific case another question must be asked, do said institutions take federal grant money? (the issue of public vs private institution is moot as no religious college or university is public)

They do participate in the federal student loan programs.

Student Loans | Student Financial Services | Liberty University

Those are grants to the students, not the institutions. Liberty is quite clear on that.

Denying student loan money to students based on what accredited university they goes to violates the students rights, has nothing to do with the institution in question.

Plus most of that money is in the form of loans, not grants.

That still makes it not as clear cut as your argument made it. It's a fine line.

its actually a very easy line. If the money goes to the students to pay for tuition, its to the students. if the money goes to the institution for studies, research or whatever, it's to the institution.

 

[jc456]

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

It was the point. Leaders lead. Trump is not a leader. Leaders do not believe name calling is how you get people to work with you. Leaders do not believe lying is how you get things accomplished. Leaders lead, they do not simply accept excuses.

leaders get people to follow their lead.

how you choose to break that down to your own definition is fine. but that doesn't make your views on it the only views of what constitutes leadership. if you don't feel trump is a leader, great. to you he's not.

to millions of others, he is.

well he doesn't think those million count. only he matters. It is obvious.

 

[pknopp]

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

It was the point. Leaders lead. Trump is not a leader. Leaders do not believe name calling is how you get people to work with you. Leaders do not believe lying is how you get things accomplished. Leaders lead, they do not simply accept excuses.

leaders get people to follow their lead.

how you choose to break that down to your own definition is fine. but that doesn't make your views on it the only views of what constitutes leadership. if you don't feel trump is a leader, great. to you he's not.

to millions of others, he is.

His EO will accomplish nothing. Just like the rest of them because they are not backed up by law.

 

[martybegan]

and we have less riots when the left has guest speakers on campus?

just because a group of anti-fa protests someone speaking on a campus is no reason to say "ok, gosh. you may get violent so we need to call this off". i do NOT advocate their violence or anyone elses. but the potential for it should not be a deciding factor in why someone should be allowed to speak or not. if someone in the anti-fa breaks a law, arrest them.

giving in is only going to empower them to do it again.

No one "invites" Antifa to these protests--they sneak/trickle in and once there is a big enough crowd to hid themselves, they get to work. They are not part of the college community and do not belong on campus. If I were a campus security official, I would make sure that anyone wearing a mask or bandanna over their face would be removed without further discussion.

The ONLY thing this EO shows is that the President is watching too much Fox.

ahhh so the talking points have arrived huh? you're now the second one with the same statement. they call that boilerplating. oops. antifa started at Universities.

Antifa started in Europe during WWII, you jerk. I'm telling you what left wing protesters have said. They ought to know--they were there, which you weren't.

That is possibly one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on this board. SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED dumb.

It was loser college age kids who pushed the nazi's back?

Anti-fa is to actual anti-fascists as MTV currently is to music.

Try educating yourself. It's a lot more convincing than just making up shit.
Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia

Wow, back to Mussolini?
These spoiled children have nothing to do with the anti-fa groups of the past.

Also, Groups like Red Army Faction, Action Directe, and the Red Brigades all claimed to be "anti-fascist"

Do you think today's groups are the same as those others?

 

[jc456]

with how crappy our congress / senate is these days, EO's are about all that are left to put any policy into place.

it sucks. i hated it when obama did it and not a fan of trump doing it. we're bypassing the very systems that are supposed to keep us in check - ALL SIDES - and making excuses for why it's ok.

sooner or later the dog knock over the house of cards and you wind up with a new TV vs. a canoe or sewing machine.

I disagree. Few supported Reagan's action to get us out of the stagflation when he became president. He lead though. He made his arguments. He got what he wanted. You can argue on either side whether he was a good president or not BUT he was a leader.

Trump is not.

Dems have a new slogan now- Resist. During Reagan’s time there were those that were willing to compromise. Compromise is not part of their language or strategy anymore. It is to simply resist.

Leaders lead. They do not make excuses.

So, a non reply. Got it.

It was the point. Leaders lead. Trump is not a leader. Leaders do not believe name calling is how you get people to work with you. Leaders do not believe lying is how you get things accomplished. Leaders lead, they do not simply accept excuses.

you have no idea what leaders do. not one iota of knowledge. it's amazing, every leader did something differently. to say anything different, ignores history. and since it's you, that poop between your ears are affecting your thought process.