U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[mariomike]

I'm a little surprised at how much former and still serving CAF just hate Trump. 

Who said they hate him?

That's pretty rich, being posted in a Trump bukkake-fest.

Note: Reply #1178 was not edited. I accidentally pushed the wrong button. 

 

[McG]

Maybe a sign that CF members do not overly suffer from a focusing bias?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Maybe a sign that CF members do not overly suffer from a focusing bias?

I tend to agree. While I dont need to state again my disdain my Trump, I do think he is right on some portfolios. For example, he is quite right that negotiating with N. Korea is a waste of time. N. Korea has shown that.

the military as a whole has a wide range of opinions, which is great. If we were all just robots who just voted one way or the other than I would question our intellectual vigor to actually win the next war. It's a variety of opinions, experiences, and thought that will give us the ability to win, not slavish adherence to dogma.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

First health care, now tax reform.

 

[kkwd]

First health care, now tax reform.

Since Trump is dealing with that swamp named Congress they should have made the animal a gator.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I've only recently started watching videos of Ben Shapiro's talking engagements. He sounds very intelligent and articulate (well to me anyways) but I wouldn't use threatening to describe him.  I think it's beginning to say a lot about the state of the US (sorry T6!) that universities like Berkeley aren't offering counseling for the physical violence going on on their campus (in so far as I'm aware) but offer it for people whose feelings were hurt or stressed out, especially from someone like Ben Shapiro.


https://www.mediaite.com/online/uc-berkeley-mocked-for-offering-counseling-to-students-stressed-by-ben-shapiro-speech/

    We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging. No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe. For that reason, the following support services are being offered and encouraged:

-Student support services
-Employee (faculty and staff) support services

I have a morbid curiosity to see what their campus actually looks like. I noticed they have Military Affairs and Military Science, I bet those are fun to take at Berkeley.  Are universities like Berkeley the exception or the norm down there?

 

[dimsum]

I have a morbid curiosity to see what their campus actually looks like. I noticed they have Military Affairs and Military Science, I bet those are fun to take at Berkeley.  Are universities like Berkeley the exception or the norm down there?

Well, considering that they were a hub of 1960s student activism, I'd think Berkeley is more left-wing than most.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I've only recently started watching videos of Ben Shapiro's talking engagements. He sounds very intelligent and articulate (well to me anyways) but I wouldn't use threatening to describe him.  I think it's beginning to say a lot about the state of the US (sorry T6!) that universities like Berkeley aren't offering counseling for the physical violence going on on their campus (in so far as I'm aware) but offer it for people whose feelings were hurt or stressed out, especially from someone like Ben Shapiro.


https://www.mediaite.com/online/uc-berkeley-mocked-for-offering-counseling-to-students-stressed-by-ben-shapiro-speech/

I have a morbid curiosity to see what their campus actually looks like. I noticed they have Military Affairs and Military Science, I bet those are fun to take at Berkeley.  Are universities like Berkeley the exception or the norm down there?

For the "safe rooms" the efficacy of them is likely to be best seen in their actual use. UC Berkeley has a student population of about 40,000 so if only 100 ridiculous people use it than I would offer the story is over blown and doesn't acurately reflect the student body writ large. If it was 10,000 than a better argument can be made about an overly liberal environment.

The bigger problem, to me, would be cancellation of a speaking engagement due to ideology, which admittedly occurs. The fringe if the left us free to protest Shapiro and doesn't have to allow him a pleasant environment to speak- just allow it to occur. Further, if they want to self soothe than sure, doesn't impact anyone outside of themselves as long as free speech is allowed to occur. Healthy debate isn't a problem whether you agree or not.

The problem here, like in the right, is the fringes who seem to get the majority of airplay and influence. I'm sure on the actual campus, 50% don't know who ben Shapiro is, 40% care more about partying, 8% don't care enough to go on both sides, and 2% on both sides care enough to go. Of that 2%, 10% probably make up the idiots.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The old 2% bad apples stat 

Watching the news and from what I'm seeing and reading I have a strong suspicion that more than just a handful of students fall under whatever the hell we could call it. Being a snowflake.  With students AND faculty involved both in the crazy violence and the OMG my feelings I still think it's indicative that there's a major problem brewing in the US. Well one of many I guess.  I remember stories of students being offered play dough and colouring books. I used to think it was funny but now I find it pretty troublesome.

You mentioned not allowing someone a pleasant environment to speak, most of the time I think that translates into trying to stop someone from speaking.  I find it ironic that they'll behave like that then have the audacity to play some victim card.

If it really is only a very small percent I wonder what it's going to take for everyone else to sort the both sides out.

 

[Loachman]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-thinking-of-dishing-out-for-hillarys-book-ill-save-you-the-expense#comments-area

Rex Murphy: Thinking of dishing out for Hillary's book? I'll save you the expense

Whether What Happened - for that is the teasing title of Ms. Hillary’s oeuvre - is worth the admission price is an open question

Rex Murphy
September 8, 2017
12:39 PM EDT

It’s great news for Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Even though neither metropolis has American voting rights nor shares territory with Wisconsin (or so I gather from a quick glance at the atlas and a furtive leap over to Wikipedia), they are among the 15 cities chosen for Hillary Clinton’s Weeping over Spilt Milk Tour - the launch of the most eagerly awaited memoir since Augustine’s early 5th century potboiler, Confessions.

Canadians eager to plumb the secrets of her losing tussle with noted cat-fancier and plutocrat Donald Trump earn entrance for a mere $89 (GA) or $229 (VIP). And for the more dedicated to the lost cause, $3,000 will place them in proximity of Hillary herself, while also securing them a photograph with the author and her signature on the book. Literature isn’t dead friends, it’s merely in a mercantile phase.

Whether What Happened - for that is the teasing title of Ms. Hillary’s oeuvre - is worth the admission price is an open question. Certainly, the comments from some of her own inner circle come touched with a note of equivocation on the merits of the book and tour. Doubtless the publishers will not be blurbing the reactions of one high-placed Hillarylander: “Oh, God,” “I can’t handle it…  the final torture.” 

The title is ambiguous. Is What Happened a question or an answer?

The title itself is troublingly ambiguous. Is What Happened a question or an answer? If the former, best leave the tome on the shelf, for if Hillary still doesn’t know what happened, there’s not a lot of point tracing her perplexity for $40 or $50 over several hundred pages and leaving, curiosity unassuaged. But if What Happened is a listing of the vile forces that denied the “most qualified nominee” in American history the final prize, why, sadly, that’s stale news.

For ever since the night of November 8 Hillary has been telling everyone in earshot (or eyeshot of her blistering Twitter volleys) just that: why and how, for reasons beyond her control, she lost to a jumped-up, reckless, 69-year-old amateur with a hairstyle like a matador’s cape in high wind who had never run for public office, and whose chances of beating her were put at less than 2 per cent at 7 o’clock on the night of the election by the infallible Cassandras of HuffPo (politics for people who like pictures).

Book lovers, rightly, are asking what’s left to tell. In the public interest, therefore, I have compiled revelations already offered by Hillary or her team, and a few extrapolations of my own - evidence-based to be sure - from some of the more sinuous observations of her followers. Reading this will save National Post readers a trip to the bookstore and $50, which they will undoubtedly throw to a carbon offset charity of their choice.

Book lovers, rightly, are asking what is left to tell

Depending on the day of the week, or the time of the day, the reasons offered for her loss—in effect, what happened—include, but by no means are exhausted by, the following:

(a) The Russians, (b) James Comey, (c) Neanderthal sexism, (d) Global warming, (e) The invention of e-mail, (f) The terra incognita known to explorers as Wisconsin, (g) John Podesta’s texting habits, (h) Donna Brazile’s slack delivery of debate questions, often mere hours before her debates with the superannuated socialist stooge, (i) The pathetic feminizing of Ghostbusters, (j) Robert E. Lee, (k) Bill and Loretta’s tango on the tarmac - “How’s the grandchildren?” “I beg your pardon,” (l) The socialist grouch Bernie Sanders promising shinier ponies than she was promising, (m) The Russians again, Film distributor, auteur, Anthony Weiner, (o) Chronic iron deficiency, (p) Failed séances with Eleanor Roosevelt, (q) Cell phones, (r) The Siege of Khartoum, (s) Sunspots, (t) The high visibility of the shuttle service between secret Wall Street speeches and public speeches denouncing Wall Street, (u) Obama holding her back on lacerating Bernie as a “fifth-columnist” Democrat, (v) That g-d d-ed basket of deplorables, (v) Obama, for not going prime time to attack the Russians, (w) Charlie Rose’s sleepy monotone, The Knights Templar, and (z) A miserable campaign where nobody performed up to par except Hillary.

It will be noted that nowhere in this abecedarian of plump and ready excuses for what happened does there exist a hint that her opponent - amateur and boor that he was - probably ran a better campaign. Maybe those offering $3,000 dollars for a selfie with the twice-defeated will have that personally whispered into their one-percenter ears. After all, for such a price, there’s got to be something new.

 

[FJAG]

The problem with just about any organization that depends on volunteer leadership--be it student councils, or town councils, or high end politicians--is that it's always the ones with an ax to grind that step up to try to take power while the vast silent majority just tries to get on with life (be it to get an education or earn a living).

In most universities the bulk of the students just want to get on with learning while a small minority with time on their hands and a twisted sense of what society should like, set agendas that get ever more twisted and stupid. Unfortunately a large number of those end up becoming professors (because they are often incapable of surviving in outside society) where they continue to foster their agendas. This is one of the downsides of a heavily subsidized post secondary education system.

There was a time when we could ignore their bullsh*t but it's getting more and more difficult.

:cheers:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The old 2% bad apples stat 

Watching the news and from what I'm seeing and reading I have a strong suspicion that more than just a handful of students fall under whatever the hell we could call it. Being a snowflake.  With students AND faculty involved both in the crazy violence and the OMG my feelings I still think it's indicative that there's a major problem brewing in the US. Well one of many I guess.  I remember stories of students being offered play dough and colouring books. I used to think it was funny but now I find it pretty troublesome.

You mentioned not allowing someone a pleasant environment to speak, most of the time I think that translates into trying to stop someone from speaking.  I find it ironic that they'll behave like that then have the audacity to play some victim card.

If it really is only a very small percent I wonder what it's going to take for everyone else to sort the both sides out.

That's the problem though with the current environment - all sides have small numbers of idiots that ought to be controlled. However, those small numbers are usually overly engaged and loud, meaning the drown out the other voices who just don't care. There are no more "snowflakes" than there ever were before. Same as there aren't more nazis. The VAST majority of students couldn't care less about Ben shapiro whether they're left or right.

For the environment argument, I disagree. The freedom to speech allows speech to be free from government oppression. It doesn't allow a soapbox or audience. If he speaks and people want to protest than they have that right too. Therein, public universities ought to allow any reasonable speaker to speak since they're publicly funded. Private universities should have the choice. Ben shapiro has no specific right to speak at a private university but has a right to speak at public funded ones.

If the university is private and hyper liberal or hyper conservative and don't want a speaker they disagree with to speak than do be it. Same for businesses..  if a business owner doesnt want to serve someone based on a bias than they shouldn't have to.

For the last point, I would offer higher engagement by reasonable people to drown out the screaming heads of both sides would assist.

 

[Loachman]

That's nice 'n' all, but you're missing the point.

This has nothing to do with the right of Ben Shapiro or others to speak. They are invited to speak by student organizations, or other organizations within the university. Those students are paying for their education and should have the right to invite speakers and hear what they have to say.

I have no quarrel with protesters. We are not seeing protests, though, but violent attacks on those paying students and destruction of university property by violent anarchist/leftist thugs whose sole goal is disruption, destruction, intimidation, imposition of silence on those who have other views, and injury.

This does not just affect the students who want to hear these speakers, but all students who use the facilities that have been burned or had windows smashed in and furniture destroyed ($100,000 at Berkeley earlier this year). It affects all students and faculty members who have conservative views yet cannot voice them.

There are far more leftist/anarchist thugs, in far more places, than there are white supremacists, and they are causing far more damage, and, to date, there has been no serious effort to shut them down. I know of no instances where white supremacists have gone on destructive rampages to shut down Jewish (Ben Shapiro), black, homosexual (Milo Yiannopoulos), or socialist speakers at universities. If you can provide an example, please share it.

 

[Journeyman]

Same for businesses..  if a business owner doesnt want to serve someone based on a bias than they shouldn't have to.

      :not-again:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

      :not-again:

Dont get me wrong... I find the people who wont make a wedding cake for a gay couple deplorable. But, if they want to implode their own businesses and not take advantage of business than that is there right.

 

[Rifleman62]

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.


Canada: http://business.findlaw.ca/article/what-restrictions-can-a-business-impose-on-custome/

What restrictions can a business impose on customers?


USA: http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/refusal-of-service/

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service? What You Need to Know About Refusal-of-Service Laws

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That's nice 'n' all, but you're missing the point.

This has nothing to do with the right of Ben Shapiro or others to speak. They are invited to speak by student organizations, or other organizations within the university. Those students are paying for their education and should have the right to invite speakers and hear what they have to say.

I have no quarrel with protesters. We are not seeing protests, though, but violent attacks on those paying students and destruction of university property by violent anarchist/leftist thugs whose sole goal is disruption, destruction, intimidation, imposition of silence on those who have other views, and injury.

This does not just affect the students who want to hear these speakers, but all students who use the facilities that have been burned or had windows smashed in and furniture destroyed ($100,000 at Berkeley earlier this year). It affects all students and faculty members who have conservative views yet cannot voice them.

There are far more leftist/anarchist thugs, in far more places, than there are white supremacists, and they are causing far more damage, and, to date, there has been no serious effort to shut them down. I know of no instances where white supremacists have gone on destructive rampages to shut down Jewish (Ben Shapiro), black, homosexual (Milo Yiannopoulos), or socialist speakers at universities. If you can provide an example, please share it.

I dont think I am missing the point. I understand that they are asked by student organizations. Speakers should be allowed to speak wherever they are legally invited or entitled to do so, no argument. The counter-protestors are also legally entitled to speak and should do so as part of their own democratic rights. These protests, agreed, should be peaceful, but they certainly dont have to be quiet or complacent. The speaker should maintain their right to protection and I agree that the hard left protestors take things too far and often in doing so bring press to events that in all likelihood would have been  barely noticed (I feel quite comfortable claiming most kids at UC Berkely are unaware of who Ben Shapiro is and less care about him- even if he did once compare health care to fancy furniture).

As for the leftist thugs comment, do you  have any links that demonstrate that there are more leftist "thugs" than there are KKK/Nazi in the US or Canada? Tbh, I haven't found anything that states the real membership for either side. Just because you find yourself reading about the "snowflakes" and "leftist thugs" more from the conservative media doesn't mean that there are fewer neo-nazis or KKK members (same as how when you look out your window and see it's snowing it doesn't mean that the earth is slowly warming). I would offer in rebuttal that why we hear about the antifa/leftist groups in universities and not alt-right/nazi groups is because the majority of university students are in fact leftists. Realistically, the number of neo-nazi/KKK members that attend college is low and adamant racists dont tend to seek higher education. This would precipitate a lack of presence on university campus'. My own experience in university was that it was largely liberal with a small conservative block that was mostly made up of some business students are guys who looked like they had a tough time finding girlfriends (*humour*). The small conservative block would try to organize things (I want to say that they had Stockwell Day visit the school) but nobody really cared outside of the small group of hardcore liberal types. The conservative block, then, often felt that they were being ignored and that the world was out to get them whereas the reality was just that nobody really cared that Stockwell Day showed up aside from those wanting to protest.

Historically, there are lots of incidents in the past of right wing persons not allowing blacks into schools, throwing acid into pools with blacks, etc etc etc but admittedly not recently.

To reiterate about 30 posts worth of text- the fringes of both sides are bad (though I believe that KKK/Nazi's are worse) and should be marginalized. The vast majority of the people in the soft centre should be more vocal and take back the conversation. Two sides screaming at each other over their worst elements, even going as far as to paint one side or the other as being 100% represented by those groups, is a waste of time.

 

[FJAG]

I agree entirely that it is hard to find any reasonable estimates as to the number of left wing radicals as opposed to right wing ones but when it comes to discrimination the right definitely has the numbers. Just take a look at the number of state governments that blatantly create laws that makes discrimination against gays possible and the vast number of people who continue to insist that their religious beliefs not only allows but mandates such discrimination.

Personally a few stupid jerks in black throwing stones and setting a few fires is the lessor at an event at a university is a lessor evil compared to what are supposedly intelligent elected legislators that use the power of law to limit equality for various  portions of the state's population. Maybe if they passed a few less laws about what washroom to use and concentrated more on policing violent protests we could cure two problems at once.

[cheers]

 

[kratz]

Discussing hard numbers, the extreme right will lose more often.

One post mentioned post-secondary experience. The college I attended on my release is highly on the left spectrum. I had topics, issues and other concerns almost, "shoved down my throat". When I politely declined an item for the "cause" that week, I was publicly ridiculed and made to be a pariah or dinosaur for "not accepting the way of life".

I was not offered a voice. My beliefs were not respected, nor was my right for personal choice.

Because that group cohesion did not break any laws, no...there are no stats to express how the left functions or negatively exerts influence.
In reality, the left is very much as corrosive and abusive of personal liberties in Canada. 

 

[FJAG]

Discussing hard numbers, the extreme right will lose more often.

One post mentioned post-secondary experience. The college I attended on my release is highly on the left spectrum. I had topics, issues and other concerns almost, "shoved down my throat". When I politely declined an item for the "cause" that week, I was publicly ridiculed and made to be a pariah or dinosaur for "not accepting the way of life".

I was not offered a voice. My beliefs were not respected, nor was my right for personal choice.

Because that group cohesion did not break any laws, no...there are no stats to express how the left functions or negatively exerts influence.
In reality, the left is very much as corrosive and abusive of personal liberties in Canada.

Sounds like UoO; the people that decided that a white woman teaching a yoga class was cultural expropriation.

My university experiences, thankfully, were at the Faculty of Law in Manitoba which is mostly right of center (primarily due to the adjunct professors who were practicing lawyers.) We also did have our share of sandal wearing hippies and feminists.

I don't for one second minimize the effects of extreme liberal thought especially in the realm of education. For the time being, however, I'm more against those folks who have the power to make laws who are cozying up to the religious right and making laws that implement their restrictive moral agendas.

[cheers]