|
Trabisnikof posted:If they offer space for rent to outside groups they have to allow Spencer to rent that space. He's welcome to. Spencer renting an auditorium is not a problem for me. It gives students something easy to protest against, and increases their interest in political philosophy. The university spending wads of cash to enable him to do that is a much more significant issue. If he wants an auditorium and $500,000 worth of security to enable him to spew hate without starting a riot, he should be paying that money, not the students. Of course, it's still a university event, which means all students should have access, and the university can let anyone else attend that they please. If he doesn't want to raise those funds or accede to those fundamental requirements that are common to literally all public property, he's welcome to stand in the quad and yell like all the other crazies - and if he ends up starting a riot then he should be charged for inciting it. Fuschia tude posted:His group spent $10,500 to rent the venue, my droog I'm quite aware of that, hence the fact that the university let him pay a below-market rate. Renting the auditorium and not paying for the required security costs is like renting a bunk on the space station and not paying for the rocket to get there and back. It's ridiculous and the students should not be tolerating that kind of extravagant waste of their money. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Oct 19, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:The Clintons didn't need to get any money for themselves. Their goals with the foundation were mostly altruistic. Yay, helping kids! But if I'm someone who wants the ear of a future US President, I would be stupid not to donate to the charity they created and which provides them considerable worldwide influence even as private citizens. i still don't see how donating to charity can in any way be construed as secret corruption unless you've got a massive chip on your shoulder regarding the clintons but ok pal Krispy Wafer posted:Most everyone's intentions can be good and this still be a problem. And it was a problem. An argument could be made that the fuzziness over the Clinton foundation + Hillary's speeches for Wall Street lost her the election. It's impossible to be certain and they probably dampened her support more than they motivated her opposition. But the vote difference was small enough in some states to make it a distinct possibility. an argument could be made that literal decades of smear campaigns had a bigger effect. an argument could be made about rampant sexism tilting the scales as well. plenty of arguments could be made. it's a good thing we're not actually making those arguments, just obliquely hinting at them
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Comey tweeted again: Little round top involved the crushing defeat and capture of the 15th Alabama Regiment. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Lote posted:Little round top involved the crushing defeat and capture of the 15th Alabama Regiment. A good bayonet charge would fix a lot of problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Yeah, the speeches were much more of a problem for me. I mean, it's true that the $250k price tag was absolutely standard for a renowned speaker. But when I went through the data and looked at who was actually having her speak, it was almost entirely people who might want to influence her as a candidate - maybe one third wall street, one third pharmaceutical companies, and most of the rest divided between various lobbying organisations. There doesn't need to be an explicit quid pro quo for that to be as shady as all hell, though I don't think it's massively worse than what most politicans do with re-election donations. (She should just have released the drat transcripts from the start, though. There was nothing in them that anyone but a Republican would care about, and hiding them for so long made people think there would be.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:He's welcome to. Spencer renting an auditorium is not a problem for me. It gives students something easy to protest against, and increases their interest in political philosophy. The university spending wads of cash to enable him to do that is a much more significant issue. If he wants an auditorium and $500,000 worth of security to enable him to spew hate without starting a riot, he should be paying that money, not the students. Of course, it's still a university event, which means all students should have access, and the university can let anyone else attend that they please. If he doesn't want to raise those funds or accede to those fundamental requirements that are common to literally all public property, he's welcome to stand in the quad and yell like all the other crazies - and if he ends up starting a riot then he should be charged for inciting it. You might prefer if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/03/speech quote:The issue of whether charging for security keeps some views from being heard on campuses has come up at many institutions in recent years -- and a federal appeals court ruling last week may make it more difficult for public colleges and universities to assert blanket authority to permit only speakers whose security costs will be covered by student groups or some sponsor. The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, found that such a policy at Southeastern Louisiana University was unconstitutional. Some legal observers think this could be a key ruling outside the Fifth Circuit, given the limited number of courts that have considered the question. If the speaker doesn't request additional security but the school thinks that because of the content of the speech they will need security, courts have ruled in multiple cases the school must carry the cost and cannot prevent the speaker on the grounds of security costs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Still, demanding that they pay some fraction of it would go great lengths to shut down assassin-bait people. Even ten percent would be enough to push him away since he doesn't, y'know, have a job. Schools should really just start going "you don't think you need more security? Okay sounds good"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Still, demanding that they pay some fraction of it would go great lengths to shut down assassin-bait people. Even ten percent would be enough to push him away since he doesn't, y'know, have a job. sounds like a good way to end up in court and have your insurance premiums explode
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Still, demanding that they pay some fraction of it would go great lengths to shut down assassin-bait people. Even ten percent would be enough to push him away since he doesn't, y'know, have a job. Spenser spent his entire speech trying to incite violence against him and portray Nazis as victims, so I'm not sure that would work out the way we want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The 4 most brutal numbers in that poll showing the world hates Trump You're certainly not showing the non-democratic world the wonders of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
I kind of wish someone followed up the "how did it feel to get punched?" with "did it feel like this?" *punch. Still awesome of that lady to ask that question. looking at that video was there actually anyone there at the speech besides people trolling Dick "Head" Spenser?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i still don't see how donating to charity can in any way be construed as secret corruption unless you've got a massive chip on your shoulder regarding the clintons but ok pal Yeeeah, if you can't see how a large foreign donation to a charity with that politician's name, that supports causes they feel strongly about, and that helps increase their family's worldwide influence could somehow be concerning (if not deeply concerning) then I'm not sure what to tell you. Our optics differ. Hillary may be the most honest politician to ever run for President. But her decisions for those 8 or so years leading up to the 2016 election had a scummy aftertaste that, along with a generation long smear campaign, made her look not honest. Don't get me wrong, people were looking for an excuse not to vote for a woman. Hillary had the deck stacked against her from the start. But she was so much better than Trump that she almost won it all despite that bad hand. Almost. So any preventable dings she could've avoided all contributed to her loss and the Clinton Foundation was one of them. pumpinglemma posted:(She should just have released the drat transcripts from the start, though. There was nothing in them that anyone but a Republican would care about, and hiding them for so long made people think there would be.) Had she released them she would've taken a momentary ding and then the news cycle would have tossed it aside. Probably one of her worst mistakes because she looked absolutely helpless trying to rationalize that in the debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You might prefer if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. Actually the issue there is that universities need to provide some sort of non-arbitrary standard to show why security is necessary, which is perfectly fine with me. I have no problem with courts preventing university administrators from just requiring absurd security costs for anyone they don't like. But if those costs are reasonable, then the speaker should pay it. In any case, there's a clear alternative here: let the fascists come to the quad and get beat up, then arrest them for inciting a riot. No legal issue there at all. Police use selective enforcement against liberals all the loving time. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:The Clintons didn't need to get any money for themselves. Their goals with the foundation were mostly altruistic. Yay, helping kids! But if I'm someone who wants the ear of a future US President, I would be stupid not to donate to the charity they created and which provides them considerable worldwide influence even as private citizens. No, the issue was and has always been the questioning without any proof of a legitimate, fairly transparent charity that allowed it to be equivocated with Trump's personal slush fund charity. You are adding to the cost for anyone who runs in global elite circles to run a charity and gets others in those circles to donate to it. This is dumb. I don't think charity is a great solution to the country or the world's problems, but penalizing those doing it without any evidence of wrongdoing isn't going to help anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
lol at this timeline of the spencer speechquote:2:55 p.m. — As alt-right speaker Richard Spencer began remarks in the Phillips Center, he was loudly booed. Some audience members stood up and began to walk out. Many in the audience began making obscene gestures toward the stage. quote:4:07 p.m. — Spencer ended his talk early, saying the University of Florida “failed” because of how disruptive the crowd was. "we are strong, we will not be silenced" two hours pass "the university failed to protect me, this is an outrage"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I kind of wish someone followed up the "how did it feel to get punched?" with "did it feel like this?" *punch. There was the Nazi that got punched and the other one who ran and hid behind the cops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Yeeeah, if you can't see how a large foreign donation to a charity with that politician's name, that supports causes they feel strongly about, and that helps increase their family's worldwide influence could somehow be concerning (if not deeply concerning) then I'm not sure what to tell you. Our optics differ. i remember people repeating anti hillary clinton propaganda on the playground in elementary school you can get all twisted up about the clintons fighting malaria in africa if you want to, that is your choice, but imo you're just chasing your own tail
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Please make your way into uspol or, ideally, the thunderdome. USSRanium is relevant to this thread insofar as clarifying (with sources! Well done, OP) that Trump's morning dribblings were entirely at odds with reality. If you feel the need to declaim how HER SPEECHES!!!! and FOREIGN DONORS!!! led to her defeat, I promise you'll find a welcoming audience in thunderdome. Kaal posted:He's welcome to. Spencer renting an auditorium is not a problem for me. It gives students something easy to protest against, and increases their interest in political philosophy. The university spending wads of cash to enable him to do that is a much more significant issue. If he wants an auditorium and $500,000 worth of security to enable him to spew hate without starting a riot, he should be paying that money, not the students. Of course, it's still a university event, which means all students should have access, and the university can let anyone else attend that they please. If he doesn't want to raise those funds or accede to those fundamental requirements that are common to literally all public property, he's welcome to stand in the quad and yell like all the other crazies - and if he ends up starting a riot then he should be charged for inciting it. The devil is, as always, in the details. What assemblies are required to pay for security? Who are approved security providers and who determines the cost for the event? What is the punishment for holding events without proper security? The answers to those questions determine cconstitutionality and also ease of abuse. I'll say that your proposal bears striking resemblance to a trend in state legislation and prosecutorial theory that those gathered in an unlawful assembly are responsible to pay restitution for police OT and economic damage to any impacted businesses. I can't believe I need to be explicit, but: I do not bring these things up because I'm secretly a fan of Nazis or love that they're able to assemble. People can rage about how "they" just won't apply the easy solution to a deceptively complex problem, or they can grapple with the complexity and work towards solutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol at this timeline of the spencer speech Six Hundred Thousand Dollars
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
"I showed up uninvited, and everyone is mad at me. How dare they!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:... Are we the baddies? We're an imperial power. Yes, yes we are, and have been since the inception of our country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:lol at this timeline of the spencer speech There seems like this weird post-Charlottesville thing where all the White Nationalists expect to get that kind of massive turnout and support but instead they get a ton of pissed off protestors and a handful of idiot racists and it keeps shocking and shaking them. This is their moment! Why's it so hard?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Actually the issue there is that universities need to provide some sort of non-arbitrary standard to show why security is necessary, which is perfectly fine with me. I have no problem with courts preventing university administrators from just requiring absurd security costs for anyone they don't like. But if those costs are reasonable, then the speaker should pay it. In any case, there's a clear alternative here: let the fascists come to the quad and get beat up, then arrest them for inciting a riot. No legal issue there at all. Police use selective enforcement against liberals all the loving time. The court case explicitly forbid a university from denying a speaker that wouldn't pay for security because the university determined the cost of security needed. Edit: and the whole point is people like Spenser won't agree to costs of security needed because they don't want to have to pay. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A good bayonet charge would fix a lot of problems. Or it could be a reference to Rosenstein. General Longstreet argued with Hood against changing orders and carried out the attack as was with disasterous results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You might prefer if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. Sounds to me that the school should just agree with the speaker that no security is needed then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Sounds to me that the school should just agree with the speaker that no security is needed then. Yeah but then poo poo gets hosed up and your school becomes national news and the chancellor of the university gets fired. Ask the former UC Berkeley chancellor about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
oh no not the chancellor
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The devil is, as always, in the details. What assemblies are required to pay for security? Who are approved security providers and who determines the cost for the event? What is the punishment for holding events without proper security? I mean obviously they would develop that in the contract. If Spencer doesn't want to pay the security costs for using the facilities, then he's free to take to the street and duke it out with the cops. This sort of thing isn't new, universities have been dealing with people they don't want using their spaces for a long time. Trabisnikof posted:The court case explicitly forbid a university from denying a speaker that wouldn't pay for security because the university determined the cost of security needed. You should re-read that fifth circuit court case, they were pretty clear in the restrictions that they set. University administrators can't use unjustified security costs to create an economic barrier to speech, but justified costs are something else entirely. Indeed Spencer apparently paid some pittance for security inside the auditorium, he just didn't pay anything for the security that ringed the auditorium. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:There seems like this weird post-Charlottesville thing where all the White Nationalists expect to get that kind of massive turnout and support but instead they get a ton of pissed off protestors and a handful of idiot racists and it keeps shocking and shaking them. The right wing media bubble is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah but then poo poo gets hosed up and your school becomes national news and the chancellor of the university gets fired. Ask the former UC Berkeley chancellor about it. Thats not really why Dirks got the boot. There was a whole lot of things going on other then the protests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Thats not really why Dirks got the boot. There was a whole lot of things going on other then the protests. You're right but the $700k on protests certainly didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
The two most influential healthcare bills passed their chambers (CA-Sen, USHouse) with the legislative equivalent of a shruggie and a promise that other people will do the actual work. The GOP has wanted tax cuts for decades and drove out Camp - evidently the last remaining congressman who knows how to craft a bill. Well intentioned local measures nationwide are being struck down or overturned over fixable errors or because it's the wrong venue for that progress. The administration is staffed with people who dream of tearing down government, and they're doing a haphazaedly piss poor job of it because even demolition is difficult. If you're learning nothing else from 2017 on a state or federal level, I hope it's that solutions are rarely simple. "Somebody else" isn't just going to do the work necessary to fix things without pressure. Find out why your easy solution isn't being applied. If the answer is that the people in charge are lazy or corrupt or it's the corporate donors, find new sources for your answer. Call your congresscritters. If they agree with you or are a lost cause, call and pester relevant lefty/lib thinktanks. Get experts moving at the grassroots and you'll be surprised at what can happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Phoix posted:This is very good. Why would you jump a fence that short like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Schedule the speaker at the same time as a home football game. You already have the increased police presence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Lote posted:Schedule the speaker at the same time as a home football game. You already have the increased police presence. Spencer is the most offensive thing in Gainesville this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Why would you jump a fence that short like that? Panic, fear, and athletic incompetence? He thought it was going to look cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The court case explicitly forbid a university from denying a speaker that wouldn't pay for security because the university determined the cost of security needed. Can't universities just bypass this sort of thing by inviting right-wingers to speak, but just not blatant poo poo stirrers like Spencer? I mean, how does this even work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:If you're learning nothing else from 2017 on a state or federal level, I hope it's that solutions are rarely simple. "Somebody else" isn't just going to do the work necessary to fix things without pressure. Find out why your easy solution isn't being applied. If the answer is that the people in charge are lazy or corrupt or it's the corporate donors, find new sources for your answer. Call your congresscritters. If they agree with you or are a lost cause, call and pester relevant lefty/lib thinktanks. Get experts moving at the grassroots and you'll be surprised at what can happen. This is exactly right. We need more people to engage in politics more broadly. It isn't just about elections or party building, politics is everywhere. That's why the DSA's brake light clinics are spot on. That's why we need more organizations like the People's Policy Project. The more of us that get our hands dirty the even more powerful our efforts become.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I want someone to go loving punch him again. Maybe if he has enough concussions he'll stop being a little racist shithead. Maybe someone will stick a railroad spike in his frontal lobe and see if it reverse Gages him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Not enough Nazis getting punched in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:10
|
|
