Mizzou(ri) loves company. Have you ever noticed that BLM disrupts traffic, free speech, and shoppers, but I have yet to hear of them even attempting to disrupt gang violence or drug dealing. It's also ironic that this happened in Chicago...over 1400 people shot this year and 80-90% of the people shot are blacks, shot by other blacks....and BLM thinks that protesting a troll is the best thing they can do for their community.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! There is no mainstream media coverage of it, so I cant be sure, but I heard a 3-4 minute recap interview that Milo did later that night and he mentioned that the female protester, who got in his face with fists and grabbed the mic from the moderator...is the daughter of the chair of the Political Science Department at Depaul. So of course the University was complicit in this bullshit. I was talking to an African American friend of mine, a Depaul alum, about it and he was mentioning what a fucking joke this shit is. You're not protesting a KKK rally, hell you're not even at a Trump event, you're fucking with a bunch of 20 something college Republicans. So you accomplish nothing and you just give Trump supporters more to rally around. Also, he's a complete troll, but my god Milo is entertaining as hell, mostly cause nobody from the other side has any clue what to do with him and he's incredibly quick on his feet, and doesn't even try to bog down in policy discussion, he fully admits his talks flow more like stand up than pontification.
Trump hits the number of delegates needed for the nomination. "Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-to-clinch-gop-nomination.html?intcmp=hpbt1
He might be a troll but he uses actual facts, figures, and logic to back up his points. Plus, he's gay. So the feminists that hate him lose 50% of the typical arsenal they use when debating and that's to automatically vilify the person they are talking to as being a straight, white male. He gets people so angry that all they can do is namecall and get in his face. Which then feeds into exactly what he's talking about.
The guy is doing exactly what more people should be doing, and that's calling them on their bullshit. He may have his own "special" style, but he's being very effective at treating them like the children they are. And like children, when they lose because their feelings aren't supported by facts, they throw tantrums. I don't particularly like the guy, personally, but I do appreciate what he's doing.
What's hilarious is people say his speech inspires violence and hate, so how do those who oppose him react? They assault him. Oh, the irony.
Even though the sit down for the DePaul thing started as just Milo being interviewed and riffing, Q&A was scheduled. I don't understand what storming the stage with the whistle blowing and twerking was supposed to accomplish. If instead, that group had waited to ask him questions in a way to express their opinion, and THEN had their supporters shout and blow whistles in support, it seems that would've been much more effective. Instead they just look like idiots and embolden people against them instead of change their minds. Now for future events and elsewhere, instead of encouraging the free exchange of opinions, the hosting groups will just work harder to prevent the opposition from being able to speak. Although, when Trump and Hillary have a debate, if she responds to something he says by blowing a whistle and twerking in his face, that would be the most awesome debate ever.
He has some decent allies: Christina Hoff Summers takes a more information-based approach to offending these fuckheads. Feminists of the third wave particularly hate her because she's a real feminist, a scholar, and always has the facts. Then again Milo has some not-decent allies like Steven Crowder, who is a fucking tool with a strip club DJ voice.
IS security is important. But when I look this "scandal" and compare it to issues such as the potential to appoint up to 3 SCOTUS Justices which subsequently will shape the character of the country for the next 20+ years, the importance of a whether or not a private email server was secure enough or should've been used is minimized into utter irrelevance. Then, when I look at the other side and see that - among other things - it wants to deny that probably the most important issue for the future of humankind - climate change - is even a thing that exists, you're goddamn right I couldn't possibly give less of a shit about the security of some fucking emails.
They're definition of "violence" is far different from how a normal person views it. Their definition of violence is "anybody who insults me on Twitter". Harrassment is "any time somebody calls me out on Twitter." It's not violence, it's NOT harrassment. It is a giant cascade of people telling you that you are wrong, stupid, thin-skinned and a liar. Because that is what you are.
The Supreme Court nominations are a huge problem for me. Everyone keeps talking about how it's so important for their candidate to get to make the nominations. Why aren't we demanding that we nominate justices who will return the best decisions based on the Constitution? Instead, we all clamor for justices who will issue the most rulings that we agree with. The process has become fundamentally flawed.
I don't care for Steven Crowder. He's too smarmy and I think his motivation is still to show all the people that bullied him when he was 10 that he's now better than they are. Having said that, Crowder exploding at the crowd when all he was supposed to do was introduce Milo is one of the most awesome meltdowns I've seen in awhile. Everything he said was bang-on, and that bridge troll who lost her (?) temper could not illustrate his point better if she'd been brought in from Central Casting.
Milo is great at expressing his points, albeit intolerably obnoxious on social media. I do enjoy watching SJWs lose their minds over his speeches though. And it sounds like Bernie and Trump might have a debate, or at least heading in that direction. Good on both of them. Fuck Hillary.
Great article by The New Yorker on activism run amok. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges
Except SCOTUS issues decisions based on the Constitution by definition. Furthermore, Marbury v. Madison established that the SCOTUS making these determinations (via Judicial Review) is the right and proper activity of the SCOTUS. If you want to change how that works, you'd need a constitutional amendment. And possibly a new Constitution altogether.
No, maybe I wasn't clear. They absolutely should be making decisions based on the Constitution. The problem I have is that different justices come to different conclusions based on their political slant, and instead of finding the next best jurist, the President chooses candidates based on how he believes they will rule, and Congress confirms them based on the same criteria. The flaw is that there is no way to determine whether potential justices can be impartial. In fact, now we assume that they will be partial, and the argument becomes how far to one side or the other they will rule and whether the other side can accept that distance. If the system worked correctly, we would be able to nominate a justice and then say "Yes, that person really understands the Constitution and will make good decisions based on it."
How can this happen, though? Since the President nominates and the Senate confirms, you'd have to completely eliminate partisanship from the Senate. Hell, even then I'm not entirely sure that would be enough. Senators are elected to represent their constituents, and I think most people want their representatives to champion their beliefs and values.
Yep, Juice mentioned it earlier. I think this is going to be awesome... it's like everyone is just proceeding on without giving a shit what Hillary wants, and it does a great job of framing a "Trump vs Bernie" hypothetical final. It'd be even better if she then said, "fine, I'll join the debate", and they excluded her... "nah, you focus on your FBI investigation".