President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

a) Well you said I couldn't do it so.

b) Then why did you point our earlier that you thought, that I thought, that silencing the protesters was ok, which you seemed appalled by?

d) What about foreign policy? What about the protection of America and it's rights? If there's a worldwide worrisome virus spreading and has yet to reach America... it just sits around and waits?

This alone sums up pretty much everything, and is the reason our conversation won't go anywhere productive.

c) "The issue was not with equal access, it was with revoking a pass without cause."

Revoking a pass they never had a right to in the first place. Each individual was being allotted a certain number of questions and the 'journalist' went beyond that, even after being told to pass the mic and yet continued to argue and then actively put his hands on a woman to keep the mic for himself so he could continue arguing. Challenging the Prez by arguing with him, when it's his job to just ask questions and take down the response. Which may mean asking multiple questions to get to the bottom of it if one doesn't suffice, if multiple questions are being taken that is. And no, I don't believe he aggressively karate chopped her, but he did physically push her arms away to keep the mic.

"In a statement, CNN defended its reporter. “The White House announced tonight that it has revoked the press pass of CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta,” said the company in a statement. “It was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference."

"The move will be seen as clear interference with the way White House Correspondents’ Association members cover the administration. The White House Correspondents’ Association issued a statement condemning what it called the Trump administration’s “decision to use US Secret Service security credentials as a tool to punish a reporter with whom it has a difficult relationship”.


The problem was the excessive aggressive speech, physical act, and not following the rules in general. The pass being revoked was a byproduct.

Free speech is being suppressed on campuses in many ways, and an executive order was the byproduct.

If Jim and the protesters would follow the rules and act like reasonable human beings, the byproducts wouldn't be necessary.

a) What?

b) I stated that the speech of protesters is still speech and acknowledged the strangeness of fighting speech to support speech.

c) Neat. I already said that I'm not going to have a conversation about this because I don't think it is relevant, so I'm not sure why you thought to write all that out.

You said you weren't, and then you did, and now your not again, again.

If I don't use media sources my words mean little if nothing at times apparently, and if I do use media sources they are 'biased' or 'wrong' or indirect so.

If you've had a short in your electrical system, and I tell you it's because of water and needs to be fixed, and you say 'I don't see why water should have anything to do with an electrical problem because it's not directly tied to how electricity itself works, and if you can't show me a direct electrical relation to the problem, I'm going to assume everything is fine and keep on trying to flick the switches and hope the lights come back on'. Well nothing would change because the power isn't coming back on until the water issue is fixed. As indirect as water may be to the source, it's still related to the problem of the short, and is worthy if not necessary to be taken into account to understand the entire problem and what needs to be done to solve it.

My CNN WH example was the water in this case. Our conversation about what was and wasn't a problem (unruly protest and speech, etc) was the short. Your denial of the connection between the two is the reason the lights aren't coming back on.

I wrote it as an attempt to be as clear as possible about the point I was trying to make, and if you still don't see it, then there's no point in discussing it further.

RolStoppable said:
EricHiggin said:


If the rest of the entire world, one way or another, ended up with tyrannical leaders, who did everything possible to shut down speech and communication only by individuals seen to be on the left, would that be ok, or should America do something about it?

Being oppressed by the FPÖ in Austria or getting "saved" by an intervention of the USA... that's a tough choice. I think I am going to have nightmares for the rest of the week.

Well whatever you do, don't watch Team America World Police then. It'll make it waaaay worse.

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau


Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

A reaction to what exactly? Speech? New ideas? There is absolutely no justification to "react" to speech in the way they do, just because you don't agree with it. Ideas are largely subjective in terms of their positive or negative impact on people/society. Violence is not. 

Maybe they aren't "Fascist" in the traditional sense or on a government level - but they certainly use Fascist-like tactics because as they're using force to basically shape discourse and thus society for the benefit of "the collective". Sure the collective might not be for the "state" in this case, but it's still a top-down sort of operation.

At the very least, they should be considered terrorists performing terrorist acts. I've also heard the term Anarcho-Fascist to describe them.

And there is such a thing as left-wing Fascism, so it does make sense.

That would make it government operated.  Don't you mean they are a bottom-up operation? 

Which again, is the opposite of fascism.

Fair enough. I'll stick with the more accurate terms "Anarcho-Fascist" and "terrorists" then.

Jumpin said:
Jon-Erich said:

I didn't make anything up. Have you seen what Antifa has been doing in places like Portland? They block traffic, forcing cars to go where they tell them. If the drivers don't comply, they start attacking the cars. local shops don't have pro-Antifa or anti-Trump signs hanging up, their windows get smashed. Then there are the countless fights that they have started. This is all an act of authoritarianism, not defense. There is a reason wear masks and will run away if their masks are removed. This is because they know they're going to engage in illegal activity and would rather not be seen. This is also the reason the state of New Jersey actually classifies Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and why they've been on a Department of Homeland Security watch list since 2016.

I don't think you know what the word authoritarianism means. Also, I am not sure about Portland (have only heard of the place before today), but looking at pictures of the city I see no broken windows, and no anti-Trump and no Antifa signs. It looks like you're making this up.


Also, not seeing this Antifa group on the New Jersey terror list:


If you got this from Fox News, I would suggest not watching that channel, it is as your President would say "FAKE NEWS"

You are seriously countering his statement of anti-trump, pro antifa stickers, and broken windows by looking at google images for Portland shops?

That has to be the most pathetic counter argument I have ever seen. I have no idea if what he say is true. I know Portland is a dump and not a safe place, but would have to look into it to validate his statement. But seriously ... google image search results for Portland shops. That is your argument.