Even leftists are beginning to condemn the leftists shutting down free speech on college campuses

[Blackrook]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

No, fucktard, my thread is about how SOME leftists are condemning the censorship at Berkeley, but OTHERS are still defending it. Like you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

Another reason to fight for Proportional Representation then, isn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

No, fucktard, my thread is about how SOME leftists are condemning the censorship at Berkeley, but OTHERS are still defending it. Like you.

Oh, wow, insults.

 

[Sunni Man]

The ideological forefathers of todays university leftists. ....

 

[jon_berzerk]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

because they are fascists

 

[frigidweirdo]

The ideological forefathers of todays university leftists. ....

Not at all, but hey, you keep just shouting "communist", and then realize that now you're supposed to shout "Muslim"

 

[flacaltenn]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

Another reason to fight for Proportional Representation then, isn't it?

Not really. There's a reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College. But it IS a reason to fight for ballot access. So that 3rd and 4th parties have fair access. And Independents can easily organize temporary parties to push reform and populist issues.

What you're seeing on campus is a natural result of BAD choices. Hillary was NOT a campus favorite. Bernie was. There's room for 4 or 5 parties. And if all that energy were CHANNELED into the mainstream political channels, the campuses wouldn't be getting as radicalized as they are. These ARE the "alt-left". And if they don't get a voice, it's likely to turn ugly and fascist..

 

[Alena36]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

I agree this needs to stop, but I don't think the people rioting and blocking freedom of speech get a pass just because of how polarized our nation is.

Our constitutional rights should remain no matter who is president or how much anyone disagrees or is offended by the speaker.

I want to hear from people that are blocking free speech I don't understand why they think attacking the 1st amendment is okay.

Anyone here that agrees with the Berkeley Ann coulter/milo yianopolos riots please reply I honestly want to hear you out

 

[frigidweirdo]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

Another reason to fight for Proportional Representation then, isn't it?

Not really. There's a reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College. But it IS a reason to fight for ballot access. So that 3rd and 4th parties have fair access. And Independents can easily organize temporary parties to push reform and populist issues.

What you're seeing on campus is a natural result of BAD choices. Hillary was NOT a campus favorite. Bernie was. There's room for 4 or 5 parties. And if all that energy were CHANNELED into the mainstream political channels, the campuses wouldn't be getting as radicalized as they are. These ARE the "alt-left". And if they don't get a voice, it's likely to turn ugly and fascist..

Yes, really. There are reasons for having the Senate and the Electoral College, but then this isn't 1789.

The reason for the electoral college was to stop popular politics. Er... what do we have? Popular politics.

Why the Electoral College

"The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states."

"The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."

"
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

Yes, we can understand why they'd want to give power to smaller states. This was in a time when the states were seen as separate countries joining together in a union. This doesn't exist any more. The country hasn't been separate countries acting independently for a long time.

The world has change, the people have changed. Many countries have democracy with one person one vote now. It leads to more choice, and a fairer system. Back in the day it was okay, when the US was like one of one countries with the vote.

it's funny how people complain and moan about the system, then you show them a better change that does work for the people, and the people reject it in favor of being fucked up the ass by the rich.

 

[Blackrook]

What's really hilarious is that some people are just waking up the fact that the left does not believe in the First Amendment, and wants to repeal that amendment of the United States Constitution.

I've known that for years.

 

[flacaltenn]

‘F**king babies’: Bill Maher mercilessly tears into liberals, Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter

But you still see leftists defending it on this forum!!!

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

Another reason to fight for Proportional Representation then, isn't it?

Not really. There's a reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College. But it IS a reason to fight for ballot access. So that 3rd and 4th parties have fair access. And Independents can easily organize temporary parties to push reform and populist issues.

What you're seeing on campus is a natural result of BAD choices. Hillary was NOT a campus favorite. Bernie was. There's room for 4 or 5 parties. And if all that energy were CHANNELED into the mainstream political channels, the campuses wouldn't be getting as radicalized as they are. These ARE the "alt-left". And if they don't get a voice, it's likely to turn ugly and fascist..

Yes, really. There are reasons for having the Senate and the Electoral College, but then this isn't 1789.

The reason for the electoral college was to stop popular politics. Er... what do we have? Popular politics.

Why the Electoral College

"The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states."

"The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."

"
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

Yes, we can understand why they'd want to give power to smaller states. This was in a time when the states were seen as separate countries joining together in a union. This doesn't exist any more. The country hasn't been separate countries acting independently for a long time.

The world has change, the people have changed. Many countries have democracy with one person one vote now. It leads to more choice, and a fairer system. Back in the day it was okay, when the US was like one of one countries with the vote.

it's funny how people complain and moan about the system, then you show them a better change that does work for the people, and the people reject it in favor of being fucked up the ass by the rich.

Cant do that again here. The world hasn't changed. This country is a big empty space in places. And there has to be some EQUAL respect given to States. Besides prop. rep doesn't give you MORE VOICES. Only ballot access reform and public outreach will...

 

[frigidweirdo]

You seem to think all people in the left think the same, and act like partisan hacks just like you. They don't.

When the public perceives only two "winnable choices" and the leadership of those parties are devoid of consistent principles, you can't expect the followers to think much along any line but to "win". And 1/2 the country are LOSERS at the end of each election. That promotes the polarization.

And what you see with students attempting to deny others access to certain speakers is a direct PRODUCT of this polarization. NO ONE should fear merely retail political speech. It's mostly garbage anyways. So the speakers who are denied podiums are really no great loss. But the problem is --- even comedians won't do campuses anymore. Because the "allowable limits" of speech are closing rapidly........ It's gotta be reversed. Or college will become even more irrelevant.

Another reason to fight for Proportional Representation then, isn't it?

Not really. There's a reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College. But it IS a reason to fight for ballot access. So that 3rd and 4th parties have fair access. And Independents can easily organize temporary parties to push reform and populist issues.

What you're seeing on campus is a natural result of BAD choices. Hillary was NOT a campus favorite. Bernie was. There's room for 4 or 5 parties. And if all that energy were CHANNELED into the mainstream political channels, the campuses wouldn't be getting as radicalized as they are. These ARE the "alt-left". And if they don't get a voice, it's likely to turn ugly and fascist..

Yes, really. There are reasons for having the Senate and the Electoral College, but then this isn't 1789.

The reason for the electoral college was to stop popular politics. Er... what do we have? Popular politics.

Why the Electoral College

"The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states."

"The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."

"
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

Yes, we can understand why they'd want to give power to smaller states. This was in a time when the states were seen as separate countries joining together in a union. This doesn't exist any more. The country hasn't been separate countries acting independently for a long time.

The world has change, the people have changed. Many countries have democracy with one person one vote now. It leads to more choice, and a fairer system. Back in the day it was okay, when the US was like one of one countries with the vote.

it's funny how people complain and moan about the system, then you show them a better change that does work for the people, and the people reject it in favor of being fucked up the ass by the rich.

Cant do that again here. The world hasn't changed. This country is a big empty space in places. And there has to be some EQUAL respect given to States. Besides prop. rep doesn't give you MORE VOICES. Only ballot access reform and public outreach will...

Well, when talking about Proportional Representation there are three areas which get voted in.

The first is the Senate, this doesn't need to have PR. The second is the House, it's already elected on some form of one person, one vote. So why not make the House PR. It'd change politics so much, that even the Senate would change.

As for the Presidency, the French system seems to be better. Have a PR vote, then a run off for the last two. There's no need to have an antiquated system for the presidency. It doesn't "give respect" to the smaller states at all.

Had the election been done with each state having one vote person and that vote vote being worth the same, then Trump would have won 245 to 190. As it was he won 304 to 227, more or less the same. The smaller states did what?

Close states, the states that actually swung the election were Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all being within 1% between the two candidates.

That's 10 million, 1.3 million, 13 million, 6 million, plus maybe Florida as a typical swing state with 20 million.

The smallest voted for Hillary anyway, so the small states got ignored in this election, and the states that got all the attention were the ones with quite a sizable majority. The Electoral College was designed to do two things, and we have popular politics and small states still being ignored, even though they have a 3-1 ratio for votes.