Stanford Student Government Blocks Funding For Pence Speech

One of the free speech issues that we have previously discussed is whether universities are effectively curtailing free speech through student surrogates on campus. We have seen student government bodies and boards engage in blatant content-based discrimination in exercising their control over budgets or publications (here and here and here). The latest example comes from Stanford University where the student government voted against approving a $6,000 grant request from the College Republicans to help host former Vice President Mike Pence for a campus speech. That’s right, they voted against supporting the right of other students to hear from a former Vice President of the United States.

The College Republicans needed 8 votes to approve the funding. However, the final vote was 7 in favor, 7 in abstention, and 1 in opposition.  Somehow the seven students not voting considered that act to be more ethical than just being honest and voting against the funding. It had the same effect. Despite only one student voting against the speech, the school refused to support a former vice president coming to its campus to address faculty and students.

The vote captures the rise of intolerance and speech controls sweeping over our campuses. This is a vice president who played a historic role in defying a president to certify the vote on January 6th. He did the right thing. However, whether you agree or disagree with him, this is an opportunity for students to listen and question someone who held the second highest office in the country and served in a critical capacity in a number of key policy areas, including the election and the pandemic. However, a majority of Stanford students in this vote refused to approve a small level of funding for the event.

One interesting element is that university rules require that events needing security must secure over 50% of funding from on-campus sources. That guarantees this type of control by student government leaders — authority that was abused in this case. Previously the Undergraduate Senate initially blocked conservative speaker Dinesh D’Souza.

Conversely, Stanford students approved sponsorship for an array of highly controversial speakers from the left including Professor Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi has written highly offensive commentary, including questioning the adoption of two Haitian children by Justice Amy Coney Barrett as illustrative of “white colonizer” values.

While Kendi’s event was opposed by conservatives on campus, I believe that all of these voices should be welcomed on campuses. Higher education is supposed to foster rigorous and passionate debate. These speakers are part of that spectrum of viewpoints that add to our rigorous debates and dialogues on social issues. For example, Kendi insists that “The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism. In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” That would make for a fascinating debate on any campus. Kendi has also called for a “Department of Antiracism” that would be able to oppose “racist ideas” and even veto or nullify any law at any level of government run counter to an “antiracist” agenda. That proposal runs afoul of a host of constitutional guarantees but again it is the type of viewpoint that can lead to substantive debate.

The actions of the Stanford students shows again that we have a rising generation of censors who have been told that barring free speech is a form of free speech. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

They learned this intolerance from academic and journalistic figures of my generation. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.  Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

The Stanford vote will be appealed and could be reversed. However, that does not alter the disgraceful initial vote or its implications for free speech at Stanford.

 

 

338 thoughts on “Stanford Student Government Blocks Funding For Pence Speech”

  1. This distinction between private and government censorship is an arbitrary rationalization. Why are private companies allowed to be more tyrannical than the government? In a free country, no entity should be tyrannical. If a private university is going to enjoy economic freedom in this country, then it should go all-in on the idea of freedom, not in a half-assed way. Expressing yourself freely is a fundamental right. A private company shouldn’t be in control of what is supposed to be a fundamental right. What about your fundamental right to life? That’s like saying “It’s not really murder when a private company kills you, only when the government kills you.” Is it murder when a private company kills you, or only when the government kills you?

    1. “ This distinction between private and government censorship is an arbitrary rationalization. ”

      No it’s not. The distinction lies in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution says that private companies must adhere to the limitations of the 1st amendment. No private company is obligated to do so.

      “ Why are private companies allowed to be more tyrannical than the government?” because private companies who are defined as “persons” by conservative Supreme Court justices are free to act how they see fit. If some behavior seems “tyrannical” it’s because they are free to be so as long as the behavior is criminal in nature. Ironically conservatives have always supported this. When companies act unfairly or abuse their financial largess without breaking the law it is considered a consequence of freedom from government intervention. Thats the 1st amendment.

      “ A private company shouldn’t be in control of what is supposed to be a fundamental right. ”

      A private company has control over its own policies and behavior and is also protected by its own 1st amendment right of freedom of speech. This means they CAN censor its employees, dictate requirements, etc. people VOLUNTARILY join a company. They are not forced to. You don’t like a company censoring you or anyone else? Quit or don’t work for them.

      A private company also has 1st amendment rights. Just like an individual. As an individual you can tell someone to shut up or censor a person by refusing to distribute or repeat their ideas, thoughts, or opinions. A private company has the same right. Only the government can’t tell you to shut up or censor your ideas or thoughts or opinions. Because the constitution prohibits government not private individuals or companies.

    2. “This distinction between private and government censorship is an arbitrary rationalization.”

      No. It’s a fundamental distinction between choice and free trade (private) and physical force (government).

      If you do not grasp that distinction, perhaps a store owner can help you. He knows the difference between a customer he trades with, and a robber wielding a gun.

  2. Those on the left keep telling us how they support debate and pluralism. This simple act of not letting the former VP of the US speak demonstrates how empty their words are.

    1. S. Meyer,

      “ Those on the left keep telling us how they support debate and pluralism. This simple act of not letting the former VP of the US speak demonstrates how empty their words are.”

      You should read the linked articles in Turley’s column noting that what the Republican student group was not being honest with its claims. Turley conveniently leaves that out.

      They claim that the student senate is “constitutionally obligated” to approve the grant. Apparently that’s not true.

      There were other considerations that were debated including security, and how to deal with COVID protocols AND free speech. My guess is the lone student who opposed the grant didn’t want to pence you speak. The 7 abstentions. Do not mean they were opposed to it. They most likely abstained due to a lack of information regarding security and Covid protocols.

      The didn’t deny pence to speak. They denied a grant needed to set up the event.

      The Republican student group never mentions how much funding they secured prior to seeking the grant. They were required by school policy to get at least 50% of the funding as a condition to apply for the grant.

      The Stanford student government does support debate and pluralism. It’s those students who are complaining because they feel they are entitled to the grant as if it were an automatic approval.

      They are throwing a tantrum over because they felt slighted.

      1. “You should read the linked articles in Turley’s column noting…”

        Svelaz, I’ve read a lot about it and understand what is happening at Stanford. Young people who are pushing a movement that eventually controls speech and the actions of its people want to indoctrinate rather than learn. These are not Stupid kids. They have intelligence but are young and have not been exposed to the world.

        You don’t have that excuse. You have lived long enough, yet you remain dumb and cannot learn, as shown many times after you run away from an argument proving you wrong. Tell me more about Robert Moses, one of those discussions, before you continue on your ignorant journey making ignorant comments on the present op-ed by Turley.

        As others have said, you are a waste of time. What I said above holds. The only thing at issue is the desire of the left to indoctrinate.

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ Svelaz, I’ve read a lot about it and understand what is happening at Stanford.”

          LOL!!!! You didn’t read it S. Meyer. If you did you would have known that the students were being dishonest with their claims and the student government did not deny them over pence, but over funding.

          “I’ve read a lot about it”. LOL!!!!!!

          1. Svelaz, that is not the issue but you are too stupid to recognize it. I don’t know what the rules are for funding and don’t care. The issue is the intolerance of the left to any opinion but their own. That is what you don’t understand. You hang your hat on simple questions meant for the simpletons like yourself.

            If the rules actually permit what the leftists did then those are the rules. But based on the reason for universities to exist the rules should be quite different. When a dictator is permitted to speak, but the VP of the US is denied such a right, then one knows something is very wrong, even though you don’t have the brain power to figure it out.

            1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

              If you have “read a lot about it” as you claim then you would know the rules for funding. It’s in those articles linked in the column.

              You say you don’t know the rules for funding confirming you didn’t… “read a lot about it”.

              “ But based on the reason for universities to exist the rules should be quite different.”

              You accuse others of being stupid, but it seems it has been you all along. Universities have different rules depending on what their student governments choose. They are elected officials who vote on the rules and decide on requests. Just like real government bodies.

              “ When a dictator is permitted to speak, but the VP of the US is denied such a right, then one knows something is very wrong, even though you don’t have the brain power to figure it out.”

              Well that brain of yours seems to be quite the underperforming unit. Pence isn’t being denied the right to speak. The students wanting pence to speak don’t have the funds to meet the requirement under the rules. They CAN come up with the $6,000 on their own and have pence speak. They requested a grant which they believed they were entitled to because they claim the school constitution obligates the student government to grant them the $6,000. That’s not true.

              They are throwing a fit over not getting money and instead claim they add being denied because they are republicans.

              They can fundraise the money with their own campus activities and meet the requirement. Pence would then be able to speak. It’s their responsibility to make sure they have the funds for the event.

              1. Svelaz, you are stupid and that is why I repeat it. I know the rules, but that should be our concern on a free speech web site that promotes diversity of views. Whether or not the rules dictated the results properly is meaningless. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part about what free speech is supposed to mean. You, being intellectually challenged, latched onto some talking points which might dictate the results or not, but you learned nothing. That is your history. You learn nothing.

                1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                  “ Svelaz, you are stupid and that is why I repeat it. I know the rules,”

                  S. Meyer, you said this, “ Svelaz, that is not the issue but you are too stupid to recognize it. I don’t know what the rules are for funding and don’t care. ”

                  If you’re going to repeat it you should repeat exactly what you said. That you don’t know the rules. You didn’t say you knew them. You’re a liar and that’s why you have no credibility according to your own rationale.

                  “ Whether or not the rules dictated the results properly is meaningless. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part about what free speech is supposed to mean. You, being intellectually challenged, latched onto some talking points which might dictate the results or not, but you learned nothing. That is your history. You learn nothing.”

                  It’s really obvious that you didn’t read anything about the issue. All you did was demonstrate that you go off on a nonsensical rant whenever you’re caught lying.

                  1. “If you’re going to repeat it you should repeat exactly what you said. ”

                    Are you too dumb to see that the phrase was copied word for word? I guess so. But what is your point? You continue writing but make no sense.

                    To summarize, they have rules, but I am not sure anyone here knows precisely what they are, but that isn’t the op-ed point. Turley makes the point in his first sentence: “One of the free speech issues that we have previously discussed is whether universities are effectively curtailing free speech through student surrogates on campus.” and completes the thought throughout the op-ed. You are just too dumb to know what the op-ed is all about, so you focus on the one thing that is not clear to anyone.

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      “ Are you too dumb to see that the phrase was copied word for word?”

                      YOU first said, word for word,

                      “ Svelaz, that is not the issue but you are too stupid to recognize it. I don’t know what the rules are for funding and don’t care.”

                      THEN you said, word for word,

                      “ Svelaz, you are stupid and that is why I repeat it. I know the rules, but that should be our concern on a free speech web site that promotes diversity of views. ”

                      You didn’t repeat it. You changed it.

                      THEN, you LIE again by changing what you originally said,

                      “ To summarize, they have rules, but I am not sure anyone here knows precisely what they are, but that isn’t the op-ed point.”

                      YOU, said you “read a lot about it”. If you really did you would know that the articles linked to his column do state the rules.

                      I TOLD you exactly what the rules were based on TURLEY’s own links.

                      Clearly you’re a liar. You have no credibility.

              2. “You didn’t repeat it. You changed it.”

                Svelaz, are you dumb? I don’t necessarily copy what I said previously. Sometimes I might rewrite it to help your lack of understanding. You are discussing words, copying and everything else, but you are not discussing the subject matter. Did you do that in grade school as well? Did you flunk out?

                “Pence isn’t being denied the right to speak. ”

                Yes, he was. It was political. It is fair to believe that the rules permit good speakers of various views to speak. I think they wish to weed out those with a limited audience. You miss the forest through the trees. That is evidence of your intellectual disability.

                The intention behind the rules was not to prevent the former VP from speaking.

                1. Pence is a moral coward who Goebbeled idly by the most vulgar, corrupt president in American history.

                  Even after Trump wanted him killed.

                  Why would anyone pay attention to someone like that?

                  Stanford is smarter and better than that.

                  Let’s invite Himmler to talk on campus!!!

                  1. Ben, your ignorance has already been disclosed by another who provided a pretty good history of you. You seem to believe that your words make you look superior. You sound like trailer trash.

                    1. That other guy is a clueless Trumper idiot and so are you.

                      Traiker trash? My ancestors are some of the smartest people this country has produced. Great uncle Fordyce was VP of Kodak in the 30s and 40s and on the National Defense Research Committee. Grandfather Clifton worked on the Manhattan Project and was at Alamgordo. Grandfather Joseph Schafer taught history and has a building named for him at U of Oregon. Great Great Grandfather Mathias Schafer was best friends with Karl Marx in Trier.

                      You and the other dope are brainless Trumper proles.

                      You idiots had your vulgar corrupt president for four years and look at the result.

                      You just like him because you’re just like him.

                      American idiots.

                    2. “Traiker trash? My ancestors are some of the smartest people this country has produced. “

                      If true, your ancestors would have disavowed your lineage. If not true and they were just regular folk, they would have disavowed your lineage as well.

                    3. Naw, they would have been proud of me.

                      My grandfather Joseph Schafer taught history at University of Oregon and wrote fundamental textbooks on the history of Oregon and the PNW.

                      Then he went back to Wisconsin and was director of the Wisconsin Historical Society.

                      A few years ago the Wisconsin Historical Society contacted me because one of their membets wrote a book called Some Like it Cold about surfing in Sheboygan.

                      They asked if I would write a review.

                      I said “Sure but do you know who Joseph Schafer is?”

                      They said “Sure we pass by his portrait every day.”

                      I said “That’s my grandfather.”

                      They weren’t expecting that.

                      I inherited the history brain which is why I’ve written 25 books.

                    4. “Naw, they would have been proud of me.”

                      Shame is something your family does not like admitting.

                    5. They ain’t got nothing to be ashamed of.

                      My great uncle Ford and grandpa Clifton played a major hand in winning World War II.

                      Clifton helped crack the Japanese Purple Code which lead to victory at Midway, and then in the Pacific.

                      And he was a camera tech at Alamogordo – I remember him telling me it scared the shit out of him to see the fireball and the mushroom cloud.

                      You’d be up to your knees in mud sweating at water buffalo in Japanese if it wasn’t for my family.

                      And my great uncle Ford was head of Optical Physics for the National Defense Research Committee.

                      He patented gun training by tracer spotting and practically invented modern photography.

                      These are all his patents:

                      https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Tuttle+Fordyce

          2. The students at Stanford are some of the best and the brightest and they don’t want to buy what Pence is selling.

            There is NOTHING that can justify how Pence stood aside and let Trump Mussolini America.

            Pence was loyal to a guy who inspired a riot that wanted to kill Pence.

            What could Pence possibly be selling that Stanford wants to hear?

  3. Intolerance. It’s what they do. Because they’re not liberals. They’re the Left.

    “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”
    ― Socrates

  4. This is odd. Under most rules of order this motion would pass 7-1. I tried to look at their particular rules but they are not publicly available. I suspect that this motion actually passed but they did not know it.

  5. Until the Taxpayers of this Country take back our schools and our (local and national) government it is only going to get worse with their demands.

  6. What are First Amendment attorneys doing to combat this natural, innate tendency people have to punish those with opposing views?
    Wny aren’t students being taught more about Voltarian principles of free speech?

    1. “ What are First Amendment attorneys doing to combat this natural, innate tendency people have to punish those with opposing views?”

      Republicans in state legislatures are doing it all the time. Just look at all the bans on CRT. CRT is an opposing view. Republicans and conservatives are frothing at the mouth demanding CRT views be banned. Students are being taught by their own parents when they are demanding a point of view needs to be banned.

        1. “ CRT is indoctrination, abusive and racist.”

          No it’s not. The majority of parents and legislators have no idea what CRT is other than what those who are deliberately distorting what the theory is about. Mostly by conflating diversity training as CRT. They are two separate things.

          It’s still an opposing view that is being censored merely because they disagree with it. The right certainly has a tendency to punish those with an opposing view.

          1. Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Critical race theorists believe that American institutions such as the U.S. Constitution and the legal system preach freedom and equality but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination. They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition that simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.

            https://christopherrufo.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Parent-Guidebook.pdf

            1. “Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds . . .”

              And that capitalism is inherently racist, because blacks are too weak and incompetent to be productive and competitive. (That’s *their* view.)

          2. “Mostly by conflating diversity training as CRT. They are two separate things.”

            Diversity: You are your race.

            CRT: You are your race.

            Those strike me as the same thing.

  7. 10 years from now I wonder how many of these kids will be democrats. After they are out on their own paying their own way. I’ve always felt life was the best teacher.

  8. The Internet was developed with government money, so the First Amendment should apply with Twitter and Facebook.

    1. “The Internet was developed with government money, so the First Amendment should apply with Twitter and Facebook.”

      Roads were built with government funding, so the 4th Amendment should not apply to drivers.

      That something was paid for with public money is not an excuse to usurp rights.

  9. “ Despite only one student voting against the speech, the school refused to support a former vice president coming to its campus to address faculty and students.”

    It wasn’t the school who was refusing to support a former Vice President. It was the student government. While Turley’s criticism has a few valid concerns he also ignores the fact that the student government is acting just as a state legislature does. Democrats who are in a red state don’t get everything they want and often get denied because the majority Republican legislature doesn’t want to accept their requests. The student body is doing the same thing.

    Why aren’t there more Republican student representatives in the student government? That would increase their chances of being more successful with such requests.

    Can’t the Republican student group raise the funds themselves? They are requesting a grant. Free money. It’s a money issue it seems.

    1. Re the last paragraph of your comment, I thought this too. The article says if security is needed, 50% of the funding needs to originate from campus “on-campus sources”, which, also according to the article, gives the student government body a lot of power. The other comments are thought-provoking.

  10. The Professor states: “They learned this intolerance from academic and journalistic figures of my generation. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.”.

    He is absolutely correct and states the situation with clarity….all the while painting the reasons for this sad situation all in a couple of sentences.

    Benjamin Franklin, writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, wrote of the American doctrine behind freedom of speech and of the press:

    “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”.

    The Federalist Papers saw Freedom of Speech as the concept of preventing the Federal Government from using English Common Law banning Seditious Libel Laws that punished any criticism of the existing Government.

    The debate was about the Federal Government and those who would criticize it and those officials who were part of the Federal Government and positions of power.

    Universities and Colleges were seen to be exempt from this as they were said not to have municipal police powers and thus could not use such powers to curtail or punish anyone over Free Speech issues.

    We see Universities and other institutions of learning, Social Media, the Main Stream Media, and other non-Federal Government agencies actively censoring, banning, or refusing to discuss important issues when such discussion or debate challenges the Leftist Agenda.

    We also see an argument being made that a Non-Government owned and operated organization is free to do so.

    Yet the Federalist Papers pointed out that the Federal Government is also forbidden to use non-Government organizations to attack Free Speech (meaning criticisms of the Federal Government and its actions or policies).

    But….we see that happening today with the Biden Administration its use of OSHA, the CDC, and other Agencies to use private enterprise to achieve Federal Government objectives.

    My question for Professor Turley remains the same as I have offered several times before.

    He knows the causes for the problems….he knows the dangers they pose for our Nation….as he on an almost daily basis is pointing them out to us.

    The question is……what does He and other very capable Lawyers….who understand the Constitutional issues and remedies…..do to slow, stop, or undo the damage being done by the Leftist Agenda being promoted by our Educational System, Partisan Politicians, and Activist Judges?

    1. No the Stanforc students just recognize Pence for what he was and is: an ass-kissing patsy for the most vulgar, corrupt president in American history.

      Pence ate a hundred tons of BS every day.and represents absolutely NOTHING that Stanford believes or encourages, so why bother?

      He’s Mussolini’s right hand man.

      Don’t give him a voice.

      Pence is an embarrassment.

      Why else would Trump incite a riot to kill Pence?

    2. Ralph Chappell,

      “ The question is……what does He and other very capable Lawyers….who understand the Constitutional issues and remedies…..do to slow, stop, or undo the damage being done by the Leftist Agenda being promoted by our Educational System, Partisan Politicians, and Activist Judges?”

      Turley doesn’t do anything because he is being disingenuous with his argument. He’s doing exactly what he criticizes others of doing, participating in the “age of rage” rhetoric.

      You should read the actual articles linked in his column regarding the Stanford vote and the omissions of relevant information that Turley “conveniently” neglects.

      The student republican group is not being honest with its claims in the first place. For example, they claim “ Furthermore, university rules require that events needing security must secure over 50% of funding from on-campus sources.”. That’s not true.

      According to the school paper itself, “ University policies require that for special events with security, event organizers must demonstrate their ability to fund the event before extending an invitation to a speaker. At least 50% of funds must come from on-campus funding sources. As long as they are able to meet this requirement, SCR can proceed with the event without funding from the Undergraduate Senate.” At LEAST 50% of funds must come from on campus funding sources. Not over 50% as they claim.

      Furthermore the Republican student group claim that the student senate is “constitutionally obligated” to approve the grant. Again not true. Here they claim the student senate HAS to approve the grant. But, the constitutions only says,

      “ The ASSU Constitution, in Article V Section 8 on Standard Grants, states that the “Undergraduate Senate may, by majority vote, approve each Standard Grant. Grants that are not approved shall not be disbursed.”

      It does not say SHALL approve or MUST approve of a standard grant. It states it MAY grant it.

      What Turley and the republican student group are not telling you is that this event is much larger than previous events. Security is much higher because it involves the secret service and security for 1,000 people. The vote was not about denying their right to have their speaker.

      Here’s the relevant statement,

      “ “Senators weighed student safety, freedom of speech and COVID-19 protocols” when voting on SCR’s request for funding, a senator who requested to remain anonymous due to fears of doxxing wrote in a statement to The Daily. SCR has previously publicly attacked and doxxed Stanford affiliates, including undergraduate senators.”

      Turley didn’t do his homework or he simply jumped only at the erroneous claims of the Republican student group. It’s more likely the latter.

  11. Seems reasonable they should decide on spending priorities.

    Thou doth protest too much, again, Counsellor.

    1. Whenever money has to be paid for a speaker, judgments must be made by whoever controls the money. This may or rmay not be a case of censorship, but Prof. Turley has not given us evidence of censorship, just his opinion on the subject.

      1. ” … but Prof. Turley has not given us evidence of censorship, just his opinion on the subject.”
        **************************

        Sure, like Herb Morrison gave us “his opinion” of the fate of the Hindenburg on May 6, 1937. Some “opinions” are better than others:

  12. Is Stanford the place where they had that prison experiment, proving that everyone is capable of being cruel and unfair?

  13. An excellent business opportunity for a Kool-aid stand!

    These student group decisions foreshadow what is to come in the near future. The possible consequences of impeding dissenting viewpoints (all sides) are frightening. The right to speak openly is a treasure our elders paid for at great expense, to say the least.

    I’ve attended university presentations that I did not agree with but heard them out. It is a vital part of our system to hear organized and civil debate. No one party or faction has all the answers. There are many levels for common agreement.

  14. Time to take away non-profit status from any entity that gives anyone a benefit of more than $100,000
    Hospitals, colleges, sports teams, charities….paying people millions aren’t NON-PROFITS!

      1. Neb is Ben backwards.
        Is your logic also backwards?
        Since when is truth “trolling?”
        Why should Stanford students support a vice president that the Stripper Shagging Student Defrauder Thief in Chief wanted to kill?

          1. Trump achieved three things:

            1. He made The New Yorker great again.

            2. He made Saturday Night Live great again.

            3. He helped history-minded people understand how the German people could havr supported Hitket and Nazisn out of ignorance, arrogance. Gear, insecurity, racism, hatred and self interest.

            4. Trump was a stress test for Democracy, like a freight train loaded with tons of BS rolling over a sketchy bridge.

            The bridge held.

            The train derailed.

            Yay America.

  15. At least they didn’t ask for the former VP to be hung! I seem to remember a large group of righting proTrump insurgents wanted him dead.

  16. Lefties support censorship of conservatives, but want free speech for themselves.

    Look at the postings of Lefties on this blog, many of those posts are angry and rude, but they only defend their own right to speak.

    Don’t think that any of our Lefty posters have ever come out against this kind of censorship.

    1. Oh really. There really isn’t much to say to someone who insists on claiming others are rude because they do not agree with you. I’ve seen a lot of offensive posts from people on this thread; Most from posters who appear to be right wing.

      I don’t agree with censorship. But I’m not sure that the refusal to fund a speech is censorship. Mr. Pence has hardly been silenced.

    2. monumentcolorado — The lefty posts are particularly vicious today, and every one of them proves Turley’s point.

Leave a Reply