Biden did this. Stop funding this war!

🤦‍♂️No bob, they are not. THE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY TRUMP OR THE TRUMP ORG AT ALL, not in court…he submitted most of them.
Trump disputes the facts on camera, but not in court under oath. He can’t. The documents are what they are. He was too cowardly and guilty to take the stand…his smartest move yet.
Trump valued Maralago at $18 million for taxes, not the DA. He also valued it at 100 times that value to get good loan terms that saved him hundreds of millions the banks and county were then deprived of because of his fraud. Understand? I’m sure not.
I did the math, if his stated bank values are truthful, he defrauded the government out of well over $700 million in decades of unpaid taxes for one property.

What was presented during the prosecution “side” of the “hearing” bob? Nothing…because there was no prosecution phase, it was summary judgement based on what was presented by both parties during DISCOVERY. There has only been a “damages” phase of trial since the prima facie case made at discovery necessitated a sumary judgement…not a “prosecution side”.

Bob. This is civil court, not a criminal trial. Please stop trying to explain things you are wholly ignorant about.

In your example, a criminal trial with different rules, the defense could be you didn’t see them, or they dove in front of your moving car, or you were having a medical issue….or one of a thousand mitigating factors. Trump presented no mitigating factors explaining the frauds, the differing values that changed 10000% in value on paper with his signature swearing to the truthfulness of the values he presented, values he knew were fantasy, so was found guilty.
(Side note- in your example the victim’s heirs would also get a civil trial where prima facie guilt would be established by the witnesses and your admission you hit them and you would need to have evidence supporting your affirmative defense that it was under duress to evade liability, just as they would need to prove malicious intent or recklessness to get punitive damages, IMO).

😂 “Property values can’t be fraud in any way”. 😂 hilarious since submitting fraudulent values is exactly what he was found guilty of! 😂

The banks indicated massive fraud, who told you they didn’t? Trump? The banks lost over $180 million in interest they should have received if the collateral values had been correct. Yes, they made some money, but lost out on $180 million plus.
When you get a loan based on fraud like this, even if you pay it back you still comitted a crime and any penny you made from that crime can be recovered from you, exactly what’s happening.
It’s as if Trump submitted documents “proving” his credit rating was 800 but in fact it was below 400, then saying it’s no crime because he paid his low interest credit card bills, pay no attention to the lower rates and perks he received because of his fraud, they’re nothingburgers…$180 million nothing burgers.

This is a BS showman disgraced ex president caught red handed. You know it, he knows it. No one is blinded, you are simply dishonest.

What of me statement are bullshit or not in this hearing/case?
The disclaimers don’t mean Trump can just make up the numbers, like he did. I know he claims that, he already lost that point in court. He gave fraudulent numbers, values, square footage, claimed unpermitted unbuilt rentals were filled and collecting rent, claims he didn’t add “brand value” but it’s there listed on the documents.

lol. You get your “information” from crack heads, failed comedians turned pundits, and con men like rapist Trump. I get mine directly from the courts, then verify, then look at what nonsense MAGA is saying about it, then debunk your nonsense. Stop projecting. I’m not stupid. I’m no dick. I have almost no ego. I simply hate stupid lies and the stupid lying liars who lie them stupidly and I have the testicular fortitude and perspicacity to factually contradict them with facts, figures, and references.

You don’t ever look for shit, you liar. You take what the MAGA machine hands you and you say what they said to say. You haven’t had an individual thought since you’ve been posting here, not one. Every word you post can be found in the MAGAsphere written by someone else who makes money by telling you lies to repeat.

Yes, Trump was found guilty during discovery before the courtroom trial began, which is perfectly normal and reasonable in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like this one. That’s the United States legal system, no surprise you don’t understand it….you don’t understand thing about my country.

Now whine that he couldn’t have a jury trial just because he didn’t ask for one until after his trial had started. So unfair! 😂

Today’s Trumpist terrorism….

The FBI arrested Catherine Levy, a strong trump supporter, for allegedly calling in a bomb threat to Boston Children's Hospital following the right-wing conspiracy smear campaign against the hospital alleging it was providing gender-affirming permanent sex reassignment care to infants, children, and adolescents….and you MAGOTS are moronic enough to not just believe it based on absolutely nothing, but to make bomb threats against critically ill children over this nonsense.

Congrabulations

You gradubated from the Trump de-education center.

You sad, scared, triggered little man.

You really think the Trump appointed FBI and a Trump appointed judge sending red state agents with a valid legal warrant looking for evidence of criminal activity that they found in spades helps Trump?!? Did you see the rally of supporters he had…all 7 of them?! 😂

Or do you just need some silly infantile memes to feel better about big daddy going to prison for treason, like a little hatred blanket woven from ignorance you cling to as you seethe?
Edit: Thanks for answering (in the affirmative) with your last video.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

my favorite was the Arizona "recount" where Cyber Ninjas tallied 99 additional votes for Biden and 261 fewer votes for Trump than previously counted...

some other "findings" in their report also debunked:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/28/fact-check-arizona-audit-affirms-biden-win-doesnt-prove-voter-fraud/5846640001/

Why is it so hard to believe that people who were going to vote for Trump would listen to what he was preaching for weeks and months beforehand, and go vote in-person on the day; whereas people who were going to vote for Biden believed COVID-19 was actually real and more likely to use mail-in voting because it's safer and more convenient?
Here's a good explanation of the whole "quadrillion" BS by a British mathematician: https://youtu.be/ua5aOFi-DKs

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

I don't agree with you on this one, Bob.

My wife and I have been together since 1995. In that time, we've both dealt with issues in our lives that might have lead to the deaths of either one of us had we not been together. We've been through hell and kept each other on our feet when we felt like we couldn't walk another step. We've been there for each other in the absolute worst moments of our lives.

On the other side, my favorite memories always include her: the first time we saw the Eiffel Tower together; hiking together in Henry Coe State Park; nights in Mendocino and dinners at Brouwer's. A thousand thousand little things where she's brought happiness into my life. How much joy I experience just holding her hand!

Men lose everything? Have someone look at you when you feel like absolute human shit -- like you're the tiniest speck of worthlessness in the universe -- and say "I love you." Someone who doesn't just rescue you from yourself, but lifts you up into the pure light of happiness and joy, is the absolute affirmation of goodness in the human heart.

I say this with all honesty, with no malice and no sense of superiority, just one human being to another: if something happened to you that makes you feel the way you do, if someone hurt you that bad, then I wish it were within my power to lift that from your heart and soul. No one ever deserves to have love turned to hate, least of all you.

The cult stayed tight and slept through the trial. They didn’t even pretend to be impartial. Precedent set, expect the same if a democrat is impeached. (To be honest, that is the norm, but it’s not right)

Only 7 times more votes by his own party than any other impeachment trial in history, but yes, the main cult prejudged this based on nothing but party by Jan 7. He will go down as the best at impeachment, by volume, level of criminality, and bipartisan guilty votes. Another win?

It should be noted, many Republicans said he's guilty but voted not guilty because they insist the trial itself is unconstitutional despite the Senate voting on just that issue and affirming it is constitutional, and despite there being no court ruling on the subject, and despite it being far from the first impeachment trial held against an ex elected official. This was a one time only technicality made up to excuse their spinelessness, and willingness to excuse and ignore what they admit was treason. Again, precedent set, no whining when the tables are turned.

If democrats had the abilities you must give them to believe that stupidity, they would rule the world without opposition by now. They would be so genius about it you would think it was your idea. It’s insane, you like to say how worthless stupid and weak they are, except for the most complicated, biggest heist in history with millions of people involved that they pulled off so perfectly with such skill and competence that there’s not a shred of evidence despite there being an actual paper record of every vote and the most highly scrutinized certification by every State, Republican and Democratic led. I know you can see how those ideas are mutually exclusive. Democrats are no where near that organized or competent.

But rationality isn’t exactly your strong suite.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

>>>>> Do these words have no meaning to you? <<<<<
I know what encourage means. I know what stirred up means. I know what helped instigate means. I know what aroused means; when those phrases refer to a crowd.


And that's what is here.





Don't expect any more from me on this topic. Frankly I'm at a point where i don't care if you understand or not because it's right in front of you, clear as crystal.

People do not use specific words for no-reason.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

Your video, Electoral College Affirms Biden Win, First Vaccines Arrive, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Unobserved, unsupervised, and not in public view"

Yeah, except for the multiple cameras pointed at them from various HD cameras that are live-streaming and recording everything in the room. As in... the place where they got the footage?


Ahh i must be mixed up, you and he clearly know better than I do, but I think Biden still has a chance. You're a crook, I tell you, but I'll bet on it.


Drop me a PM and we can make the arrangements $1,000 a piece - a gentlemen's bet, no? Apparently, The escrow fee is 1% so for the 2 of us it'd be $20 total. Hey, I got you buddy. I'll pay your fee if that's what's holding you back.


The bet terms roughly are as follows

DONALD TRUMP WILL CEASE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON OR BEFORE JAN 20, 2021.

Remember to use your legal name on any of the forms, do you have a (digital) fax machine? I use MetroFax for contracts and hospital documents.Pretty cheap, saves me enough headaches throughout the year but it's worth it. Oh listen to me blabbering on. LETS WIN yOU that MONEYYYYYYYY!

I will bet in the affirmative!

YES

DONALD TRUMP WILL CEASE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON OR BEFORE JAN 20, 2021.

YES YES YESSSSS uhahh oh my...YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS omg... i never cam...hold on, i'll get you a towel.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.