That HBCU is on private property. You cant just show up at a university unannounced and set up shop. Jesus how are you people so braindead. This applies to any university or college. You need permission from the school to set up a stall. Dumbest individuals
Set aside the intellectual insecurity that these students must have... to reject a speaker from engaging in a conversation and a debate... but this savage behavior occurred after leaving campus. They were no longer on school property. And regardless of what property they were on, acting like wild animals is generally a bad look. I do think this all boils down to insecurity... otherwise, why be afraid of debate? Why lose your emotional control. Something is threatened psychologically, which triggers this response. GOOD DAY
The interaction first happened on school property. You can not go on private security and do whatever you want. We have something called trespassing. The students rightfully were upset that they set up shop without acquiring proper permits. Trolls deserve zero respect
gift link Schumer becomes a campaign trail punching bag for some Democrats Across the country, Senate candidates have distanced themselves from their Senate leader amid a growing appetite for newer leaders waging aggressive fights against Trump. https://wapo.st/3KdSKR7
Again, the interaction (harassment, accosting of the men) you saw was off campus... you are struggling to grasp that for some reason. Separately, it sounds like the HBCU's could use some help -- look at these graduation rates... Is it true that the school the debate guys were at has a 23% graduation rate? I mean, how can that be? They sound so smart in the video clip!
Good. I think in the mid-terms it will really help candidates in these individual elections to display independence from the vilified old school Dems that FoxNews has been telling those voters for years as pure evil. Seems to be a common occurrence with the Senate leaders anyways. How many Republicans for years ran essentially opposed to Mitch McConnell because of the view of his as the ultimate insider slimeball?
Nate Silver coins the term "Demthink" Is America ready for a gay president? Kamala Harris and a subscriber have questions about Mayor Pete, and I have annoyingly nuanced answers. https://www.natesilver.net/p/is-america-ready-for-a-gay-president excerpt: Harris is showing why she was a mediocre candidate Every excerpt I’ve read from Harris’s book so far1 and every clip from her media tour seems to reflect either Veep-like clumsiness or that she’s suffering from an acute case of Demthink. What is Demthink? It’s what you’d end up with if you trained a large language model solely on the inner monologue of people who either work in Democratic politics or watch MSNBC for eight hours a day. Being fluent in Demthink can be helpful for navigating the internal currents of the party, something Harris is adept at. After all, she managed to become the vice presidential pick in 2020 after what was one of the worst performances relative to “expectations” in the history of the nomination process, dropping out two months before Iowa despite idiots like me having declared her to be one of the frontrunners. The problem with Demthink is not merely that it tends toward cynical triangulation. No, it’s that it tends toward triangulation that isn’t even politically effective because it’s so finely tuned for the in-group that it comes across as uncannily out-of-tune to everyone else. For instance, who thought it would be a good idea for Congressional Democrats to pose kneeling while wearing kente cloths when announcing police reform legislation? Who gave a thumbs up to Tim Walz playing Madden with AOC and then nonsensically tweeting out afterward that “@AOC can run a mean pick 6”?2 Meanwhile, Democratic messaging on the shutdown is already predictably lapsing into incoherence because of Demthink, with people like Sen. Chris Murphy wanting to check every box to appeal to different parts of the donor class rather than settle on one message. Demthink particularly tends to lose a lot in translation surrounding issues of “identity”. Harris, despite her poor performance in the 2019/20 primary, had perfectly fine qualifications to be Biden’s running mate. But Democrats very explicitly framed her selection to be about her racial and gender identity (go back and read the contemporaneous reporting if you doubt me). Even if you did choose Harris for those reasons, it’s not smart to say the quiet part out loud. If Harris had written in her memoir that, you know what, we looked at the question from every angle, and ultimately we concluded that a gay vice presidential nominee would cost us too many votes — that the country isn’t ready quite yet — I’d at least give her credit for honesty. Instead, though, we got Demthink. Harris wrote of what seems to be an implicit point-scoring system: you want to stay in the Goldilocks zone of just the right amount of diversity. Of course, the conventional wisdom within Demthink is that you can’t just nominate two white guys. But Democrats already had a “Black woman married to a Jewish man,” on the ticket, dangerously close to the threshold for what the country would tolerate. Only a straight white man — and preferably not a member of a religious minority group either — could keep things in the right range. Are there people out there who won’t vote for a gay candidate? Yes — we’ll get to that in a second. But those people are mostly conservatives, not people who would consider voting for a Democrat in the first place, and especially not those who would vote for a Black (and Asian American) woman with a Jewish husband. The marginal number of votes lost wasn’t likely to be high. Moreover, while Harris justified her decision in terms of characteristically Demthinky risk aversion, she was in a position where she actually wanted to adopt more risk because she entered the race as an underdog to Trump. A message that we’re going to pick the best people regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation might not have worked. But it had probably more upside than making a DEI hire out of Walz. more at the link
The ugly truth is that the rot in the 13 percent community is real created by decades of enslavement to the Demonrat Party. The fatigue is real too.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/can-democrats-break-free-of-the-left-dc202c58?mod=hp_opin_pos_5 Can Democrats Break Free of the Left? The shutdown isn’t their only problem. The public thinks they’re soft on crime. By Karl Rove Oct. 1, 2025 4:42 pm ET It’s official: The U.S. government is shut down. It’s a staggering display of ineptitude from a Congress that can’t pass a budget and can’t even agree to keep the government funded at roughly its current spending level while the parties work out differences. Everyone will look bad before it’s over. Republicans are in control. They hold the White House, the Senate and the House. Voters will ask why they can’t get a deal done. On the other hand, the House did pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. Though Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate, passing such a resolution requires 60 votes. Three Democrats came over, but the rest refused. They want to make Covid-era enhanced subsidies for ObamaCare health plans permanent, at the cost of $450 billion over the next decade. Republicans argue the subsidies were always meant to be temporary and should be allowed to expire. The Democratic base might cheer, seeing the shutdown as a sign their leaders are finally standing up to President Trump. But swing voters may see things differently. The Sept. 27 New York Times/Siena poll found that 65% of voters surveyed agree with the statement “Democrats should not shut down the government, even if their demands are not met.” The net result of the shutdown will probably be to weaken further the public’s perceptions of the Democratic Party, already in the tank. The shutdown isn’t the only area where Democrats have messaging problems. Crime is another, especially when the issue gets tangled up with Mr. Trump’s efforts to round up criminal aliens. After the Trump administration announced it is sending more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to Chicago and that the president might call out the National Guard because of lawlessness there, Gov. J.B. Pritzker slammed the president and his allies for “sowing fear and intimidation and division among Americans” and attempts at “consolidating power in Donald Trump’s hands.” Not to be outdone, Mayor Brandon Johnson denounced America’s “addiction” to putting criminals in jail. “We cannot,” he said, “incarcerate our way out of violence.” Messrs. Pritzker and Johnson reinforced one of their party’s most persistent and damaging weaknesses: They’re perceived as soft on crime and tolerant of criminal behavior. Some Democratic leaders, keenly aware of the lack of public support for their party on these points, are trying a different tack. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is nonpartisan, but mayors in bigger cities are overwhelmingly Democrats. So it was interesting when a July conference survey of 60 mayors found nearly 6 in 10 labeled juvenile crime “serious” or “very serious.” While none thought National Guardsmen would be helpful, three quarters of the mayors backed increased federal support to track drug trafficking, investigate high-level crimes, and trace guns. Fifty-eight of 60 mayors urged Washington to help purchase police technology and other equipment. After taking office in January, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, a Democrat, closed open-air drug markets and instructed police to round up dealers. His approval rating was 73% in a July poll. The Democratic governors of California, Maryland and New Mexico have also recently surged state police and resources to help local police in crime hot spots. Then there’s former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He was in Iowa last weekend exploring a possible 2028 White House bid. No stump speech or fancy ballroom; just a fish fry in a backyard in Des Moines. He talked less and listened more. Here’s some of his message: The economy isn’t good for lots of Americans, especially young people thinking about marriage and kids. The government doesn’t respect middle-class families. He said we “need to take a 2-by-4 upside Washington’s head.” Democrats are out of touch culturally. Reading and math scores are at 30-year lows. “Children do not get a do-over,” he said. “They get one shot.” When Mr. Emanuel bragged about having two children in the Navy and said we should be grateful we’re lucky enough to be Americans, it was clear he’s trying to be this decade’s version of a New Democrat. Will it be enough? Not by itself. Will he be a contender? Who knows? But there was something in last weekend’s fish fry in an Iowa backyard—and in the Conference of Mayors survey—that suggests some Democrats are aware they must craft more appealing and centrist messages. If they don’t, they’ll remain condemned to minority status. Provoking a shutdown isn’t the Democrats’ path back to victory. Mr. Rove was senior adviser and deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
