US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Rocsteady wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:[*]

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Out interest - straight white male I'd assume?

It's a different to perspective when it's "I say, I'd like to challenge all the radicalisation against those other [...strawberry floated the quote and on my phone so cba fixing it



It's not much of an assumption I would have thought, been posting about girls alongside pictures of my body on here for years.

It will be a different perspective but many people from all backgrounds have argued the same, notably such as Peter Tatchell, so it's not just - I'm in the majority therefore safe from abuse and thus will automatically be supportive of allowing anyone to speak.

No - platforming has allowed the prevalent view of young people and liberals to be scared of debate to manifest itself. What has no - platforming actually achieved? How did we manage without it, by and large, until the last few years? What benefits are there?

No - but it's interesting to point out that you're the one telling woman, blacks and other groups - or in Milos case certain specific individuals - etc what they should have to put up with or risk being unleashed on them given his past behaviour.

He's a utter banana split and you're defending his right to claim a private platform (where most owner don't want him) for himself to best attack people (but not you, don't worry) as 'free speech'.

First of all: strawberry float you for the snide tone of post that insinuates that I've taken up this position because I'm safe from abuse.

I'm not telling anyone what they have to put up with - picket him, abuse him, sign a petition to get him banned if they want. Anything short of vandalism and physical violence (and even then, I'm ambigous about the whole punch a Nazi thing) I'm easy with.

I note you didn't answer a single one of my questions. University students - our best and brightest - should be (and have to be for all our sakes) adept at debating even the most reprehensible points. People like Milo have a vast online platform which won't go away if a uni no-platforms him: the absolute best solution is to go and argue his moronic points to enlighten those in attendence so that people are persuaded to move away from the alt-right rather than vice-versa.

Hexx wrote:Oh I'm sorry I ignored your 'They should debate him. They're scared' "point"

No one should have to be subject to abuse just so you will respect them, or allow others to be subject to abuse or have to supply a platform for his hate speech and invitation (again not against you, don't).

There you go

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:[*]

Hexx wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:Can't say I'm a fan of no-platforming. strawberry float knows why a uni would book Milo anyway but I'd rather challenge such views in person than merely refusing them and turning him into a sort self-proclaimed martyr.

Out interest - straight white male I'd assume?

It's a different to perspective when it's "I say, I'd like to challenge all the radicalisation against those other [...strawberry floated the quote and on my phone so cba fixing it



It's not much of an assumption I would have thought, been posting about girls alongside pictures of my body on here for years.

It will be a different perspective but many people from all backgrounds have argued the same, notably such as Peter Tatchell, so it's not just - I'm in the majority therefore safe from abuse and thus will automatically be supportive of allowing anyone to speak.

No - platforming has allowed the prevalent view of young people and liberals to be scared of debate to manifest itself. What has no - platforming actually achieved? How did we manage without it, by and large, until the last few years? What benefits are there?

No - but it's interesting to point out that you're the one telling woman, blacks and other groups - or in Milos case certain specific individuals - etc what they should have to put up with or risk being unleashed on them given his past behaviour.

He's a utter banana split and you're defending his right to claim a private platform (where most owner don't want him) for himself to best attack people (but not you, don't worry) as 'free speech'.

First of all: strawberry float you for the snide tone of post that insinuates that I've taken up this position because I'm safe from abuse.

I'm not telling anyone what they have to put up with - picket him, abuse him, sign a petition to get him banned if they want. Anything short of vandalism and physical violence (and even then, I'm ambigous about the whole punch a Nazi thing) I'm easy with.

I note you didn't answer a single one of my questions. University students - our best and brightest - should be (and have to be for all our sakes) adept at debating even the most reprehensible points. People like Milo have a vast online platform which won't go away if a uni no-platforms him: the absolute best solution is to go and argue his moronic points to enlighten those in attendence so that people are persuaded to move away from the alt-right rather than vice-versa.

And actually he literally has gone away. He's not there.
He's not talking there.
Those he would have belittled and threaten don't face to see him promoted at 'their' venue.
Those who want to listen can't still do so. They can listen to his vast internet platform you mentioned.
Or attend any other venue that welcomes him.
He's not been censored - he's been told where his not welcome.
Those he would have belittled have beeN shown solidarity and support.

Let's flip on you.

Given all the venues and platforms you've admitted he has - why does anyone want/need him to attend a specific one?

Why does he want to attend?

What are the protestors denying them/him?

Rocsteady wrote:I said I'd rather such views were challenged in person

Moggy wrote:What does it matter if Rocsteady is straight?

Milo is gay, that means Hexx is the one closest to him.

Harry Ola wrote:Kellyanne Conway just invented a terrorist event, the Bowling Green Massacre, to justify the Muslim ban.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/14494478/bowling-green-massacre

President Trump plans to order a rollback Friday of regulations governing the financial services industry and Wall Street under the Dodd-Frank law and beyond.

Gary Cohn, White House Economic Council director, told the Wall Street Journal the administration would also move against a regulation designed to force retirement advisers to work in the best interest of their clients, the “fiduciary rule,” set to take effect in April and designed to eliminate conflicts-of-interests among professionals dealing with those enrolled in qualified retirement plans and IRAs.

In an interview with the Journal, Cohn, a former president of Goldman Sachs, said the order was a “table setter for a bunch of stuff that is coming.”

The move would be in line with Trump’s campaign pledge to “dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act and replace it with new policies to encourage economic growth and job creation.”

Trump’s administration is packed with Wall Street veterans. The actions Cohn described, which were also reported by Bloomberg quoting an unnamed White House official, represent Trump’s first and most forceful effort to unravel the regulatory legacy of the Obama administration.

“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year,” Cohn told the Journal.

The Dodd-Frank Act, hated by Wall Street and Republican members of Congress, was enacted in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 that brought on the Great Recession and during the presidential campaign was described derisively by many Republican leaders as “Obamacare for banks.”

Republicans have vowed to scrap the law as well. But as it is basically constructed of thousands of pages of regulations promulgated since its enactment, it is susceptible to effective dismantling by modifying or rescinding regulations. Trump is taking the same approach to the Affordable Care Act, signing an executive order on his first day in office giving federal agencies broad power to unwind its superstructure of regulations.

Consumer groups and many Democrats will likely do their best to aggressively challenge the changes to the Wall Street regulations through the regulatory process and no doubt through the courts.

The Dodd-Frank law, a signature piece of the legacy of former-President Obama, was enacted in July, 2010 after a brutal battle in Congress.

As The Post’s Brady Dennis reported, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act established an independent consumer bureau within the Federal Reserve to protect borrowers against abuses in mortgage, credit-card and other types of lending. It gave the government new authority to seize and wind down large, troubled financial firms, set up a regulatory council to monitor threats to the financial system and mandate oversight of the vast market for derivatives, the instruments that helped fuel the crisis.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established under the law has been a particular target of Republicans since its creation, and the hostility has grown even more intense as it has pursued an activist agenda of cracking down on big banks and corporations accused of misleading consumers.

Cohn told the Journal that the White House could tame the CFPB simply by replacing Richard Cordray, its director, with someone else. “Personnel is policy,” he said.

As to the fiduciary rule, Cohn told the Journal that a Trump memorandum Friday would ask the Labor Department to either revise or rescind it entirely. “It’s a bad rule for consumers,” he said.

The rule, promulgated by the Department of Labor and set to take effect in April, requires brokers selling retirement investments to put the client’s interests ahead of their own. It’s designed largely to protect consumers enrolled in qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs.)

The rule is aimed at eliminating conflicts of interests that arise when brokers are, for example, getting commissions from mutual funds to steer investors their way, which may or may not be in the best interest of the consumer.

As Kiplinger columnist Steven Goldberg described the rule, it:

Would prohibit brokers from providing advice that lines their pockets instead of looking out for clients’ interests. Under the rule, for example, it would be difficult for a broker to justify selling a client a high-fee mutual fund when an identical or similar fund is available at a much lower price.

Registered investment advisers are already bound by fiduciary standards in their advice to clients.

Cohn told the Journal that the rule is “bad” in part because it forces consumers into funds with lower fees even if they are not the best investments for them.

Grumpy David wrote: You'll end up with advisers having a huge conflict of interest between advising clients to take out retirement plans which pay big commissions to the adviser whilst providing smaller retirement incomes to the client.

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827478751931924480

Cuttooth wrote:So apparently the White House stopped the recording of the most recent Trump/Putin phonecall, which is against the law as everything relating to official business has to be documented?

When do Republicans break I wonder?