Chomper Higgot

Likewise there are builders and developers who would absolutely take advisor reduced regulation to discard costly safety and environmental measures to boost profits. This would not be a response restricted to the housing markets, history is full of examples of profit before safety/environment across all industries. Regulations have to a very large extent been put in place to address past abuses. There are however other reasons why housing is expensive, top of the list is the use of housing/land as an investment vehicle. Addressing this would not put safety or the environment at risk. Thank you for your response, which I do appreciate.

I don mind defending anyone subjected to personal attacks.

I agree it’s not Trump’s job.

They should cooperate with law enforcement. Just like they should for other crimes committed on their premises.

Buying the advantages and so VAT on advantages bought. If you can’t afford the VAT you can’t afford to buy the advantages…. Oh but wait…. Millions of other parents can’t afford to buy those advantages either, regardless of VAT.

Take your pick. Trump has not asked for the existing law to be enforced, and if he did that’s a request he needs to direct to the police and prosecutors. Universities are not a part of law enforcement.

There’s no asking for exiting law to be enforced‘ in that statement, nor was there the last time you posted it.

Let’s play your game. Do you have a quote of the President actually asking for exiting law to be enforced?

I’ve never claimed Private Schools make people soft. Take that up with whoever did.

Which is not at issue. The First Amendment does not say what protests are or are not permitted. It does deny the Government, the President included the power to legislate or otherwise inhibit free speech. Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Except for Trump himself.

Yes I do know there are activities that are themselves illegal. And you are correct, the courts decide.

Here you go:

No he didn’t simply say ‘illegal protests’. You obviously are able to defend what he did say, hence truncating it to two words.

You’re letting your imagination run away with you. But if personal attacks from behind your own keyboard give you a sense of something you value or need in life, then who am I to object?!

Yet.

“He's threatening to withdraw federal funding from universities that allow illegal protests.” From the OP: Donald Trump has escalated his stance against pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses, threatening to withdraw federal funding from universities that allow what he terms "illegal protests."”

Again, that’s a matter for the courts. It is not matter for Presidential edict.

From the OP: “Donald Trump has escalated his stance against pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses, threatening to withdraw federal funding from universities that allow what he terms "illegal protests."”

Well I don’t believe protestors should be allowed to break the law. But I also don’t support the idea of a President declaring ‘protests illegal’. That’s a matter for the law and the courts.

Well that and Trump abandoning the US allies in favor of the war aggressor Putin.

I wonder then how you know what they won’t come out and admit? The people of Palestine have a home, it’s called Palestine. There is no need to make refugees of these people. https://www.dw.com/en/which-countries-recognize-palestinian-statehood/a-69168152

Not at all disingenuous. Trump has stated he will withhold all federal funding from, to quote the OP: This will undoubtedly wind up in the courts. So wondering what Trump’s definition of ‘illegal protests’ is far from ‘disingenuous’. There are after all already laws in place that address violence, undue obstruction, trespass etc. All of which are enforceable by police and the courts, not by universities.

I wonder what constitutes an ‘illegal protest’?

Are you mistaking professors marking students work and students receiving their marks as something else?