3 minutes ago, NickyLouie said:

 

 Honestly , Trump (USA) should seize these assets ,.

 

Harvard University's endowment returned 9.6% in 2024 , increasing the value of the endowment to $53.2 billion

 

 

 

Good idea. That's what Mussolini would do. Of course, he didn't have the American Constitution to deal with.

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Excellent news. The leftist influence on campuses needs to be mericlessly eradicated. 

Sound like Pol Pot. Kill the educated.

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What illegal behavior are you referring to?

 

I guess you slept through the Pro-Palestine Encampment and the Claudine Gay fiasco.  Not hard to believe the way the MSM was spinning it.

28 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Sound like Pol Pot. Kill the educated.

 

See, this is just the perverted thinking the left comes up with, completely oblivious to the fact that Pol Pot WAS the left. So this is exactly what the left would do. Trump, being an infinitely more humane and wise leader, merely wants those universities to stop the leftist lunacy. Sounds very resasonable to me. 

 

Don't worry, none of the gender-studies socialist worker anti-capitalists will be killed. That's what they would do to us. We don't do it to them. Because we are better than leftists.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

See, this is just the perverted thinking the left comes up with, completely oblivious to the fact that Pol Pot WAS the left. So this is exactly what the left would do. Trump, being an infinitely more humane and wise leader, merely wants those universities to stop the leftist lunacy. Sounds very resasonable to me. 

 

Don't worry, none of the gender-studies socialist worker anti-capitalists will be killed. That's what they would do to us. We don't do it to them. Because we are better than leftists.

Whatever the truth of your comments, even lunacy is protected speech. You clearly haven't a clue about the First Amendment. Let me give you a hint: it wasn't created to defend popular speech.

The funds Mar-a-Lardo wants to cut are RESEARCH funds, not operating funds. Would not directly affect funding for academic COURSES.

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the truth of your comments, even lunacy is protected speech. You clearly haven't a clue about the First Amendment. Let me give you a hint: it wasn't created to defend popular speech.

 

They're still free to run their "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns, their anti-capitalist dreams. Just not on the US taxpayer's backs. That's all.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Early Targets of Harvard Funding Cuts: Tuberculosis, ALS Research

Harvard University scientists are facing the prospect of laying off staff, euthanizing research animals and bringing yearslong science projects to a halt as a freeze on federal funds looms.

On Monday, after the university rejected government demands to change how it runs and admits students, the Trump administration said it would stop $2.26 billion in funds previously awarded to the school as part of an investigation into how the university dealt with antisemitism.

Stop-work orders began arriving soon after. 

https://archive.ph/mjuDP

 

Clearly the Trump administration believes Harvard is way too prejudiced against Tuberculosis and ALS.

 

How do I start a GoFundMe?

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

They're still free to run their "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns, their anti-capitalist dreams. Just not on the US taxpayer's backs. That's all.

How exactly are the US taxpayaers funding "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns? Harvard, home the Harvard School of Business, has its anti-capitalist dreams funded by the US Taxpayer? Harvard, a major fosterer of high-tech startups has anti-capitalist dreams? Thanks for the reflexive spewing. How exactly is the US taxpayer funding all this? By supporting tuberculosis research?

This is not about  containing anti semitism or even radicalism, because Harvard is still a relatively mainstream and conservative institution at its core. The Trump administration attack is more for show to its base, and for intimidation. The government will not win its case against the university. Pam Bondi and friends are not the most accomplished of constitutional or tax attorneys and they will be taking on the USA's brain trust.

 

The use of collective punishment in this case is wrong and will result in  significant harm to innocent parties . It will mean that  pediatric cancer patients at Beth Israel Deaconess will lose access to  critical care, the Dana Farber Cancer research  will be impeded etc.   Important  scientific  research will be curtailed. Strategic political analysis upon which industry and government rely will be disrupted. It means that the The Conservative Coalition at the Institute of Politics which brings conservative speakers and fellows to the university through the Harvard Kennedy School could lose funding, and the John Adams Society, a conservative republican group at Harvard will negatively impacted.  This is no different than the disorganized slap dash tariff strategy: Someone has a theory and they apply it without considering the  consequences.

 

4 of the current Scotus members are Harvard  graduates including Chief Justice Roberts. 4 are Yale graduates, and one is a graduate of Notre Dame. None of them will be sympathetic to hurting or engaging in the collective punishment of  respected educational institutions.

 

Overall, an irresponsible action that panders to ignorant, envious people.  It will not end well for the  social pariahs like Steven Miller.

21 hours ago, bannork said:

Explaining the university's position on the matter, Garber said, "No government —regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

 

Absolutely.  No more government funding or tax-free status, and universities do whatever they want!

 

If they're treated like a private businesses, maybe they will waste less money and provide a better service at a more reasonable price.

7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Excellent news. The leftist influence on campuses needs to be mericlessly eradicated. 

 

And universities need to be dragged into the modern era.  They are no longer only for the elite and those who want to go into intellectual careers.

 

They need a good shake up with a lot of fat trimmed off.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How exactly are the US taxpayaers funding "No means No" and "Contracts before Kissing" campaigns? Harvard, home the Harvard School of Business, has its anti-capitalist dreams funded by the US Taxpayer? Harvard, a major fosterer of high-tech startups has anti-capitalist dreams? Thanks for the reflexive spewing. How exactly is the US taxpayer funding all this? By supporting tuberculosis research?

 

"But it’s that lack of a standard definition for affirmative consent that has led some colleges like Harvard not to adopt it.

Harvard’s policy forbids what it calls “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” stating that “conduct is unwelcome if a person did not request or invite it and regarded the unrequested or uninvited conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Earlier this week, 28 current and former Harvard law professors said the policy could deny due process process to those who are accused and that its definition of unwanted conduct was too broad and vague. Student activists, meanwhile, said the definition doesn’t go nearly far enough, and urged Harvard to change its definition to one of affirmative consent, saying in a petition that “the absence of a ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes,’ and our university policy should explicitly recognize that.”

Mia Karvonides, the university’s Title IX officer, said that Harvard uses a standard that is “consistent with the standard in all federal civil rights laws that apply in an education setting,” and that even its peers in the Ivy League don’t truly use an affirmative consent standard as they don’t require a verbal yes at every turn
“The closest any college comes to a defined affirmative-consent approach is Antioch College,” Karvonides said. “Under their policy, consent is given step by step at every point of engagement during an intimate encounter. You must verbally ask and verbally get an answer for every point of engagement. ‘May I kiss you? May I undo your blouse?’ ”

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/means-enough-college-campuses

 

They have gone insane. Literally. These people are not rational anymore.

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

"But it’s that lack of a standard definition for affirmative consent that has led some colleges like Harvard not to adopt it.

Harvard’s policy forbids what it calls “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” stating that “conduct is unwelcome if a person did not request or invite it and regarded the unrequested or uninvited conduct as undesirable or offensive.” Earlier this week, 28 current and former Harvard law professors said the policy could deny due process process to those who are accused and that its definition of unwanted conduct was too broad and vague. Student activists, meanwhile, said the definition doesn’t go nearly far enough, and urged Harvard to change its definition to one of affirmative consent, saying in a petition that “the absence of a ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes,’ and our university policy should explicitly recognize that.”

Mia Karvonides, the university’s Title IX officer, said that Harvard uses a standard that is “consistent with the standard in all federal civil rights laws that apply in an education setting,” and that even its peers in the Ivy League don’t truly use an affirmative consent standard as they don’t require a verbal yes at every turn
“The closest any college comes to a defined affirmative-consent approach is Antioch College,” Karvonides said. “Under their policy, consent is given step by step at every point of engagement during an intimate encounter. You must verbally ask and verbally get an answer for every point of engagement. ‘May I kiss you? May I undo your blouse?’ ”

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/means-enough-college-campuses

 

They have gone insane. Literally. These people are not rational anymore.

And what has that got to do with denying funds for medical and hi-tech research?

1 hour ago, bubblegum said:

Sound like Pol Pot. Kill the educated.

 

Pol Pot was the leftist influence.  🙄

8 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

And universities need to be dragged into the modern era.  They are no longer only for the elite and those who want to go into intellectual careers.

 

They need a good shake up with a lot of fat trimmed off.

And what has this got to do with the First Amendment?

 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And what has that got to do with denying funds for medical and hi-tech research?

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And what has this got to do with the First Amendment?

 

No idea.  Why does it need to relate to the First Amendment?

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

Those levers can't be used if they used in violation of the First Amendment.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I guess you slept through the Pro-Palestine Encampment and the Claudine Gay fiasco.  Not hard to believe the way the MSM was spinning it.

The protests were not sponsored by the university.

The university was constrained by the rights of participants to engage in their protests.

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

No idea.  Why does it need to relate to the First Amendment?

Because it's an attempt to punish Harvard over the issue of Free Speech. The Federal Govt has no  right to punish an institution because it's unhappy with what is being said or written.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Quite a lot. Harvard can thank its political activist feminists and socialists for creating an environment that is oppressive for students and teaches them useless ideology like "stop and ask for consent before you touch the breast, stop and ask for consent before you kiss", that capitalism is bad and all the other leftists nonsense. 

 

Of course Trump only has limited levers against Harvard. A stop to federal funding is one lever. Indeed, if it does not work, he could appropriate endowments by passing legislation.

 

Whatever levers there are they have to be used to bring all these universities back to heel and to focus on what they are meant to do, educate and research. Not peddle third rate leftist ideology.

 

How would you know?

You certainly did not attend Harvard nor witnessed the activities that you claim.

Did you even graduate from a nationally accredited university?

6 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

How would you know?

You certainly did not attend Harvard nor witnessed the activities that you claim.

Did you even graduate from a nationally accredited university?

 

I was at Oxford University in the UK, it is exactly the same there. The first I saw was a Doc Martens wearing feminist with a shaved head peddling a "No means No" campaign.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think the main issue apart from the attempt at suppression of speech, is the fact that the undergraduate portion of the University is only a small part of Harvard. It is one of the leading centers of scientific research in the country.The kind of research America desperately needs more of. Not just that. But a lot of that research is done by gifted people from abroad who are attracted to the kind of facilities that Harvard offers. Given the Trump administration recent immigration actions, the US will probably be seeing a lot less of them.

The Brain Drain has been going on for a long time due to the antiquated quota system that we have in place, but there's no question that Trump is going to make it a lot worse with his anti-immigrant, anti foreigner rhetoric. 

 

We don't want you we don't need you, Americans are so smart. 

7 hours ago, MicroB said:

 

Yeah, spelling might be improved.

 

Still, which way did the uneducated Russian masses in 1917 lean?

 

Pete Hegseth; are you saying now he's a left wing plant? RFK Jr; another Harvard graduate. So is Elise Stefanik, your president's pick to represent him to the world. Vivek Ramaswamy, you know, the bloke who helped out Musk on DOGE, a Harvard old boy.

 

First time round, the 45th President favoured Harvard graduates. Steve Bannon, Jared  Kushner, Wilbur Ross, Mike Pompeo, Elaine Chao, Alexander Acosta, Rod Rosenstein,  the Mooch, Kayleigh McEnany, Rachel  Brand, Sarah Flores, Jeffrey Rosen, Stacy Cline Amin, John Bash, Ann Donaldson, Gregory Katsas, Michael McGinley, Schuyler Schouten, Zina Bash, Avrahm Berkowitz, Kenneth Juster, Gilbert Kaplan, and Henry J. Kerner.

 

Of course, all of these graduates will likely agree with a statement that a Harvard education allowed them to think for themselves. If you disgree with that, ergo they are all leftist plants, and the President has been negligant.

 

All of them, by your reckoning, under "leftist influence" and need to be "mericlessly"  (sic) eradicated.

 

You have a 50/50 chance of getting dementia or cancer. Your chances of surviving either depend on university research.

But why even spend all this money on this costly research when you can just eat a Trump-style McDonald's diet and remain healthy your entire life? 

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I was at Oxford University in the UK, it is exactly the same there. The first I saw was a Doc Martens wearing feminist with a shaved head peddling a "No means No" campaign.

Which college!

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because it's an attempt to punish Harvard over the issue of Free Speech. The Federal Govt has no  right to punish an institution because it's unhappy with what is being said or written.

 

Well, there are many areas in which universities need to be reformed.

8 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

But why even spend all this money on this costly research when you can just eat a Trump-style McDonald's diet and remain healthy your entire life? 

You mean this?

• Breakfast: Often skipped, but when he eats, it may consist of bacon and eggs or a bowl of cereal like Raisin Bran. 

   

  1
• Lunch: Commonly features fast food items such as a Big Mac or fried chicken from KFC. 

   

  1
• Dinner: He has been known to enjoy two Big Macs and a milkshake, along with well-done steaks. 

   

  1
• Snacks: Trump reportedly consumes 12 Diet Cokes a day and snacks on Doritos. 

   

  1

  
  This diet reflects his preference for fast food and simple meals.

3 minutes ago, still kicking said:

You mean this?

• Breakfast: Often skipped, but when he eats, it may consist of bacon and eggs or a bowl of cereal like Raisin Bran. 

   

  1
• Lunch: Commonly features fast food items such as a Big Mac or fried chicken from KFC. 

   

  1
• Dinner: He has been known to enjoy two Big Macs and a milkshake, along with well-done steaks. 

   

  1
• Snacks: Trump reportedly consumes 12 Diet Cokes a day and snacks on Doritos. 

   

  1

  
  This diet reflects his preference for fast food and simple meals.

A true meal for champions and stable genius minds. 

Below are quotes from prominent Republicans picked out by long time Republican pollster Sarah Longwell  in a thread posted to X on Wednesday. 

She explains, "Because Republicans believed the IRS under Obama was targeting conservative groups, there are tons of clips of R elected officials passionately arguing that the government targeting the tax exempt status of groups because of their political beliefs is un-American and illegal. FYI."

1.  Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) proclaimed that the IRS targeting political adversaries is "as wrong as things can be in this country."

2. Vice President JD Vance, at the time not in political office, told Fox News' Laura Ingraham, "This is about whether we have functional constitutional government in this country. If the IRS can go after you because of what you think or what you believe or what you do, we'd no longer live in a free country.“

3.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), "I can also assure you that were this a Republican president, a Republican Attorney General, and a Republican IRS that were targeting Democrats, I at least would speak out just as vigorously against it because if we are going to respect rule of law, the apparatus of the federal government cannot and should not be used as a partisan tool to bludgeon your enemies."

4. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who, when he was serving as the senator for Florida, had a similar message.

"Great news folks. @SecRubio will not stand for the federal government or its agencies targeting institutions or organizations because of their political beliefs. That’s third-world stuff that can’t be allowed to happen here.''

'I would speak out vigorously!' Republicans who once decried IRS weaponization now silent

Oh, how the lambs are silent now!