Category Archives: Liberal

Support for Justin Trudeau's Liberals has sharply declined over the last three months, dropping to its lowest levels since thelast federal election.

The party has taken a hitin the polls in every region of the country, boosting both the Conservatives and New Democrats as a result. But despite the governing party's worsening fortunes, the Liberals still have as much support today as they did when they secured a majority government in October 2015.

The Liberals have averaged 40.5 per cent support in national polls conducted over the last three months, a drop of 6.8 points compared to the previous quarter. Though that is still above their electoral result of 39.5 per cent, it is a significant shift from the party's steady pollingat 46 to 47 per cent throughout 2016.

This is, by a wide margin, the greatest shift recorded in national voting intentions since Liberal support surged in the immediate aftermath of the 2015 election. This shift has all but erased those "honeymoon" gains.

Thenegative trend coincided with a number of issues that may have sapped Liberal strength, including the government's pipeline decisions, its broken electoral reform promise, the prime minister's cash-for-access controversies and his stay on the Aga Khan's private island in the Bahamas.

(Note that past quarterly averages have been revised due to the inclusion of polling data from Nanos Research that had not been available at the time.)

The Conservatives have picked up 3.5 points in the past quarter, boosting the party to 31.8 per cent nearly identical to the Tories' electoral performance. This is another important shift, as the Conservatives had previously been stagnating under 30 per cent after losing power.

The New Democrats were also up, gaining 2.3 points to hit 15.6 per cent support. That is still down almost four points from their election showing in 2015, support the party has been unable to claw back from the Liberals.

In fact, the NDP's weakness would give the Liberals the potential to win more seats than they did in 2015 if an election were held today, due to gains in Quebec that would make up for losses in Ontario. The Liberals would likely win around 200 seats if an election had been held over the last three months, with about 110 seats going to the Conservatives and just 20 to the NDP.

Green support, at 5.4 per cent, was largely unchanged from the previous quarter.

The Liberals saw their support in British Columbia drop 7.6 points in the last quarter, the largest quarter-to-quarter decrease any party has seen in any region since the election. The Liberals are still ahead in the province, however, averaging 38.3 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 27.5 per cent and the New Democrats at 21.5 per cent.

Both parties picked up about three points from the last quarter, but are still below their results from 2015.

In Ontario, the Conservatives picked up 6.2 points and averaged37.6 per cent in the province, 2.5 points higher than their last election result. The Liberals dropped 7.2 points their second largest decrease in the country though stilllead with 42.9 per cent.

Themargin between the Liberals and Conservatives stands at just over five points. It was almost 19 points in the last quarter.

The Conservatives have picked up support over three consecutive quarters in Alberta, where they lead with 60 per cent. The Liberals, down five points to 25.6 per cent, are still polling higher than their election result in the province.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Conservatives displaced the Liberals to take over the lead at 41 per cent. The Liberals dropped nearly seven points to 33.8 per cent, while the NDP was up 3.1 points to 17.8 per cent. Along with a 3.1 point gain in B.C., this was the NDP's biggest regional jump this quarter.

The Liberals won all 32 seats in Atlantic Canada in the last election and still hold a wide lead in the region, averaging 57.7 per cent to the Conservatives' 22.7 per cent,and 13.4 per cent for the NDP. The Liberals' slide of 3.2 points was their smallest in the country.

The Liberals had a more significant drop in support in Quebec, slipping six points. This decrease reversed four consecutive quarters of gains in the province, largely at the expense of the NDP.

But at 44.7 per cent, the Liberals are still polling significantly above their election haul of 35.7 per cent. This makes Quebec the province in which the Liberals are out-performing their election results by the widest margin insulating themselves against losses in other parts of the country.

The Bloc Qubcois, at 18.2 per cent, narrowly beat out the New Democrats for second spot in Quebec. The NDPwas still well below its election performance in the province at just 17.1 per cent. Though that was a gain of 2.8 points over the previous quarter, their 8.3-point under-performance of the last election is the worst of any party in any region in the country.

Of course, the New Democrats are without a leader, as are the Conservatives and the Bloc Qubcois. The Bloc and Tories will settle their leadership races in April and May, respectively. The NDP will choose its new chief in October.

Of the three, the polls suggestit is the next leader of the NDP that will have the most ground to make up assuming, of course,the slumping Liberals don't do it for them.

These quarterly poll averages are based on the results of 12 national and regional public opinion polls conducted between Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 by seven different pollsters, interviewing just under 16,000 Canadian adults using a variety of methodologies, including online panels, interactive voice response and telephone interviews.

Read the original post:

Liberal support slides to lowest levels since 2015 election - CBC.ca

Slide: 1 / of 1. Caption: Boubah Barry

Samuel Themer never planned to be a symbol of everything thats right or wrong with America. He just wanted to go to work. But when he hopped on the subwayto head into Manhattan on February 19, the Queens resident was in full draghe performs as Gilda Wabbit. He also ended up sittingnext to a woman in a niqab, a fact he initially didnt even notice. I was just sitting on the train, existing, he says. It didnt seem out of the ordinary that a woman in full modesty garb would sit next to me.

Someone on that W car with them, though, thought otherwise.Boubah Barry, aGuinean immigrant and real estate student, wanted to document what he saw as a testament to tolerance, so he took a photo of the pair andpostedit to Instagram. Its diversity, says Barry, who says he doesnt identify as liberal or conservative but does oppose President Trumps refugee ban. They sit next to each other, and no one cares.

But someone did care. After the post was shared by Instagram account subwaycreatures, the photo driftedacross the internet until /pol/ News Network attached it to a tweet on Wednesday with the message This is the future that liberals want.

/pol/ News Network, which also recently declaredGet Outto be anti-white propaganda,probably intended the post to be a warning about the impending liberal dystopia. But as soon as actual liberals saw it, they flipped the message on its headand began touting the message as exactly the future they wanted. They filled /pol/ News Networks mentions with messages endorsing the photo and adding their own visions of a bright future. By Thursday, it was a full-blown meme. Soon images of a future filled with interspecies companionship, gay space communism, and Garfield flooded onto social media.

As one of the people at the center of the meme, Themer is happy to be a symbol of the far-rightsfear of an inclusive futureand part of the online communitys response to it. I absolutely believe its the future I want, says Themer. I want it to not be a big deal that we sat next to each other, were just being ourselves.

But he also recognizes the danger of using a meme to reinforce an echo chamber, no matter the political bent. The perspectives that are being illustrated by this imageit worries me that the divide is so deep, he says. I dont like when its used just as simple confirmation bias. When two groups use the same image to prove their critiques of the other, it fosters prejudice, rather than conversation. Themer would rather the image prompt a dialogue across the political chasm and get people to see themselves in Barrys photo.

If we can come to have empathy for each other, we can come to a place where we can find common ground and move forward, he says. Thats the goal.

The backlash against the /pol/ News Networks post is a rare display ofa memesredemptive powerits abilityto flip a bigoted statement into one of optimism. Liberal voices have co-opted the image as a way to create a utopian vision lit by the rosy glow of President Beyonc, Never Nude Syndrome, and lots of dogs.

But empathy? Thats a tall order for the internet in 2017. Still, if an opera-singing drag queen from Kentucky, a woman in a niqab, and a Guinean immigrant can come together and coexist peacefully on the W train, it just might be possible for the rest of us.

See the article here:

The Story Behind That 'Future That Liberals Want' Photo - WIRED

There is a direct lineage between the Occupy Wall Street movement, the enormous and historic contribution that Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersMoral outrage shrouds reality of Russian hacking case Left wing protests only strengthen the Right Sanders, Occupy Wall Street and the liberal Tea Party surge MORE (I-Vt.) made in the 2016 presidential campaign, and what some call the progressive Tea Party movement that, along with other Americans, has besieged Republican officeholders at town meetings across America.

The Sanders campaign for president was a defining moment in American political history one that has continuing impact on his work in the Senate today, the creation of groups such as Our Revolution that supports his agenda, and Sanders's coming role in the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential campaign.

The continuing power of the Sanders movement results from the fact that not only did he inspire a large number of citizens to participate in politics, but revolutionized campaign finance by inspiring small donors. Those donors broke the old politics paradigm of seeking large contributions and special interest money that usually paid for consultant-driven negative television ads.

In 2016 Sanders inspired, motivated and organized a continuing political movement based on progressive ideas, institutional reform and the kind of dramatic change that voters hunger for.

Before the Sanders campaign, there was the Occupy Wall Street movement, and today, there is the so-called progressive version of the Tea Party movement reminiscent of the movement that brought conservatives and Republicans to power beginning in the 2010 midterms.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which I strongly supported and continue to support, was a frontal challenge to the power exercised by the 1 percent, who do so at the expense of the 99 percent who are the heart and soul of America.

The mistake many Democrats made, including the Obama White House, was that they felt threatened by Occupy Wall Street. After all, President Obama was not elected in 2008 to name Timothy Geithner, a close ally of the largest financial institutions of the world, as his Treasury secretary. But Obama did.

The mistake Occupy Wall Street made understandably so, but still a tactical mistake was to respond by rejecting involvement in electoral politics.

Sanders and his campaign filled this gap, brought together grassroots action and direct political involvement, and brought large numbers of new people into politics who remain active and engaged in politics today.

The continuing Sanders movement embodied by Our Revolution is critical to the future of American politics, and the so-called liberal Tea Party movement is similar and also important by forcing Republican officeholders to publicly answer questions they would rather duck at town meetings.

With two critical elections approaching in 2018 and 2020, it is important to fully understand and act on the differences between presidential elections and midterm elections just as I mentioned in my last column on the anti-Trump wave that could define the midterm elections in 2018.

In the 2020 presidential election, Democrats and all Americans will have the opportunity to elect a transforming progressive president. In the midterm elections, though, the prime directive is to elect the progressive and moderate Democrats needed to put a brake on the power of President Trump and the Republican Congress.

The anti-Trump wave extends far beyond the traditional Democratic base. It includes the huge number of Americans who now realize they will be hurt by repeal or destruction of ObamaCare; the huge number of Americans who are angered and fearful of attacks against a free press; those appalled by the key members of the Trump administration who bear false witness about meetings with the Russians who attack our democracy; and those who reject the "swamp" in Washington that has actually gotten worse, since a number of Trump officials embody the special interests of political "swamp" Trump falsely claimed he would drain.

Democrats and progressives have an opportunity in 2018 to restore and widen our traditional coalition, maintain the momentum of the Sanders movement, inspire voters who stayed home in 2016, and end the one-party monopoly of power that the GOP now holds.

This will require supporting progressive Democrats and also supporting moderate, red-state Democrats, and, above all, finding new and appealing challengers to take the fight to Republicans in every district and state across the nation.

Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He is a longtime regular columnist for The Hill and can be contacted at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Original post:

Sanders, Occupy Wall Street and the liberal Tea Party surge | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

New Political Terrain for a Liberal Discipline Inside Higher Ed That's also true of populations whom the mostly liberal-minded anthropological profession may not initially empathize with, he said. Gusterson studies the people who make up the American security state -- members of the intelligence community ...

See the article here:

New Political Terrain for a Liberal Discipline - Inside Higher Ed

Several liberal groups plan to deliver a petition to Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles SchumerLiberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership Impact, incidence of Chinese currency controls largely overblown GOP's leaked 'repeal and replace' plan is the scorpion striking the frog MORE (D-N.Y.) Thursday morning calling on him to remove Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSenate confirms Perry for Energy secretary Sessions faces growing pressure to recuse himself from Russia probe Senate advances Rick Perry to be Energy secretary MORE (D-W.Va.) from party leadership.

The groups argue that Manchins lack of resistance to President Trump warrants his removal as the vice chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

There is no justification for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerLiberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership Impact, incidence of Chinese currency controls largely overblown GOP's leaked 'repeal and replace' plan is the scorpion striking the frog MORE to anoint someone as a member of Democratic leadership who consistently votes with Trumps extreme right-wing priorities, fails to defend our progressive values, and routinely collaborates with Trump by enabling his racist and fascist agenda grounded in xenophobia and hate, CREDO Action, one of the groups collecting signatures, wrote on its website.

One of the groups involved in the petition effort against Manchin, We Will Replace You, is threatening primary challenges to Democratic senators who have not committed to a full resistance of Trump's agenda.

The groups, which include We Will Replace You, Democracy for America, CREDO Action, Other98 and 350 Action, have collected more than 225,000 signatures for the Manchin petition.

We Will Replace You called for Manchin to be removed from leadership after leaked audio revealed that the senator took part in an off-the-record meeting with Breitbart News.

Activists plan to phone all of Schumers state and D.C. offices Thursday morning, as others deliver the petition to his office on Capitol Hill.

Link:

Liberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership - The Hill

The Liberals have lowered the current deficit to $1.9 billion but the provincial member for Nipissing doesnt see that as an accomplishment. In fact Vic Fedeli says the Liberals are artificially balancing the budget. Fedeli was reacting to a third quarter report the Liberals released under the Fiscal Transparency Act. The Tory finance critic says the Liberals managed to hit $1.9 billion by juggling a lot of one-time revenue streams. Theyre using the sale of Hydro One money, they also took $600-million from reserves and they got land transfer taxes mostly from Toronto that was up $500-million than they had planned because of a robust economy. said Fedeli.

Fedeli says relying on the land transfer taxes was tenuous at best and its something the Financial Accountability Officer was also concerned about. Were not always going to have a remarkable housing boom and he (the FAO) was cautious about that and cautioned the government about that, Fedeli said. Fedeli also said that in an earlier report, the FAO indicated Ontario is still facing a structural deficit meaning the Liberals continue to spend more money than they take in. The MPP says by using one-time resources that dont repeat to lower and eliminate the deficit, once the money is used up, were back into a deficit.

But Fedeli says the FAO paints an even gloomier financial picture. Not only will we have a deficit each year, but also for the next five years well have an increasing deficit, Fedeli says. The FAO shows a very different picture of what I call a true picture of Ontarios finances. Fedeli also says the Progressive Conservatives guilted the Liberals into releasing the third quarter report. He says under the Fiscal Transparency Act the report is supposed to come out every year by February 15th. He says only once since 2007 have they turned in a report and adds its because the Tories badgered the Liberals about its release.

Continue reading here:

Fedeli dismisses Liberal achievement with deficit - My North Bay Now

UPDATE/PROLOGUE: I see Paul noted the McCaskill hypocrisy (or early Alzheimers?) within seconds of my post here. Which just shows that Power Line is on the story. (More updates below.)

Liberals are now chumming the waters with news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which somehow makes him Alger Hiss, though this is confusing since we all know Hiss was an innocent man framed up by Tricky Dick Nixon and why are we buying into a new Red Scare anywaythats something only liberal presidents like Woodrow Wilson get to do.

Anyway, it provides an opportunity for Democrats to discover their lost Cold War selves, like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill who tweeted out that shes never had a meeting with a Russian diplomat. Except. . . oh heck, lets just let the Tale of the Tweets tell this story:

#doingmyhomework? I think she must have forgotten to turn in her homework.

Meanwhile, if you have eight minutes, Seth Meyers, of all people, mocks the media for their coverage of Trumps speech Monday night. And if youve lost Seth Meyers. . .

UPDATE: McCaskill is furiously trying to backpedal in full Clintonian style, with these two new tweets this morning:

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word meet is.

Read the original post:

The Liberal/Media Freakout Rolls On - Power Line (blog)

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

I didnt watch the Academy Awards, but I sure enjoyed them via Twitter. The collection of world-famous and super-rich liberals and leftists had one job, and they failed. The spectacular screwup of announcing the wrong winner for Best Picture wasnt even the issue, or about one person making a mistake. Mistakes are made all the time.

In reality, this vignette of fools is a perfect illustration of why the liberal establishment is in collapse: hate-obsessing on something that contradicts their own self-reverential worldview, condemning them to perpetual distraction. The result is the inevitable crashing and burning.

In other words, Democrats and liberals have been driving drunk while texting for eight years. Swerving into the wrong lane, they crashed into oncoming traffic and sit, dazed and confused, wondering what happened. The few survivors crawl out of the clown car screaming at the innocent people theyve harmed. After all, its never their fault, you see, its everyone elses for daring to get in their way.

Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel led the way, as Entertainment Weekly noted, The first salvo against Donald Trump was fired only a few minutes into the Oscars and then they just kept on coming. In what might be an unprecedented number of jokes, allusions, and sincere articulations inspired by a single person during an awards telecast, Hollywoods most luminous tackled Trump and his policies.

The target may have been President Trump, but the derision was meant for the people who elected him. Nothing says oops like ridiculing your audience.

I apparently was one of the millions who didnt tune in, causing the ABC network program to be the least-watched in nine years. The Los Angeles Times spent thousands of words trying to explain why the awards show had its third year of ratings decline. It was late, they explained, small budget films and, they mused pensively, maybe, just maybe, [t]he promise of strong criticism of President Trump from the Oscars participants may also have put off some viewers.

Ya think? But its not about criticism of any particularly president, its Hollywoods constant sanctimonious lecturing of the unwashed hoi polloi.

The transformation of actors into thugs condemning those who dont conform is something George Orwell would understand, and they are in the same free-fall as their beloved Democratic Party. Vanity Fair reported last year, The Atlantics Derek Thompson points out that in 2016, the film industry is on pace to sell the fewest U.S. tickets per person of any year since perhaps before the 1920s and the fewest total tickets in two decades.

Fortunately, on Oscar night the only people harmed by liberal clueless sanctimony were the smug liberals themselves. Much worse happens when they actually wield power.

Obamacare is Oscar night writ large: A concept based in fantasy, and as Jonathan Gruber, one of its architects was exposed as noting, it relied on the stupidity of the American voter. Obamacare, reliant on lies and presuming the average American is a rube, ruined peoples lives and almost destroyed our health care infrastructure.

The rise and spread of the Islamic State terror group in 2014, and the consequential U.N.-recognized genocide of Christians in the Middle East, was made possible by a president who decided (and publicly stated) the bloodthirsty terrorist group was a JV team, signaling that no action would be taken against them.

The National Review reminds us: In the following months, ISIS established a de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria; took large swathes of the country and swept into northern Iraq; captured Mosul, Iraqs second-largest city, before moving on Baghdad; attempted genocide against Yazidi minorities in northern Iraq; and drew the United States into an air campaign in September 2014.

As reported by The Sun, by the summer of 2016 a leaked White House intelligence assessment revealed ISIS now has fully operational branches in 18 countries.

The president was too distracted by his legacy and remaking American society to actually get his hands dirty dealing with a rising terrorist cancer.

Then there was Mr. Obamas dramatic red line declaration in 2012 about Syrias chemical weapons use on its own citizens. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, Mr. Obama said.

Later that same year, Syrias butcher Bashar Assad murdered 1,500 people in a chemical weapons attack, but Mr. Obama backed down. Why? Business Insider learned: Obama reportedly declined to enforce a red line in Syria after Iran threatened to back out of nuclear deal.

Lots of talk, lots of drama and moral preening, then collapse when details and commitment matter.

The ultimate example of distracted Democrats fixation on completely the wrong thing leading to disaster is the debacle of the Hillary Clinton race for the presidency.

Perhaps they were relying on the stupidity of the American voter, but that was the wrong equation. In the various autopsies of that miserable campaign, her failure comes down to fixation on herself and entitlement. The presumption was the election was hers.

Overconfident and smug, her strategy required taking her base for granted and waltzing to the inauguration. For the entire campaign season, she was told there was only one name on the card in the winners envelope, and it was hers. Until it wasnt.

Sound familiar?

Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

Go here to see the original:

Liberal establishment is failing - Washington Times - Washington Times

The problem with the two Americas narrative: Labels like conservative, liberal, and moderate all have relative meanings based on where we live.

Good news, everybody: Americans may not be as bitterly divided as they think.

After Donald Trump prevailed over Hillary Clinton, many a think piece observed that there are two separate Americas: a conservative one located in red states and a liberal one located in blue states and cities. While Clinton won the popular vote, conservatives outnumber liberals in four out of five states. More than class or the culture wars, place itself is increasingly the critical fault line of American politics.

A new study puts an intriguing twist on that narrative. The study, which is co-authored by my colleague Matthew Feinberg at the University of Torontos Rotman School, finds that our political identification is not only shaped by where we live, it is relative to it. The labels conservative and liberal mean very different things in different places.

We know this intuitively: Someone who identifies as a moderate in a deep-blue Ithaca, New York could easily be to the left of someone who calls themselves liberal in small-town Texas, just as a self-identified conservative in Berkeley may be more liberal than a moderate Utah.

The (Still) Conservative States of America

Many people feel pressured to conform to the political identity of the place where they live. But the key factor at work is what the study dubs the political reference pointa locally shaped gauge that people use to identify their own political leanings. Basically, if we live in a red place we may call ourselves moderate or even liberal just because our views are to the left of the prevailing conservative positions surrounding us. Similarly, blue-city-dwellers may think themselves moderate or even conservative just because their positions are right of many peers.

The study examines this relative effect of place on politics at the state level and the county level, looking at the relationship between our self-reported political identity and positions on different policy issues in light of the political tenor of the places we live.

At the state level, the study uses data from the American National Election Survey, which arrays political identity on a 7-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. The chart below shows the results of their analysis for 2012.

If political identity was the same across states, the lines would flat. The sloped lines indicate variations in the same political identity across states. The bluer the state, the more liberal the policy positions; the redder the state, the more conservative those positions are.

In other words, identifying as extremely conservative means something very different in Utah than it does in Hawaii. In Utah, extremely conservative people opposed abortion even in cases of rape; extremely conservative Hawaii residents were willing to consider legalizing abortion. As the study points out, conservatives and moderates in blue states indicated more support for liberal policy positions than conservatives and moderates in red states, and the bluer the state was, the stronger their support was for liberal positions.

Next, the study looks at the variation in political identity across counties. To get at this, the researchers collected their own survey data on political identity based on a 7-point scale (from strong conservative to strong liberal) and then across a ten-point scale (from strongly oppose to strongly in favor) on 10 key issues. The study polled people across the seven political identities in both blue and red counties to determine how identity aligned with issue positions, resulting in a sample of 1,269 people total.

In this graphic below, they present a sample of how political identities correspond with issue positions in different states. (Be warned: the graphic is flipped from the traditional left-right continuum.) The red Texas icon represents people in the 100 reddest counties in the country and the blue New York icon represents the 100 bluest counties in the country.

Here again we see that labels such as strong conservative and strong liberal are shaped by the political inclinations of the places people live. A strong conservative in a blue county registered less support for a strong military than a strong conservative in a red county, while a strong liberal in a red county had a more conservative position on the military than a strong liberal in a blue county. Indeed, moderates in blue counties effectively had the same views as strong liberals in the reddest ones.

These findings on the relativity of our political identities make the authors more optimistic about Americas political future. [T]he animosity and disgust so commonly felt toward those on the other side of the political ideology spectrum may often be misplaced, they write. [I]f a person feels hatred toward others simply based on how they identify on the political ideology spectrum, then in some circumstances, that hatred is actually aimed at someone with the exact same policy stances.

Indeed, they conclude, frequently it is not the policy preferences or the values that differ between people, but simply the labels they give themselveslabels that shift depending on their political reference point.

Our political differences, which have been so magnified by social media that if often seems as though Americans occupy two completely different worlds, may actually be less daunting than we think. At this fraught moment in American history, that would be heartening news.

Continued here:

Putting Politics In Place - CityLab

Screenshot via Berkeley CRsA member of the University of California-Berkeley College Republicans caught a young man in the act of destroying the group's large wooden sign on campus.

The perpetrator is presumed to be a studenta witness described him as such.

The CR began recording the incident, which transpired at Sproul Plaza on Tuesday. This did not deter the perpetrator, who continued smashing the sign into smaller pieces.

"You just vandalized our property," said the person recording the video.

"Yeah," replied the perpetrator. "I did."

You can watch the video below: it's one of the more chill acts of illiberalism I've ever seen. The perpetrator even asked the CR if he knows whether the sign should be composted, or placed in the trash.

"I believe that would be compost," the CR replied, because this is Berkeley, after all.

At one point, a female student in league with the sign-destroyer asks the CR to stop recording the destruction of his group's property. She asserted that he had no legal right to record them without permission. That's funny for two reasons: one, it's wrongthere's no expectation of privacy in a public placeand two, the vandals were already breaking the law, anyway.

The altercation likely represents continuing fallout from the CR's decision to bring Milo Yiannopoulos to campus last month. Anti-fascist protestersmost of whom were not studentscrashed the event, smashed windows, and started fires, ultimately preventing Yiannopoulos from speaking.

Organized "black bloc" rioters were responsible for shutting down Yiannopoulos. But illiberal leftist college students often try to silence their perceived opponents as well. An onlooker defended the student's actions, claiming that he was merely exercising his own "free speech" rights. This is a perversion of the concept: free speech does not and cannot include the right to deny someone equal use of a public space, or shout them down at a forum, or destroy their belongings.

Orwell's famous allegory fits a little too neatly here: If you want to a vision of the present, imagine a college Crossfit bro calmly stomping on a conservative's sign, forever. (Or just watch the video.)

Read the original post:

Watch a Liberal Bro Student Calmly Destroy the Berkeley College Republicans' Property - Reason (blog)