Trump cuts 400 Million in grants to Columbia over Antisemtism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving private universities with huge endowments any money at all? Columbia’s endowment it 14.8 BILLION. 400 million is a drop in the bucket for them.

This!

Exactly. This won’t hurt Columbia

I can assure you that Columbia will complain of a budget shortfall and start cutting student programs. Malicious compliance.

Oh please stop with the “malicious compliance” bullsh*t. Your actions have actual consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving private universities with huge endowments any money at all? Columbia’s endowment it 14.8 BILLION. 400 million is a drop in the bucket for them.

Do you really not understand what grants to the universities fund and are for? Do you really not understand what the government and the country gets out of those grants?

Do you think these are grants to build fancy dorms and dining halls?

Also LOL at the idea that the money will go to “poor schools.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will last about 15 minutes before it is overturned on First Amendment grounds, but maybe the pro Israel folks can take a half minute to reflect on how bad it looks that they are lining up to support someone whose playbook is looking surprisingly Hitleresque, and what this might mean for the long term support of your country?

As someone who married into the tribe, I can honestly say I don’t not care one bit if Israel seeks to exist tomorrow because I’m sick of them meddling in my country. And they only have themselves to blame.

Assume that this marriage is past tense.

Present. And my actively Jewish spouse is sick of their crap, too. We live in America and not Israel for a reason.

And she, like you, “doesn’t care if Israel [ceases] to exist”?

Strange sort of “actively Jewish” spouse you have.

+1. My in-laws are all Jewish in various degrees of observance. My spouse is not religious but still considers himself Jewish. And the general consensus is that Israel has the right (and the imperative!) to exist and to defend itself. And also that Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers do Israel no favors. But that Hamas/Iran/etc are to blame here.

The ratio of dead civilians on either side tells a different take. No one who kills twenty-five times more people than, as retribution, has the moral high ground.

What happened on Oct 7th what truly horrific. But Israel lost the moral high ground since. It's really sad, because they had all the free nations of the world on their side in the aftermath of Oct 7th, DESPITE oppressing the Palestinians for decades.

Disagree. The response to Oct 7 has been designed to eliminate the threat and to obtain the release of the hostages, not to exact some kind of moral equivalence. As long as Hamas maintains a military capability and holds hostages, Hamas is fair game. That they hide among civilians does not reduce the threat they pose, or reduce the impact of their continuing to hold hostages.

The carnage in Gaza could end immediately, if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down its arms. Until then, there is a moral imperative that the efforts to obliterate them continue. They hold the keys to stopping civilian casualties.

You sound simple.
Netanyahu could have obtained the release of the hostages a long time ago.
He wants his ‘mighty vengeance’ against ‘human animals’ and the generation that followed the holocaust is ready to kill them all

"Simple"? Only if you're good with the notion of Israel surrendering to extortion by Hamas as the only way to reclaim the hostages. Never mind that doing that won't do anything to prevent future Hamas terror activity. Absent that premise, the only possible effective response is to eliminate the hostage takers (and, not incidentally, murders and rapists). It's true, it's not a complicated concept. Engage in murder, rape, and kidnapping, and face a response which is designed, appropriately, to overwhelmingly eliminate the current and future threat of more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will last about 15 minutes before it is overturned on First Amendment grounds, but maybe the pro Israel folks can take a half minute to reflect on how bad it looks that they are lining up to support someone whose playbook is looking surprisingly Hitleresque, and what this might mean for the long term support of your country?

As someone who married into the tribe, I can honestly say I don’t not care one bit if Israel seeks to exist tomorrow because I’m sick of them meddling in my country. And they only have themselves to blame.

Assume that this marriage is past tense.

Present. And my actively Jewish spouse is sick of their crap, too. We live in America and not Israel for a reason.

And she, like you, “doesn’t care if Israel [ceases] to exist”?

Strange sort of “actively Jewish” spouse you have.

+1. My in-laws are all Jewish in various degrees of observance. My spouse is not religious but still considers himself Jewish. And the general consensus is that Israel has the right (and the imperative!) to exist and to defend itself. And also that Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers do Israel no favors. But that Hamas/Iran/etc are to blame here.

The ratio of dead civilians on either side tells a different take. No one who kills twenty-five times more people than, as retribution, has the moral high ground.

What happened on Oct 7th what truly horrific. But Israel lost the moral high ground since. It's really sad, because they had all the free nations of the world on their side in the aftermath of Oct 7th, DESPITE oppressing the Palestinians for decades.

Disagree. The response to Oct 7 has been designed to eliminate the threat and to obtain the release of the hostages, not to exact some kind of moral equivalence. As long as Hamas maintains a military capability and holds hostages, Hamas is fair game. That they hide among civilians does not reduce the threat they pose, or reduce the impact of their continuing to hold hostages.

The carnage in Gaza could end immediately, if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down its arms. Until then, there is a moral imperative that the efforts to obliterate them continue. They hold the keys to stopping civilian casualties.

You sound simple.
Netanyahu could have obtained the release of the hostages a long time ago.
He wants his ‘mighty vengeance’ against ‘human animals’ and the generation that followed the holocaust is ready to kill them all

"Simple"? Only if you're good with the notion of Israel surrendering to extortion by Hamas as the only way to reclaim the hostages. Never mind that doing that won't do anything to prevent future Hamas terror activity. Absent that premise, the only possible effective response is to eliminate the hostage takers (and, not incidentally, murders and rapists). It's true, it's not a complicated concept. Engage in murder, rape, and kidnapping, and face a response which is designed, appropriately, to overwhelmingly eliminate the current and future threat of more of the same.

But can't you see that from the Palestinian lived experience ISRAEL is the one that has engaged in murder, rape and kidnapping?

We can trace history back and I am sure in your mind the original sin does not lie with Israel BUT if you ever want peace and security for the region you must acknowledge the other's perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will last about 15 minutes before it is overturned on First Amendment grounds, but maybe the pro Israel folks can take a half minute to reflect on how bad it looks that they are lining up to support someone whose playbook is looking surprisingly Hitleresque, and what this might mean for the long term support of your country?

As someone who married into the tribe, I can honestly say I don’t not care one bit if Israel seeks to exist tomorrow because I’m sick of them meddling in my country. And they only have themselves to blame.

Assume that this marriage is past tense.

Present. And my actively Jewish spouse is sick of their crap, too. We live in America and not Israel for a reason.

And she, like you, “doesn’t care if Israel [ceases] to exist”?

Strange sort of “actively Jewish” spouse you have.

+1. My in-laws are all Jewish in various degrees of observance. My spouse is not religious but still considers himself Jewish. And the general consensus is that Israel has the right (and the imperative!) to exist and to defend itself. And also that Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers do Israel no favors. But that Hamas/Iran/etc are to blame here.

The ratio of dead civilians on either side tells a different take. No one who kills twenty-five times more people than, as retribution, has the moral high ground.

What happened on Oct 7th what truly horrific. But Israel lost the moral high ground since. It's really sad, because they had all the free nations of the world on their side in the aftermath of Oct 7th, DESPITE oppressing the Palestinians for decades.

Disagree. The response to Oct 7 has been designed to eliminate the threat and to obtain the release of the hostages, not to exact some kind of moral equivalence. As long as Hamas maintains a military capability and holds hostages, Hamas is fair game. That they hide among civilians does not reduce the threat they pose, or reduce the impact of their continuing to hold hostages.

The carnage in Gaza could end immediately, if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down its arms. Until then, there is a moral imperative that the efforts to obliterate them continue. They hold the keys to stopping civilian casualties.

You sound simple.
Netanyahu could have obtained the release of the hostages a long time ago.
He wants his ‘mighty vengeance’ against ‘human animals’ and the generation that followed the holocaust is ready to kill them all

"Simple"? Only if you're good with the notion of Israel surrendering to extortion by Hamas as the only way to reclaim the hostages. Never mind that doing that won't do anything to prevent future Hamas terror activity. Absent that premise, the only possible effective response is to eliminate the hostage takers (and, not incidentally, murders and rapists). It's true, it's not a complicated concept. Engage in murder, rape, and kidnapping, and face a response which is designed, appropriately, to overwhelmingly eliminate the current and future threat of more of the same.

Israel needs to thanks the US and pay the US back for all the aid we have given it. That is 190 billion. Instead of oppressing freedoms in the US start signing over assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will last about 15 minutes before it is overturned on First Amendment grounds, but maybe the pro Israel folks can take a half minute to reflect on how bad it looks that they are lining up to support someone whose playbook is looking surprisingly Hitleresque, and what this might mean for the long term support of your country?

As someone who married into the tribe, I can honestly say I don’t not care one bit if Israel seeks to exist tomorrow because I’m sick of them meddling in my country. And they only have themselves to blame.

Assume that this marriage is past tense.

Present. And my actively Jewish spouse is sick of their crap, too. We live in America and not Israel for a reason.

And she, like you, “doesn’t care if Israel [ceases] to exist”?

Strange sort of “actively Jewish” spouse you have.

+1. My in-laws are all Jewish in various degrees of observance. My spouse is not religious but still considers himself Jewish. And the general consensus is that Israel has the right (and the imperative!) to exist and to defend itself. And also that Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers do Israel no favors. But that Hamas/Iran/etc are to blame here.

The ratio of dead civilians on either side tells a different take. No one who kills twenty-five times more people than, as retribution, has the moral high ground.

What happened on Oct 7th what truly horrific. But Israel lost the moral high ground since. It's really sad, because they had all the free nations of the world on their side in the aftermath of Oct 7th, DESPITE oppressing the Palestinians for decades.

Disagree. The response to Oct 7 has been designed to eliminate the threat and to obtain the release of the hostages, not to exact some kind of moral equivalence. As long as Hamas maintains a military capability and holds hostages, Hamas is fair game. That they hide among civilians does not reduce the threat they pose, or reduce the impact of their continuing to hold hostages.

The carnage in Gaza could end immediately, if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down its arms. Until then, there is a moral imperative that the efforts to obliterate them continue. They hold the keys to stopping civilian casualties.

You sound simple.
Netanyahu could have obtained the release of the hostages a long time ago.
He wants his ‘mighty vengeance’ against ‘human animals’ and the generation that followed the holocaust is ready to kill them all

"Simple"? Only if you're good with the notion of Israel surrendering to extortion by Hamas as the only way to reclaim the hostages. Never mind that doing that won't do anything to prevent future Hamas terror activity. Absent that premise, the only possible effective response is to eliminate the hostage takers (and, not incidentally, murders and rapists). It's true, it's not a complicated concept. Engage in murder, rape, and kidnapping, and face a response which is designed, appropriately, to overwhelmingly eliminate the current and future threat of more of the same.

But can't you see that from the Palestinian lived experience ISRAEL is the one that has engaged in murder, rape and kidnapping?

We can trace history back and I am sure in your mind the original sin does not lie with Israel BUT if you ever want peace and security for the region you must acknowledge the other's perspective.

The zionists will never be able to see that it's not as simple as "oh they attacked us on October so we retaliated". They fail to see that Israel has been subjecting the people of Palestine to inhumane conditions, taking away their freedoms, their lively hood, and their land too (the settlements that are illegal per international law). Whenever you say something against Israel, these people automatically will say "you are being antisemitic".

Shame, you would think that people (Israeli's) that were subjected to genocide (WW2) would know better and not subject another people (Palestinians) to genocide.

[Anonymous]

Until you have kids on campus and have been blocked or hurt going to class you cannot say it is not happening. It’s bad enough that there is so much antisemitism all over moco high schools. These naysayers also believe the Holocaust did not happen.

Antisemitism is a real problem. You can disguise it change it but many posting here are antisemetic. Columbia has a problem. People should not feel threatened to go to class ever.

[Anonymous]

I have notice that the same people who are full throatily against NATO and Ukraine are the most pro Israel. They yell and scream about NATO, Ukraine and other allies receiving money and aid. How this has to be repaid but when it comes to Israel there is no limit.

Now the administration pulls grants from Columbia(a school with 22% Jewish students body) and within minutes of the announcement the trolls are out pushing the narrative Columbia is antisemitic.

This seems very orchestrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have notice that the same people who are full throatily against NATO and Ukraine are the most pro Israel. They yell and scream about NATO, Ukraine and other allies receiving money and aid. How this has to be repaid but when it comes to Israel there is no limit.

Now the administration pulls grants from Columbia(a school with 22% Jewish students body) and within minutes of the announcement the trolls are out pushing the narrative Columbia is antisemitic.

This seems very orchestrated.

Nobody says Columbia is itself antisemitic. What they do say is that Columbia's response has been inadequate to the antisemitism of students and other agitators on campus, mistakenly conflating freedom of speech and academic freedom with tolerance of anarchy and bullying. Once Columbia commits to promptly calling in the NYPD to clear out unlawful assemblies and trespassers, the funding will be restored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we giving private universities with huge endowments any money at all? Columbia’s endowment it 14.8 BILLION. 400 million is a drop in the bucket for them.

This!

Exactly. This won’t hurt Columbia

I can assure you that Columbia will complain of a budget shortfall and start cutting student programs. Malicious compliance.

Lay off a couple DEI administrators and there will be a good chunk of change freed up for a decent-size student program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Until you have kids on campus and have been blocked or hurt going to class you cannot say it is not happening. It’s bad enough that there is so much antisemitism all over moco high schools. These naysayers also believe the Holocaust did not happen.

Antisemitism is a real problem. You can disguise it change it but many posting here are antisemetic. Columbia has a problem. People should not feel threatened to go to class ever.

Has this happened to kids you know or were you only told it happened? I was at Columbia during the protests last spring. they were peaceful. however, there were anti-protest agitators (ie pro zionist) outside the gates (non students) that were intimidating. My sister lives in LA and reported the same think about UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will last about 15 minutes before it is overturned on First Amendment grounds, but maybe the pro Israel folks can take a half minute to reflect on how bad it looks that they are lining up to support someone whose playbook is looking surprisingly Hitleresque, and what this might mean for the long term support of your country?

As someone who married into the tribe, I can honestly say I don’t not care one bit if Israel seeks to exist tomorrow because I’m sick of them meddling in my country. And they only have themselves to blame.

Assume that this marriage is past tense.

Present. And my actively Jewish spouse is sick of their crap, too. We live in America and not Israel for a reason.

And she, like you, “doesn’t care if Israel [ceases] to exist”?

Strange sort of “actively Jewish” spouse you have.

+1. My in-laws are all Jewish in various degrees of observance. My spouse is not religious but still considers himself Jewish. And the general consensus is that Israel has the right (and the imperative!) to exist and to defend itself. And also that Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers do Israel no favors. But that Hamas/Iran/etc are to blame here.

The ratio of dead civilians on either side tells a different take. No one who kills twenty-five times more people than, as retribution, has the moral high ground.

What happened on Oct 7th what truly horrific. But Israel lost the moral high ground since. It's really sad, because they had all the free nations of the world on their side in the aftermath of Oct 7th, DESPITE oppressing the Palestinians for decades.

Disagree. The response to Oct 7 has been designed to eliminate the threat and to obtain the release of the hostages, not to exact some kind of moral equivalence. As long as Hamas maintains a military capability and holds hostages, Hamas is fair game. That they hide among civilians does not reduce the threat they pose, or reduce the impact of their continuing to hold hostages.

The carnage in Gaza could end immediately, if Hamas releases the hostages and lays down its arms. Until then, there is a moral imperative that the efforts to obliterate them continue. They hold the keys to stopping civilian casualties.

You sound simple.
Netanyahu could have obtained the release of the hostages a long time ago.
He wants his ‘mighty vengeance’ against ‘human animals’ and the generation that followed the holocaust is ready to kill them all

"Simple"? Only if you're good with the notion of Israel surrendering to extortion by Hamas as the only way to reclaim the hostages. Never mind that doing that won't do anything to prevent future Hamas terror activity. Absent that premise, the only possible effective response is to eliminate the hostage takers (and, not incidentally, murders and rapists). It's true, it's not a complicated concept. Engage in murder, rape, and kidnapping, and face a response which is designed, appropriately, to overwhelmingly eliminate the current and future threat of more of the same.

Israel needs to thanks the US and pay the US back for all the aid we have given it. That is 190 billion. Instead of oppressing freedoms in the US start signing over assets.

Sure, as soon as Hamas returns hundreds of $millions of stolen aid. Or at least places it into an independently managed trust for rebuilding of Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until you have kids on campus and have been blocked or hurt going to class you cannot say it is not happening. It’s bad enough that there is so much antisemitism all over moco high schools. These naysayers also believe the Holocaust did not happen.

Antisemitism is a real problem. You can disguise it change it but many posting here are antisemetic. Columbia has a problem. People should not feel threatened to go to class ever.

Has this happened to kids you know or were you only told it happened? I was at Columbia during the protests last spring. they were peaceful. however, there were anti-protest agitators (ie pro zionist) outside the gates (non students) that were intimidating. My sister lives in LA and reported the same think about UCLA.

I would love your explanation of what "peaceful" and "intimidating" means.
For example, is covering the face with a mask a-la Hamas a mark of a peaceful protester?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until you have kids on campus and have been blocked or hurt going to class you cannot say it is not happening. It’s bad enough that there is so much antisemitism all over moco high schools. These naysayers also believe the Holocaust did not happen.

Antisemitism is a real problem. You can disguise it change it but many posting here are antisemetic. Columbia has a problem. People should not feel threatened to go to class ever.

Has this happened to kids you know or were you only told it happened? I was at Columbia during the protests last spring. they were peaceful. however, there were anti-protest agitators (ie pro zionist) outside the gates (non students) that were intimidating. My sister lives in LA and reported the same think about UCLA.

I would love your explanation of what "peaceful" and "intimidating" means.
For example, is covering the face with a mask a-la Hamas a mark of a peaceful protester?

I have no problem with masks (the students were justifiably nervous about doxing after what happened to the Harvard students). But for the most part I did not see masked students.

Getting into my face and yelling I do have a problem with.

The yelling in my face is what I saw anti-protesters to protesters last spring. I know this happened to Jewish students too in a few reported cases, but it is unclear that there were more cases of Jewish students being harassed than the protesters being harassed.

Therefore the punishment of one group seems biased.

[Anonymous]

I think it is good that Columbia is losing money. A university should be a safe place for everyone and Columbia doing that should feel the heat. Who's next?