Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 5/2/2024 at 8:25 PM, Motown Bombers said:

The goal is obvious. It is to get Trump elected. It is no coincidence these protests escalated as soon as Trump's trial started. There more media attention on the protests than on Trump's trial. 

Expand  

Iran attacked Israel on April 13th. Trump’s trial began on the 15th. Israel retaliated to Iran’s attack of the 13th on April 19th. 
I believe your comment above is beyond anything that be proven at this point considering the other events outside Trump’s trial. The attack and counter attack between Iran and Israel are far more relevant to the ongoing protests than Trump’s trial. 

 

  • Thanks 2
Posted
  On 5/2/2024 at 9:11 PM, 1776 said:

Iran attacked Israel on April 13th. Trump’s trial began on the 15th. Israel retaliated to Iran’s attack of the 13th on April 19th. 
I believe your comment above is beyond anything that be proven at this point considering the other events outside Trump’s trial. The attack and counter attack between Iran and Israel are far more relevant to the ongoing protests than Trump’s trial. 

 

Expand  

I can't believe after what we saw in 2016 and 2020 that people can't see it. Right wing agitators have infiltrated these kids, like they did in 2020 with Black Lives Matter, in efforts to help Trump and hurt Democrats.  

  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)

So now it's right wing agitators and you're still blaming people other than right wing agitators.   Peculiar indeed. 

Edited by pfife
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
  On 5/2/2024 at 9:11 PM, 1776 said:

Iran attacked Israel on April 13th. Trump’s trial began on the 15th. Israel retaliated to Iran’s attack of the 13th on April 19th. 
I believe your comment above is beyond anything that be proven at this point considering the other events outside Trump’s trial. The attack and counter attack between Iran and Israel are far more relevant to the ongoing protests than Trump’s trial. 

 

Expand  

And before Iran directly attacked Israel, Israel hit Irans consulate.  And before that... on and on....

Edited by pfife
Posted

Idk why more schools didn't just do what Brown did, promise them a vote on Israel divestiture, if it passes cool, if it doesn't, cool.    Worked swimmingly there.

Posted (edited)
  On 5/2/2024 at 9:32 PM, pfife said:

Idk why more schools didn't just do what Brown did, promise them a vote on Israel divestiture, if it passes cool, if it doesn't, cool.    Worked swimmingly there.

Expand  

because most schools with major money in endowments don't want to give up investment decisions to anyone for anything - it could cost them real money and real money speaks louder to TPTB  than foreign policy politics!

Edited by gehringer_2
Posted (edited)
  On 5/2/2024 at 9:35 PM, gehringer_2 said:

because most schools with major money in endowments don't want to give up investment decisions to anyone for anything - it could cost them real money and real money speaks louder to TPTB  than foreign policy politics!

Expand  

Wouldn't they just vote no then, and move on?

Edited by pfife
Posted

It's just the classic move of promising a vote on something.  No promise of a successful vote, just a vote.   Happens in legislature all the time.

Posted (edited)

What isn't speculative is there was no encampment problem at Brown and Brown owes the protestors nothing but a vote of No from the board of corporate governors on their divestiture proposal.

Obviously a successful tactic in avoiding the protestor mess other schools experienced.

Edited by pfife
Posted (edited)
  On 5/2/2024 at 9:38 PM, pfife said:

Wouldn't they just vote no then, and move on?

Expand  

who is getting to vote? I'm not particularly excited getting into the weeds of Brown's org chart. The vote goes to the "Corporation", whoever that is.  But Brown's endowment committee apparently proposed divestment a couple of years ago and the U Prez would not submit that to whoever the "Corporation" is so you may have a 'one-of' situation at Brown. I would guess that at a place like UM, it's a Regent's issue and only a Regent's issue. They pretty much set their own agenda - though probably based on what the admin asks to bring them in a given month. And I doubt a vote by group as narrow as the Regents at UM would satisfy many protesters - and practically speaking, with an issue like that if they were of a mind to do it they already would have.

Edited by gehringer_2
Posted (edited)

The article said it was Brown University’s corporate board gets to vote.

The tactic actually worked for all people involved so far.   I don't know if a no vote will bring back protestors, that's a question that remains.   But it was a peaceful solution that worked... for now.  If/when they come back, you deal with that then. 

Since we're doing a lot of guessing and speculating, I'd speculate that Columbia wishes they woulda done what Brown did. 

 

 

Edited by pfife

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...