- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 6,917
- Reaction score
- 2,930
- Location
- Richmond, VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Approximating the undesirability of a Clinton presidency to the undesirability of a Trump presidency is a big mistake and a cop out. Hillary Clinton is a conventional politician, almost a centrist on policy, with vast experience. Very unlikely she would be a catastrophe in the White House. You can't say the same about Trump. Hear Ken Burns, David McCullough, et al:
Here's Why Donald Trump Is Horrifying, According To Historians
Tonight at 11: Liberal Professors Believe Liberal Things!
Stay tuned after for our special: Bears, Do They Really Poop In The Woods?
Tonight at 11: Liberal Professors Believe Liberal Things!
Stay tuned after for our special: Bears, Do They Really Poop In The Woods?
Why wouldn't a liberal professor support a liberal like Trump?
Food for thought: Why are these leading historians all liberals. If they are.
It's easy for cons to dismiss anything they don't like or agree with. Just label it liberal and they get a free pass to ignore it based on their perception of what liberal means.This particular "liberal" appears to be a fan of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush I, as well as of Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt.
Food for thought: Why are these leading historians all liberals. If they are.
Because the Academy has become self-selecting for political leftism.Food for thought: Why are these leading historians all liberals. If they are.
Washington Times, huh? LOL
So much for that stupid meme.Beyond their findings on discrimination, the pair determined that while conservatives are minorities in their field, they are not statistically negligible: About 40 percent of respondents identified themselves as moderate or conservative on economic issues, while 30 percent did so on foreign policy issues. The widest divide occurs on social issues, the contested terrain in the culture wars shaking the academy. On these contentious issues, 90 percent identified as liberal and only 4 percent as conservative.
It's easy for cons to dismiss anything they don't like or agree with. Just label it liberal and they get a free pass to ignore it based on their perception of what liberal means.
Washington Times, huh? LOL
Actually in this case, when polled, fully a third of professors admitted that they discriminate against conservatives.
And the reverse is undoubtedly true too so your point is?
Not really. Conservatives don't even make up a third of the Academy - they are more like 5 to 7%. Nor (that I have seen) have they ever polled as willingly discriminating against liberals in the hiring process.
Even your slanted link states that 40% of respondents identified as Conservative at least on economic issues and I don't need a poll to know that they are at least as likely to discriminate against liberals.
Approximating the undesirability of a Clinton presidency to the undesirability of a Trump presidency is a big mistake and a cop out. Hillary Clinton is a conventional politician, almost a centrist on policy, with vast experience. Very unlikely she would be a catastrophe in the White House. You can't say the same about Trump. Hear Ken Burns, David McCullough, et al:
Here's Why Donald Trump Is Horrifying, According To Historians
So..... you got nothing. noted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?