I like Larry Schweikart a lot. Before he became a pundit, as a historian, he wrote A Patriot’s History of the US, which is a very good US History textbook.
I used to live in South FL, my parents still live there. They showed me a video of their street, and there were multiple households with Trump signs, at least 6, including theirs. Their neighborhood never had signs for past presidential elections. This is in Broward County, too. All of the latino households on their street had Trump signs. Most of them are Venezuelan. My mom was talking to one of them, who said she was voting Trump because Biden’s proposed policies are too similar to the ones that forced them to leave Venezuela. This is great news, and it should inspire us all to go out and vote! We’re going in a few minutes...
Someone with so many degrees should have been able to write a better help letter. It should have included info about the amount this person is paying on the debt each month (if any, since they appear to be still in school), along with the type of loan (govt. or private) and the interest rate. I’m working on a Ph.D. myself, but I have no debt, and do not plan on taking on any. I was advised that no one should pursue grad school if it means they have to take on debt. I’m questioning my decision to pursue the Ph.D., just because it’s taking longer than I had initially planned, and the job market is even worse than my initial research indicated. At least I don’t have 600k in debt, though. PS: The person who wrote the letter has a JD. Why are they not practicing law? It’s a glutted market like academia, but at least the salary would be able to pay off this level of debt. Could they not pass the Bar Exam? Were they disbarred? It says a lot about the rigorousness of the grad program they attend and the credibility of the educational institution where they work.
Biden was a big supporter of NAFTA, which led to American jobs, particularly those in the auto industry, being “offshored” to Mexico, because, with free trade, it was cheaper to make cars in Mexico and import them, rather than pay American workers.
“Assault weapons” Ban in the 1994 Crime Bill. At certain points, he has promised to bring it back. Kamala has promised similar.
Hypocrisy. Biden had to have known about Hunter’s illegal activity, and by the legislation he supported, Hunter should have been in prison years ago for crack alone. Instead, he shielded his son, protected his time at Burisma by getting Viktor Shokin fired. If he did all of that as a VP, just think what he’ll do as prez, not to mention the kind of blackmail a foreign govt.could have over future POTUS as a result of his son’s illegal and immoral activities. If they go to whataboutism regarding Trump’s kids, just say that Donald Jr. is not molesting his niece.
Soy and tendies, doesn’t get any more NEET than that.
I’ve been dealing with this kind of thing for years, as I work towards my Ph.D. Professors will claim that they are open-minded and that they like to hear perspectives with which they disagree. Unfortunately, they are lying when they say these things. Also, you are not going to change his mind no matter how hard you try. I think the best thing you can do during class discussions is to deflect. Talk about how white liberals and Democrats are often the most racist, thinking that black people are inferior, and that their anti-business policies made places like Flint unlivable. No business = no taxes = no tap water. You can also bring up the policies of leading Dem politicians like Joe Biden. His opposition to busing, 1994 crime bill, NAFTA, which had “disproportionate impact” on poor people of color, along with his many racist comments, are all fair game. You can also talk about govt. bureaucracy and how funding that could go to areas like this gets diverted to multi-billion dollar universities, which, in his language, disproportionally benefit white people, like himself (assuming he’s white). If you can bring up these issues, then make sure you call call to mind stats/reports to back you up. You also have more of a chance to defend your ideas in your papers, but this can be risky, as he could mark you down for disagreeing with him. You can mitigate some of that by making sure that your papers are well-cited. Include references to sources he likes along with the ones that back up your argument. This is key, because he’ll say, “I failed you because you didn’t cite the right scholarship.” You should also make sure the paper is as well-written and as organized as possible. Don’t feel the need to write in a fancy way, just make sure that the paper has decent prose and that there are no spelling/grammatical errors. I’ve seen leftist profs. take an inordinate amount of points off of conservative students’ papers for ideological reasons, and their cover story was that the paper was “poorly constructed” or that “it had too many editing errors.” This problem can be caught if you have another person in your class read your paper for you. You can also have Microsoft Word read your paper aloud, which will tell you how your paper comes across to other readers. I think if you do these things, you’ll have more of a chance to express your own opinions in class, but it’s risky, and it’s a lot more work than just regurgitating what your prof. wants you say. If you do believe you have been unfairly graded for political reasons, then you can usually apply for a grade reconsideration, in which professors will review your paper and decide if the grade you received as merited. Nine times out of ten, they will look out for their own, and back the prof., no matter how egregious the grade was, but no professor wants to take time away from their pet subjects to go through a tribunal, so keep this “nuclear option” in mind as well. Godspeed.
Might not be a bad idea. I am a registered Rep., and when they switched our state (OH) to mail-in voting for the primaries, I received an “issues only ballot,” not a partisan one. I vote in every election in which I legally can, btw. Legally, I’m not a Dem. Ohio is a closed-primary state, so you receive a partisan ballot and can only vote for your party in the primaries. I’m 100% positive that when I filled out my ballot request, I listed my party affiliation, and the BOE sent me the wrong ballot. My wife, who is also a registered Rep. received her correct partisan ballot, and was able to vote for POTUS, but I wasn’t. They won’t do this to every Republican (way too obvious) but if they do it to just 10% of the Republicans who apply for a mail-in ballot, that could be enough to change the vote totals in a swing state. Needless, to say, my wife and I will both be voting in-person next month, come Hell or high water.
I bet if you look into these people’s social media, you’ll find that they all are huge supporters of the Green New Deal, Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion, etc. if their legislative fantasies came true, they’d get to live like this 24/7.
This is the same kind of fuzzy math that that they used to come up with the Coronavirus death counts and to declare that the world will end in 10 years due to climate change. It’s not a coincidence that they are pushing this 1984 insanity.
He did a good job handling this situation. Imagine how Chris “Fredo” Cuomo would have acted...
I feel your all’s pain. I’m working on a Ph.D in History and this stuff is pervasive. I would encourage you all to read the work of the scholars who are calling out the blatant propaganda of the 1619 Project. Allen Guelzo, Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James Oakes, Phil Magness, and Larry Schweikart are all great historians who have discussed the outright falsehoods that the so-called project is based on. My colleagues are all far left and even they admit that the 1619 project has problems, but they all like it nonetheless. I guess they believe in “truth over facts.”
There was another article that made this same point on this site. I thought the methodology behind their definition of “rightwing” was inaccurate. The ADL helped them with research and method too. They admitted that religious, mostly Islamic terrorism had killed more people in the US, over 3,000, in fewer supposed attacks, as compared to so-called right wing terrorism in the same period, whose body count they defined as about 300. Wouldn’t this mean that so-called religious terrorism is more deadly/dangerous? Fewer attacks but more fatalities in the same period should mean that they are more deadly, at least to a sane person. The whole study seemed kind of sketchy, though, because they listed things like environmental terrorism as leftwing, but listed the Christ Church and El Paso shooters as right wing terrorists. Both listed ecofascism, and environmental degradation due to mass migration as a motive for their attacks. I would think that should make them at least partially left wing, if the article had consistency. The article I initially read mentioned Antifa by name, but did not mention BLM by name, even though there have been people who were radicalized by this movement who then went on to kill people: the Dallas shooter who killed 5 cops, and I think there was a guy who shot up a church who also had BLM all over his social media. BLM is left wing by the article’s definition because it is anti-capitalist, but it is also ethnonat/racial supremacist, both of which were right wing according to the article. Maybe that was how they were able to conclude that right wing attacks were on the rise, by considering BLM to be a rightwing organization. I doubt it, but it does give one pause. I also think their definition of “rightwing” in general was too broad, listing antigovernment militias who don’t care about race alongside ethnonats and white supremacists makes it seem like white supremacy is on the rise, because most people when they hear “rightwing” don’t think Ancaps, they think of the white supremacists, so their decision to lump all supposed “rightwing” people together leads to confusion as well.
“ I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” Martin’s Luther’s traditional closing statement from the Diet of Worms, April 1521
Sorry to hear you are going through this. My church, which is part of a more conservative denomination, the PCA, is also moving in this direction, although they’ve been very subtle in their shift. I think you should do 2 things in this meeting. 1. Make sure that you can quote all of the stats you’ve been using about crime rates among races, the supposed differential use of law enforcement on certain groups, etc. 2. Go through your Bible’s concordance, or use a site like Biblegateway to search all verses about Truth, how God is a God of Truth, “the truth will set you free,” even the Ten Commandments, “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”, etc. Then you can tell your pastor that this obsession with racism is built on lies and not on statistical reality, “a house built on sand vs. rock”, and that God will not bless a church that changes its message just to placate some of its members or to be more “relevant” to contemporary society. The Church is meant to be “in the world but not of the world”, and when the Church follows a trend that is built on falsehoods, it is certainly being of the world. Racism is counter-scripture, “neither slave nor free, neither Jew nor Greek”, but what your church is doing is supporting a form of racism that holds that the feelings of its black congregants are more important than the actual facts about violence and race in the US. You should instead ask your pastor why it’s ok for black members to hold that their race is more important than their faith. Why is he supporting this racist tribalism? If you really wanted to, you could bring up white on black crime, and why the your church does not also denounce it, but you certainly don’t have to; only bring it up to show the hypocrisy of your church’s current stance. The New Testament is full of examples of churches that brought in ideas from Pagan society, or mixed in Judaism, and Paul called them out for it in 1 and 2 Corinthians and in Galatians and Ephesians. You probably won’t change your pastor’s mind, and you will almost certainly be excommunicated if you refuse to change yours, but that’s ok. The Truth and the Gospel are on your side, and some of the greatest Christians of all time, like Martin Luther, were excommunicated as well, so you’ll be in good company with the saints. Do not let these deceivers and false prophets intimidate you.
Danbury, Connecticut was razed to ground by the British Army during the American Revolution. Maybe Limey John Oliver is still salty about us insolent colonials breaking away from Britain and gaining independence. Ah, who am I kidding? A guy who talks like Oliver does most certainly doesn’t know anything about History.
How do you become a “Good Ancestor?” Sounds to me like the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences in the early sixteenth century, “a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from Purgatory springs” as the old saying went. Nowadays, you buy their overpriced, poorly-written books, donate to their orgs (who then give the money to the DNC, indirectly). You might even go to their “anti-racist training” which functions a lot like confession mixed with a Maoist Communist struggle session. I also think their obsession with kneeling as a symbol and an action is overtly religious as well. The work of James Lindsay, one of the authors of the bait academic papers, has studied the modern-day Left, which has eschewed Christianity, the primary religion of the West that produced them. He argues that leftists had to replace it with something, something that also was opposed to the religion and culture that they hate. This drive for religiosity, even as they detest the religion of their society, may also be why so many on the Left have a love for Islam, a religion that is far more oppressive in the present than Christianity was at its worst moments in the past. I’m just trying to understand the contractions of Leftist thought, while at the same time trying to understand their unified fervor, what might be called orthodoxy.
It reminds me of the episode of Spongebob Squarepants where Spongebob and Patrick buy a big screen tv and throw it away just so they can larp in the box. One of the the things they imagine in the box is rock climbing. They get imaginary frost bite and talk about people cutting their limbs off, a little like the larpers above. https://youtu.be/opa_iPChBwo
I’ve seen this argument for a long time, and I think it’s very myopic and ahistorical. The people who write stuff like this clearly have never surfed outside the USA, where most of the surfers are non-white, at least in the non-white countries where I’ve surfed, including Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru. Their timeline on segregation in the US is off as well. The place where POC were most likely being denied the right to surf, Hawaii, has the largest non-white surfing population in the US by far. This has been well-documented by actual historians and surfers, not a political activist pretending to be a journalist. Strategically, I think it’s also a great way to take a left-leaning but generally apolitical group, and by attacking them, turning them into right-leaning MAGA people. I think Newsom’s lockdowns, beach closures, and arrests of paddleboarders (they still count as surfers) in California will only intensify this trend.
It’s the look the Karen makes when she? remembers that 70% of the prison population is Black...
I haven’t had a chance to read the actual report yet, but I can already tell from the excerpts that there are several flaws with this “study.” First, it’s primary data source comes from cellphone data about where people go. There’s no reliable way that I can tell that the author of the study can determine which trips are essential and which ones are not, short of actually interviewing the people whose data he surveyed, or, not as good, having them fill out a survey about their trips. The only reliable thing he can do is look at the number of miles traveled. Miles traveled will absolutely be higher in areas that voted Trump because they tend to be rural. No supermarkets, autoparts stores, etc. for miles around; it’s what the leftists would call a “food desert” in a big city, but since it’s in a rural area, it’s not a priority for them. In a big city/built up suburb, instead of going to your favorite store that is on the other side of town, you might just go to the one that is in your neighborhood, giving the appearance that you’ve socially distanced better, when I’m fact, you’ve really just traveled fewer miles. Second, I think that social distancing works better, is more effective and necessary in some places more than others. It’s more necessary in a large urban area, where residents come into physical contact with hundreds of people every day, compared to in rural areas, where you might only come into contact with maybe one other household in a day. In a place like Alaska, you don’t really have to socially distance yourself the way you would in NYC. So this study is not so much about spreading the Chinese Virus as it is about whether or not people are willing to isolate themselves at the behest of the government. It’s not that Trump voters are out spreading the virus, the worst outbreaks in the country are in deep-blue areas at this point, the counties surrounding NYC, and Southeast FL, all of which are very strong Democrat areas. If rural areas were the epicenter of the virus, you’d probably see more social distancing there as residents attempt to stop its spread, but the virus, which did originate in China, in spite of everything the Chicoms say, and came to urban areas that are connected to China first. The study can’t prove that Trump voters are COVID spreaders. All it can do is argue that they are less likely to change their traveling patterns, which is less important for them to do anyway, because they come mostly from rural areas with a low population density. Yet, this discovery is being used by a propagandistic leftist rag like Vox to make it seem like Trump supporters are a bunch of ignorant Typhoid Marys. That doesn’t surprise me, but I am surprised that a so-called sociologist from Princeton would willingly conduct a study like this. The study required a massive invasion of privacy of living human subjects; I can’t imagine a scenario where a responsible IRB would sign off on this “study.” I agree with the other posters, if your data was used in this study, without your informed consent, you should consider signing on to a class-action lawsuit against Vox and the author of the study, if possible. The study seems to be skewed for propagandistic purposes, and would have required massive breeches of subjects’ privacy in its conduction. TLDR: “Study” seems flawed and ideologically-motivated, and was a massive invasion of privacy. All who were surveyed should take legal action against the study’s sponsors and researchers.
This is pathetic. The text is all jacked up, the background looks terrible, and of course, the text is not succinct, nor is based on anything POTUS said. It’s much closer to what De Blasio in NYC and the leftists were advocating for everyone to do a few weeks ago. At least draft our daughters had nice artistry, and was grounded in HRC’s hawkish warmongering foreign policy plans, so that it actually fooled a few leftists.
Still better than Star Trek Discovery and Picard.
Jackson is a fascinating figure, it’s no accident that POTUS looks up to him. Unfortunately, the MSM assumes that POTUS likes Jackson for the negative things he did, rather than the more numerous positive things. I’m a grad student in US History, working on Antebellum US. The vast majority of my professors are far left, and hate both President Jackson and President Trump. There are a couple of books that are not too bad though, in case you are interested later. Robert Remini’s biography on Jackson is very good, and it made him a pariah among academics. Another really brief one that is not quite as positive, but still a good read, is Sean Wilentz’s biography on Jackson. Wilentz loves Jacksonian America. Also interesting: he supported Bill Clinton for prez, and wanted to be like Arthur Schlesinger, the historian who acted as Kennedy’s advisor, but he, unlike most historians, never endorsed Hillary Clinton, and did not try to get a job from her. A closet Trump supporter? If you want to read an older work, John Ward Mitchell’s Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age is a classic book about Jackson’s life and impact on American society. Finally, a recent book that is great is Bradley Birzer’s In Defense of Andrew Jackson. Birzer gave a book talk on this monograph recently at Hillsdale College, as another commenter pointed out, so you could watch that before shelling out the cash for the book.
I can’t believe that hack from WAPO said WuFlu was going to kill more Republicans than Democrats. Looks can be deceiving, but that girl looks like the typical female Bernie supporter. I’m guessing her followers are probably the same kind of people.
Studied Nazism, probably to bring it here...