From "A Stephen Miller Staffer and Tough Talk: Inside Trump’s Latest Attack on Harvard/The Justice Department opened an investigation into the student-run Harvard Law Review. The startling accusations show how the Trump administration is wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda" (NYT)(free-access link).
The Times article links to this Free Beacon article, "Exclusive: Internal Documents Reveal Pervasive Pattern of Racial Discrimination at Harvard Law Review." Excerpt:
Will this law review article "promote DEI values"? Does it cite scholars from "underrepresented groups"? Will it have "any foreseeable impact in enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion"? And why did one team of editors solicit "only white, male authors"?
Those are some of the questions that editors at the Harvard Law Review asked in internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The documents, which span more than four years and have not been previously reported, include article evaluations, training materials, and data on the race and gender of journal authors. They reveal a pattern of pervasive race discrimination at the nation’s top law journal and threaten to plunge Harvard, already at war with the federal government, into even deeper crisis....
पोस्ट्स
१०० टिप्पण्या:
I was just reading Roger Kimball at the Spectator talking about "qui tam". Will this whistleblower receive a cut from the fine imposed?
Super wealthy because of government, corruption, racist, and completely useless to society training young people to be foot soldiers in an ideological war while saddling them with mountains of debt.
Harvard is a massive net negative to this country. Our country is so much better off without Harvard that it’s elimination just has to happen.
You think Barky would have made Editor if they weren't discriminating on race?
Obama's selection as Harvard Law Review President was DEI-driven, and an early example of HLR's discrimination against more qualified candidates.
Obama's selection as Harvard Law Review President was DEI-driven, and an early example of HLR's discrimination against more qualified candidates.
Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice.
Obama's horrible Harvard President pick was elected twice?
@Freder
You don't think much of Trump, but he managed to get elected twice. And that was in the face of fierce opposition by most of the political and media establishment. In contrast to the almost universal support that Obama received.
OK, but if the DoJ actually does anything about it, a Federal District Court will issue an injuction stopping the DOJ, and then they will rule for Harvard. Then its off to the Appeals court, and then the Roberts-ACB-Democrat dominated SCOTUS.
You don't think much of Trump, but he managed to get elected twice.
Is there supposed to be a point to your comment?
Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice.
Yet another pair of DEI-driven events.
The way to force Harvard etal. into compliance is for the DoJ to use its power of investigations to support the coming class-action lawsuits against these schools by the people against whom Harvard etal. have discriminated. That is the only way you will get change- let these schools lose a few multi-billion dollar judgments and they will suddenly find a color-blind way to treat people.
"Freder Frederson said...Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice."
That's because he was the first sort of mainstream African-American who was articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
DEIsm is an umbrella philosophy for class-disordered ideologies (e.g. racism, sexism, etc).
Heads roll or it doesn’t matter…
"The startling accusations show how the Trump administration is wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda"
This is a very tricky story for the MSM to cover because when the politically undesired wields power, the playbook is to cover the victims. But, what do they do when the victims are also politically undesirables? The NYT (in this instance) lets somebody else cover the story, and then the NYT takes that coverage and spins it, in pursuit of their own political agenda.
... and accused the renowned publication of destroying evidence in an open investigation.
A law review did that?
it would be very interesting if the claim that the HLR destroyed evidence in the face of an investigation is proven true. it is one of the most basic principles of law these days not to do something like that. Something lawyers would expect even a first year associate, albeit from the HLR - to know.
The Democratic party is infamous for aborting the "burden" h/t Obama of evidence in order to sustain social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress in kleptocratic cliques.
Not surprising. You have a bunch of very bright 23 and 24 year olds who've been given control of a prestigious publication. Their world view, such as it is, has been shaped by their professors---and not leavened by real world experience out in the somewhat rough and tumble world of the practice of law. So they promote what they have been taught.
Possibly more illegal racial discrimination at Harvard, but NYT only sees Trump pursuing his “political agenda.”
"The startling accusations …"
Startling? Seriously?
But see, e.g., Wiping Your Home Computer by Clinton, Hillary R.
"wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda" "
Or you could write, 'wielding power in pursuit of the rule of law.' Or are they tacitly admitting that Trump's political agenda is indeed the rule of law.
Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice.
That's not the flex you think it is, Freder. It's a measure of how much well-meaning white people want black people to succeed.
I personally know Republicans who voted explicitly for his skin color, knowing full well he was an inexperienced, lazy, pseudo-intellectual left-wing lightweight, just because they desperately wanted race relations to improve.
That sentiment has been common among decent white people since I was a kid in Sunday school, and what do we have to show for it?
it is one of the most basic principles of law these days not to do something like that.
These days? I'm no lawyer, but hasn't that been black-letter law since the days of Blackstone?
For the NYT, it was either cover this Harvard alleged discrimination story, or cover the WSJ bombshell; "Harvard Has Trained So Many Chinese Communist Officials, They Call It Their ‘Party School’
Kennedy School of Government is favored by party cadres seeking career boosts"
Harvard is in big trouble.
The Trump administration wielding power in pursuit of a political agenda? How dramatic. Someone should have woke up the NYT during the Sleepy Joe Politburo years.
I won't miss Harvard. I won't miss Yale either.
Freder dismisses the point of unqualified Obama being made head of HLR through affirmative action by reminding us all he was elected POTUS. OK, irrelevant and immaterial but understandable when that's all you've got.
Then he says someone else is missing the point with their comment. There are none so blind ...
Hmmm…. Don/fbi open investigations against parent at pta meetings. No problem they deserved it.
Trump opens investigation into known racist Harvard, hair is pulled out, the world is coming to an end.
The question continues, why would you patron the Democrat NYTimes.’
When the story says Republicans are "reviewing claims" that means they're just reading about them and finding out about them and aren't going to do a f8cking thing about them.
These aren't "claims." They're facts. Harvard is practicing racism. Openly. Proudly. To keep it alive. Harvard had black slaves in CHAINS for 150 years for God's sake. They only let their slaves go because it became against the law to keep them.
Harvard shouldn't exist and the only reason they're now discriminating against white people is to keep the black people from burning that campus down and seizing the $50 billion dollars they saved up by running a slave camp for one and a half centuries.
This is why I voted 2024 DJT. Stay strong DJT.
Not startling, obvious.
except harmeet dhillon is one who specializes in these sorts of cases, but I do agree in the clockwork orange world of the Times or the Post, they find it 'inconceivable'
now obama absorbed all the foolish notions of derrick bell and roberto de unger, and regurgitated to his students at u chicago,
alinskyites agitation disguised as law
Trump’s Latest Attack on Harvard
I'm here just to comment on the NYTimes framing. Obviously they have to be anti-Trump here, and not anti-discrimination, lest their subscribers have to think. Reporter lives inside a bubble.
Elite Old White Left Colleges who help make the Jewish student populations feel unsafe, should be financially punished.
blah blah blah blah - But Trump! the collective left whined.
I don't know anything about Daniel Wasserman, but, for his sake, I hope that his life has been an unbroken series of virtuous acts. He's about to get the Kavanaugh treatment.....Does anyone here read the Harvard Law Review? Are most of the articles written by women and non-white males? That's certainly true of the fiction entries in The New Yorker.
It's well known that all the major law reviews have affirmative action programs of one sort or another, and have jiggered their procedures for selecting editors to ensure a DEI-compatible outcome. True, too, for faculty appointments generally at these universities, including the law schools.
The NYT article doesn't dispute that reality but comes up with a weird defense suggesting that the DEI stuff was just performative theater: "The internal messages and documents published by The Free Beacon showed how race and gender were discussed inside The Law Review, but did not indicate that race or gender were predominant considerations behind its final decisions." So, the DEI characteristics that the editors were intently focused on when discussing amongst themselves upcoming personnel or publication decisions just magically got forgotten when it came time to actually make those decisions? Roger that.
The folks at Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Stanford, NYU, etc., must be scrambling to find a way not to be the next in line for the same treatment. Good luck with that. Team Trump means to restructure academia, and at least in some respects it's very likely to succeed. I suspect that its assault on this kind of gentlemanly forms of race/gender/ethnicity discrimination, formerly deemed acceptable in polite company, is one of them.
.
ah yes, the likelyhood, that Schmidt and Bender, marks on the Russian hoax and lawfare beat would get that right, a null set,
@Freder
"You don't think much of Trump, but he managed to get elected twice. And that was in the face of fierce opposition by most of the political and media establishment. In contrast to the almost universal support that Obama received."
I'm not, obviously, Freder, who has already replied, but this caught my eye.
In neither election did Trump receive great number of votes over his respective opponents. In fact, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton actually received 2.8 million MORE popular votes than Trump. Trump only won as a result of the Electoral College votes were greater than were Clinton's. In the 2024 election, the popular votes did appear"* to be greater for Trump than for Harris..."but only by 1.5%. In short, there was still not an avalanche of votes more for Trump than for his opponent, however you count it, in either of the two elections Trump was victorious
(*I say Trump appears to have won the popular vote--anorexically slim as was the majority--because Trump--unable NOT to brag or to rub his "superiority" in the faces of his opponents,made odd comments Musk "knows those computers better than anybody, all those computers, those vote counting computers, and we ended up winning Pennsylvania, like, in a landslide."
Of course, that's not an admission they rigged the election, but it is an odd statement, perhaps merely his way of mocking and slapping his opponent while she was down (The Bully's Way). But...who knows? At any rate, it is a greater insinuation by him of vote rigging on his part than anything he and his mob have provided to even suggest, much less prove, the 2020 was rigged for Biden.
Votes for Trump of any numer illustrate nothing but the number of idiots and hateful creeps among US voters.
@Lem Vibe Banditory ..."the playbook is to cover the victims. But, what do they do when the victims are also politically undesirables?"
When the facts are inconvenient or unhelpful, the story is adjusted to cover the reactions to the facts. The coverage will become a story about emotional reactions, emphasizing the 'terror', 'Fear' and 'Anxiety' that associated preferred groups are having because of the 'Stress' associated with 'the attack on Harvard Law Review'. This way, the already-indoctrinated are reassured that they are up-to-date on the 'news', and know what to talk about with their friends.
clearly Whites are unpeople, and asians are likely similar because they are adjacent, isn't that hank rodgers (kendi) is said to have remarked, exceptions are made for the twit who is the mayor in beantown, but as a general rule, only certain castes qualify,
https://mxmnews.com/article/fd37a843-b39d-4bea-9360-e058a391434f?ftc-opens-investigation-of-far-left-ad-watchdogs-for-organized-boycotts-against-independent-media
As the old saying goes, "The way that you stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."
Besides, people learn by example and you don't break that cycle by just repeating it differently. A lot of people dismiss reverse racism because they actually believe that all white people have special advantages, but that's not the case. There's lots of white people who have a hard time with life and just want a fair shake. (The same way that there are lots of people of color who have it really good in life.)
People need to be evaluated as individuals, not evaluated only as members of an ethnic group.
Clearly, Harvard is above the law. I want to applaud all the "Conservatives" for their dedication to doing absolutely nothing about the hard left turn in Academia. Way to stand up for your values and principles.
I would assume that the Harvard Law Review is the greatest of all legal journals and has wide respect for academic quality. If it is dei infected it should, in theory, be greatly diminished in quality. Is this so? Or am I wrong and it is just a school time training camp for students to play with and build their egos.
they weren't in charge of hiring or recruiting staff at Harvard, and that trend has become necrotic,
What has so tragically clouded Donald Trump's thinking? Only Democrats may wield power in pursuit of their political agendas. It says so right there in the Constitution of the United States, Article LXXXVI.
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/06/03/alex-witt-boondocks-pbsnpr-n2413743
"Freder Frederson said...Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice."
That is because brain dead public sector employees such as yourself said, "Oh. It's about time we had a black president." Giving no thought to policy or reputation because you just knew he was the only virgin in thr whore house that ids Illinois politics.
That's why no one takes you seriously.
Law reviews aren’t allowed to have an editorial slant? Editorial freedom is a bedrock free speech principle. However, I see that the Harvard Law Review is ignoring the easy win and doubling down on the position that they have no slant, according to the statementthat Munger, Tolles, & Olson probably helped write.
This is gong to be fun. The august Harvard Law Review has lawyered up.
Boston.com has a different angle on the story:
‘A detail not included in the correspondence: The Justice Department’s “cooperating witness” had taken a job inside the White House.
While the White House has cast the witness as a whistleblower, his identity has been known to many of those involved in the matter. The witness, Daniel Wasserman, was identified as a government cooperator in two of the letters to Harvard University from the Justice Department last month, when he was still an editor at The Harvard Law Review. And other staff members of The Law Review have also known of his identity.
In April, he had told classmates and others that he had applied to work for Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy. The White House confirmed that Wasserman was offered a job on April 25, the same day that accusations of discrimination at the journal first surfaced in a conservative media report, and that his first day of work was May 22.
…
The Free Beacon story also prompted a different kind of inquiry inside The Law Review, where editors looked for signs of a leak. Their search revealed that Wasserman had downloaded tens of thousands of documents, said three people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The Law Review considered the downloads to violate its privacy policy, and Wasserman was given a “formal reprimand,” a letter in the student’s Law Review file that was never to be shared with anyone outside the journal.
…
“Prior to Mr. Wasserman’s Harvard Law School graduation, scheduled to take place on May 29, 2025, H.L.R. must retract the disciplinary action it instituted against him,” the Justice Department told Harvard in the third letter, sent on May 23. “Any record of his discipline must be permanently expunged.”
…
Fearing the wrath of the Trump administration, Law Review officials tore up the reprimand and dropped their demand that Wasserman stop disseminating the documents and that others return or delete them.‘
Yes, Robert. 76 million people are hatefully ignorant rubes that don't vote where the interests lie.
I think, Robert, that you aren't as smart as you have led yourself to believe you are.
Talk about systemic racism. Compared to Harvard, where they literally chase Jews around the campus, the rest of the US is a Garden of Eden.
It’s quite a coincidence that Wasserman was hired by the White House on the same day his Harvard Law Review downloads were published in the Free Beacon. Is this a whistleblower situation, or a warrantless search?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It’s quite a coincidence that Wasserman was hired by the White House on the same day his Harvard Law Review downloads were published in the Free Beacon. Is this a whistleblower situation, or a warrantless search?
Wasserman saw what happened to Seth Rich and decided to seek safety before pointing out that Democrats are corrupt racist pieces of shit and showing the receipts.
What left bank is really mad about here is it will be hard for the democrats to kill this whistleblower before the truth comes out.
This proves nothing!
But as I understand the Althouse definition of evidence, it qualifies.
Robert Cook said...
In neither election did Trump receive great number of votes over his respective opponents. In fact, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton actually received 2.8 million MORE popular votes than Trump.
The fascists will always have an excuse as to why the people their opposition voted for cannot have their will carried out.
Only democrat voters can get what they want.
That is what they mean by “Our Democracy.”
If you want to know about Obama at HKS and HLR, read David Garrow's Bio, "RISING STAR", focusing on time before presidency.
Hassayamper said..."That's not the flex you think it is, Freder. It's a measure of how much well-meaning white people want black people to succeed.
I personally know Republicans who voted explicitly for his skin color, knowing full well he was an inexperienced, lazy, pseudo-intellectual left-wing lightweight, just because they desperately wanted race relations to improve.
That sentiment has been common among decent white people since I was a kid in Sunday school, and what do we have to show for it?"
Hell, I started out wanting to vote for him because of his skin color, but that sentiment didn't survive the campaign.
Obama was elected by virtue of white guilt, or something close to it. I made the grievous mistake of thinking his election would help some (poorly identified on my part) form of national healing. Took him only a couple of months to teach me how completely wrong I was.
"You don't think much of Trump, but he managed to get elected twice."
Is there supposed to be a point to your comment?
Do you really need it spelled out? Ok, here goes:
* A commenter asserted that Obama was made president of the HLR thanks to DEI.
* You pointed out that Obama had been elected president of the US twice, implying that neither position was due to DEI, but that he deserved both positions and won them on his merits.
* Another commenter pointed out that Trump, whom you clearly don't believe deserves to be president, not only won the presidential election twice but won it in spite of hurricane-force headwinds in the media - the opposite treatment from the media's helpful tailwind that Obama uniformly received.
In other words, being elected president with the eager help of the media (and Hollywood, and sports, and academia, and the federal and state bureaucracies, and globalists here and around the world) is not proof that DEI didn't play a role, especially when Obama's race (or half of it, anyway) was trumpeted far and wide as reason enough to vote for him. Being elected president in the face of the opposition of all the foregoing, however, does actually say something about the candidate, and about the feelings and wishes of the electorate who, rather than going along with all the foregoing as usual, instead decided to buck the "shame and blame" parade and vote for the universally hated, fascist, felonious, vulgar Trump anyway.
"I made the grievous mistake of thinking his election would help some (poorly identified on my part) form of national healing."
Yes, I started out thinking that his election would be good for race relations. Turns out, he made them worse.
Freder's probably figured it out by now, Jamie. Or perhaps I give him too much credit.
So Yarvin was brought to the forefront by stupid liberal reporters who imagined that he was anti-democratic?
Yarvin’s disturbing manifestos have earned him influential followers, chief among them: tech billionaire Peter Thiel and his onetime Silicon Valley protégé, V.P. J.D. Vance.
Vance has said he considers Yarvin a friend and has cited his writings in connection with his plan to fire a significant number of civil servants during a the second Trump administration. “There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things,” Vance said on a conservative podcast in 2021, adding: “I think Trump is going to run again in 2024 [and] I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”
If Obama was white he would be a complete nobody.
If he was Asian nobody would have cared.
Everyone knows why Obama was popular despite mediocre grades he had to hide and a complete inability to talk without a teleprompter.
There was a reason Obama could not do self deprecation as well.
Mediocre people just can't do it.
Oh, and by the way - anecdotally but I doubt that they're isolated cases, my in-laws, who read USA Today as their sole source of news, firmly believed that Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people" until about a month ago, when my husband finally showed them the whole quote. My father, a much-decorated career Air Force officer and Vietnam vet, declared his wish that he could "blow him up" last summer - a sentiment he has never expressed even toward Pol Pot or the Viet Cong - based on the Sacramento TV news coverage* that constitutes his main source of news. So do you think, Robert Cook, that media bias against Trump might just have played a role in his winning the popular vote by "only" 1.5%?
And if not, why not? (Here, I am expecting the usual protest that everything said about Trump is true: he really is a racist, sexist, fascist, felonious, rapacious, demented idiot/criminal mastermind. Just like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Romney, McCain, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett [in her case, she was not a rapist; she was instead the Handmaid's Tale wife who would willingly hold the poor "handmaid" between her open thighs as her disgusting elderly husband forced himself on the poor girl]... everyone not of the Left until they're no longer a threat and, preferably, come around to the way of the angels. Ask yourself: if it wasn't true of, say, Romney when the news media was singing it in four-part harmony, are you so sure it's true of Trump? Even after they're falling all over themselves to "apologize" for "missing" Biden dementia for four years?)
*I was watching the story that moved my dad to make this shocking declaration. "Biased" is generous.
Normal people do not succumb to Diversity (i.e. color judgments, class bigotry) , do not submit to DEIsm (i.e. systemic, institutional Diversity).
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice.
Says more about the race-baiting fools who voted for him than anything he did himself.
Obama was elected by DEIsts, perhaps rabid, with a kleptocratic character.
And albinophobia. What's up with that? Queer.
Pathological entertainment of abortive ideation, too.
Follow the progressive principles, principals.
So now enforcing civil rights law is “political agenda.” It’s hilarious when the NYT accidentally exposes itself.
Can Robert's blockheadedness ever be alleviated or is it terminal?
So many kind folks here, trying to help.
When you look at the elections of 2008 and 2012 you really have to look at the contributions of the inept campaigns of McCain and Romney towards the victories of Obama. Romney should not have run if he was afraid to attack a black man’s record in office. McCain should not have run if he really didn’t want to win.
Let me amend that. McCain should not have run if he didn’t care whether or not he won.
Curious George said...
"Freder Frederson said...Yet the incompetent DEI-driven HLR President somehow managed to get elected president of the U.S. twice."
That's because he was the first sort of mainstream African-American who was articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
6/3/25, 10:24 AM
That’s only the half of it. The guy had a helluva crease in his slacks.
Discriminate against whites?
Exhibit A, Barack Obama who never had to submit an law note or a law article demonstrating he had the goods to be on law review.
"People need to be evaluated as individuals, not evaluated only as members of an ethnic group."
I'm afraid that concept will just confuse Democrats.
"That's why no one takes you [Freder] seriously."
*****************
Actually, there are about five-six years of his perverse comments here that have led us all to that conclusion.
An administration is "wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda"??? Oh my gosh, when has that ever happened before in the history of the United States? Democracy is at risk!!
One imagines a style guide that instructs writers to say that liberals are attacked, while conservatives are investigated.
Rabel--just in case you might be inferring that Mr Seabrooks' election implies that there could possibly be some sort of racist ideological slant involved in the selection of recent Presidents of the Harvard law Review:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/harvard-law-review-elects-second-black-woman-president-137-years-2024-02-01/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/harvard-law-review-elects-second-black-woman-president-137-years-2024-02-01/
Keep scrolling down.
Richard Dolan said...
"It's well known that all the major law reviews have affirmative action programs of one sort or another, and have jiggered their procedures for selecting editors to ensure a DEI-compatible outcome..."
You can't say "jigger", Dude.
I am Laslo.
GSpencer: I understand that Barack got elected as the President of the law review.
I might be the only student in Creighton Law Review history to write two case notes. One for the Nebraska law survey and one for the Eighth Circuit survey.
I have a pending civil rights case in federal court. A local kids’ science museum allows Indians who have a membership card proving that they are members of a federally recognized tribe, get in free.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss stating that membership in a federally recognized tribe is okay because the tribes are a political designation.
Chief Standing Bear is a big deal in NE. A school and lake are named after him. He’s in the NE Hall of Fame with 26 others. Willa Cather is a member.
A writ of habeas corpus was granted when the federal judge found that an Indian was a person. He ignored SCOTUS precedent.
What I didn’t know was that Standing Bear had quit his Tribe. One of the most famous Indians would not be eligible for free admission.
bagdadbob: Obama was not the first non-white to be appointed as President of the HLR. Raj Marphatia was elected to that presidency in 1987. And back in the day, no one cared or even understood todays over-the-top concern for DEI.
Some of us complained when a person of color was promoted without sufficient training to do the new job, but we soon figured out that those that can "do" and those who can't "do without."
The tide has turned, folks - our citizens of color now outnumber whites. But on the good side, carbon dioxide will always keeps us alive. Why not push to remove CO2 from the greenhouse gas measure and monitor heat from Sol instead? I know, I know - Gad is talking shit again!
So now the lawyers are tying up courts to prevent free attendance to a local science museum . . . and Running Bear loves little White Dove, so pass the booze on the dry Oglala Sioux reservation.
Gadfy.
Dude! What meds are you on?
"Yes, Robert. 76 million people are hatefully ignorant rubes that don't vote where the interests lie."
Yes. As I already pointed out.
"The fascists will always have an excuse as to why the people their opposition voted for cannot have their will carried out."
You (purposely?) miss my point. I do not dispute that the POTUS is elected by the Electoral Vote. That is the system our elite founders put into place. My only point is to remind those who get biggies in their britches about "Trump WON...the people's will lifts up Trump!" and such nonsense. In each election, the vote was extremely close. There is NOT a large or decisive majority of American voters who preferred Trump and his "policies"* over his two opponents. There is no basis to be smug, to believe and assert Trump is the people's decisive choice, except by a whisper. (Given that in the second election, it was really an insult to Trump that he could only raise a measly 1.5% greater number of popular votes over Harris, a last-minute, little-known, little-regarded candidate. If a better candidate had replaced Biden, or is Harris had been even a teensy better candidate than she was, Trump probably would have lost.
(But again, there is still the nagging uncertainty as to whether Musk's "computer savvy" helped the votes along to guarantee Trump's victory.)
Of course, his popularity ratings are already shrinking, as his incompetent and/or deliberate intent to inflict vandalism on all aspect of the public institutions in the US are waking at least some of sleepwalkers to the horrid reality they have helped bring into being.
*(Rewarding the rich, punishing everyone else.)
Gadfly:
Federal law requires that all races be treated equally for purposes of admission to places of amusement.
Destroying evidence worked great for Hillary Clinton, FBI. Erasing server WITH classified information on it. FBI smashing phones and "losing" communications. Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
"There is NOT a large or decisive majority of American voters who preferred Trump and his "policies"* over his two opponents. There is no basis to be smug, to believe and assert Trump is the people's decisive choice, except by a whisper."
Scoreboard dude. Trump and the republicans won convincingly, even beating out the cheat. And NO ONE is more smug than every democrat in the country. NO ONE.
"The moment the seas will cease to rise". Tearing the SOTU speech in front of the president.
NO ONE is more smug than democrats.
Readering said...
"If you want to know about Obama at HKS and HLR, read David Garrow's Bio, "RISING STAR", focusing on time before presidency."
He was a friend of Tony Rezko. That tells you all you need to know.
Robert Cook said...
"Yes, Robert. 76 million people are hatefully ignorant rubes that don't vote where the interests lie."
"Yes. As I already pointed out."
And my point is made.
@Kook: (But again, there is still the nagging uncertainty as to whether Musk's "computer savvy" helped the votes along to guarantee Trump's victory.)
Impossible! Most Secure election ever! Election Denier! TREASON! Burn the witch!
Barack Obama became head of the law review without publishing anything substantive, nor revealing appropriate grades nor accomplishments. This is unheard-of. This cannot be stressed enough. He was the prom queen of law reviews.
It's a pathetic identity politics cesspool, and nobody dare say otherwise outloud for fear of their careers, the cowards. Thus, it is repressing speech. Nice little law journal you got there. Strip all their tax dollars. Plenty of credible STEM research schools can use the money for real research.
Yancey hits the point. You get the grades or you competitively publish yourself on. Every lawyer knows this. How many democrats lie to themselves every day? How many "independents"? Pathetic, dishonest people, all of you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.