President Trump's "alternate facts"

[George]

 

 

LOL.................Liberal professors = Majority of American Citizens

 

 

Listen...not everyone is as stupid as the American leftists.

 

I posted that link to illustrate the fact that people whose profession it is to study the history of our great nation have a vastly different opinion about the Obama Presidency than the prevailing opinion of PPP. BUT! As far as you two are concerned any opinion which isn't in lockstep with yours is automatically a product of "liberalism" and is instantly discredited due to that "fact". Who's opinion should I value more, someone who has devoted their live to the study and analysis of historical events or a bunch of faceless partisans posting on the back page of a football message board?

 

Also, What proof do either of you have that the Historians polled were in fact "liberals"? Is it impossible for a Historian or a History Professor to be a conservative? And if you do believe it's impossible, why?

[unbillievable]

Also, What proof do either of you have that the Historians polled were in fact "liberals"? Is it impossible for a Historian or a History Professor to be a conservative? And if you do believe it's impossible, why?

 

Study shows overwhelming liberal bias among historians.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/republican-presidents-lag-in-historical-rankings

 

 

“I don’t think anyone is surprised,” Mr. Uscinski told The Washington Times. “Among the political scientists and historians that I work with, Democrats outnumber Republicans 8 to 1.”

[Dorkington]

Are historians more likely to be liberal, or do you think survey runners purposefully introduced bias into the survey by only choosing left leaning historians?

[BillsFanNC]

 

Are historians more likely to be liberal, or do you think survey runners purposefully introduced bias into the survey by only choosing left leaning historians?

http://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

[Tiberius]

Study shows overwhelming liberal bias among historians.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/republican-presidents-lag-in-historical-rankings

 

Most informed people are "Liberal"

[unbillievable]

Are historians more likely to be liberal, or do you think survey runners purposefully introduced bias into the survey by only choosing left leaning historians?

 

If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Democrat's base is mostly young, inexperienced voters who have a lot passion, but little knowledge. As they enter adulthood, they get some sense and become more Conservative. However, some never enter the real world, but stay in school, becoming college professors, -forever stuck inside the bubble of adolescent naivete.

[George]

 

Study shows overwhelming liberal bias among historians.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/republican-presidents-lag-in-historical-rankings

 

 

Now there's a shock, the Washington Times publishes an article claiming a "Liberal Bias" among a group that didn't rank their favorite President among the top ten all time. Except that the article I posted linked to a poll that had him in the top ten. And the article you linked to acknowledges that fact.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/04/sun-myung-moons-death-leaves-conservative-newspaper-at-a-crossroads

 

It's not like they don't brag that they were Fox News before Fox News.

[DC Tom]

 

 

I posted that link to illustrate the fact that people whose profession it is to study the history of our great nation have a vastly different opinion about the Obama Presidency than the prevailing opinion of PPP. BUT! As far as you two are concerned any opinion which isn't in lockstep with yours is automatically a product of "liberalism" and is instantly discredited due to that "fact". Who's opinion should I value more, someone who has devoted their live to the study and analysis of historical events or a bunch of faceless partisans posting on the back page of a football message board?

 

Also, What proof do either of you have that the Historians polled were in fact "liberals"? Is it impossible for a Historian or a History Professor to be a conservative? And if you do believe it's impossible, why?

 

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, posse comitatus, and maintained the institution of slavery in the North while declaring freed Southern slaves wartime contraband (i.e. property).

 

But he's one of the top three presidents according to historians.

 

That right there tells you how full of **** they are.

[George]

 

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, posse comitatus, and maintained the institution of slavery in the North while declaring freed Southern slaves wartime contraband (i.e. property).

 

But he's one of the top three presidents according to historians.

 

That right there tells you how full of **** they are.

 

Now that's a boardinghouse reach if I ever saw one.

[unbillievable]

 

Now there's a shock, the Washington Times publishes an article claiming a "Liberal Bias" among a group that didn't rank their favorite President among the top ten all time. Except that the article I posted linked to a poll that had him in the top ten. And the article you linked to acknowledges that fact.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/04/sun-myung-moons-death-leaves-conservative-newspaper-at-a-crossroads

 

It's not like they don't brag that they were Fox News before Fox News.

 

So you're going to ignore that Historians self identify as democrats 8 to 1.

Your excuses are unsurprisingly typical.

 

First you make a false statement about the "majority of Americans." Then try to clarify that you only meant "Historians." Then when proven wrong about the bias, you resort to attacking the source rather than the data.

 

Just skip to calling everyone racist/sexist and return to the rabble.

Edited February 18, 2017 by unbillievable

[Tiberius]

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, posse comitatus, and maintained the institution of slavery in the North while declaring freed Southern slaves wartime contraband (i.e. property).

 

But he's one of the top three presidents according to historians.

 

That right there tells you how full of **** they are.

You are so warped. Held the country together, ended slavery, beat a secessionist movement first president to invite Blacks to WH

 

What's to like? Idiot

[DC Tom]

 

Now that's a boardinghouse reach if I ever saw one.

 

Not nearly as much a reach as calling a poll of hypocritical professors "all Americans."

 

Probably should have mentioned that these idiots, who no doubt decry Trump's immigration policies, are the same !@#$s who conveniently ignore FDR's incarceration of minorities into concentration camps when they rank him in the top 3.

[IDBillzFan]

Listen, Chuckles...if you posted the link to illustrate this...

 

I posted that link to illustrate the fact that people whose profession it is to study the history of our great nation have a vastly different opinion about the Obama Presidency than the prevailing opinion of PPP.

 

...then why would make the comment below about the link?

 

It looks like the majority of American Citizens feel differently

 

Answer: Because you think people are stupid enough to believe that the polled historians are what you specifically referred to as "the majority of Americans."

 

That you actualy need this explained to you -- TWICE, no less -- should be your primary source of embarrassment for the day.

[grinreaper]

 

Now that's a boardinghouse reach if I ever saw one.

It's not going very well for you, is it? Maybe you should just stick to something you know, like anti-Semitism.

[Meathead]

Maybe this?

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/economy/donald-trump-economy/index.html

 

i actually agree that the media is broken, dishonest, has a warped perspective based on the runaway liberalism that has tuned into the leftist gestapo, and is more interested in generating clicks than actual responsible journalism

 

but on these rosy short term economy numbers, thats all 100% psychological. most of these gains were set up by long term policies set in place by obama so most of the credit should go to him

 

disclaimer: didnt vote for obama either time, im not a liberal partisan shilling for obama. what i said is just cold hard fact

 

after decades of watching all this ive come to the conclusion that economic trends are far more cyclical than they are anything done by a president or congress. and in this case don has don nothing yet so even if there was some movement based on actual policy we havent seen anything yet so it cant be that. further, it takes many many months for anything gumbint does to impact markets so thats the final nail in the idea that don actually is doing anything that could have a lasting effect

 

what that means is that it could all swing back the other way very very fast. i dont have much money but the little i do im considering moving into money markets to save the gains ive made bc i seriously doubt this is going to last. i think its far more likely that don will continue to churn and his administration will implode and confidence in him will plummet and take the markets with him

 

ironic considering that obama inherited a terrible economy. it took him two turns but he finally got it humming again. and now we are going to sit here and watch it all turn back to ѕhit. but this is what you idio ... people voted for, and you should have known what was coming. the idea that don is a brilliant bidnessman that will revive the american economy is an illusion. now we just have to sit back and watch it crumble. its gonna suck and we deserve it for electing a f**king reality show hatchet man demagogue

[keepthefaith]

 

i actually agree that the media is broken, dishonest, has a warped perspective based on the runaway liberalism that has tuned into the leftist gestapo, and is more interested in generating clicks than actual responsible journalism

 

but on these rosy short term economy numbers, thats all 100% psychological. most of these gains were set up by long term policies set in place by obama so most of the credit should go to him

 

disclaimer: didnt vote for obama either time, im not a liberal partisan shilling for obama. what i said is just cold hard fact

 

after decades of watching all this ive come to the conclusion that economic trends are far more cyclical than they are anything done by a president or congress. and in this case don has don nothing yet so even if there was some movement based on actual policy we havent seen anything yet so it cant be that. further, it takes many many months for anything gumbint does to impact markets so thats the final nail in the idea that don actually is doing anything that could have a lasting effect

 

what that means is that it could all swing back the other way very very fast. i dont have much money but the little i do im considering moving into money markets to save the gains ive made bc i seriously doubt this is going to last. i think its far more likely that don will continue to churn and his administration will implode and confidence in him will plummet and take the markets with him

 

ironic considering that obama inherited a terrible economy. it took him two turns but he finally got it humming again. and now we are going to sit here and watch it all turn back to ѕhit. but this is what you idio ... people voted for, and you should have known what was coming. the idea that don is a brilliant bidnessman that will revive the american economy is an illusion. now we just have to sit back and watch it crumble. its gonna suck and we deserve it for electing a f**king reality show hatchet man demagogue

 

Obama did nothing to get the economy humming. He did nothing essentially and resilient businesses adjusted and reduced costs in many cases. In other cases (the auto industry) demand increased simply because **** wears out and people buy new stuff. Wages and workforce participation have lagged. The stock market had nowhere to go but up.

 

Trump has breathed more enthusiasm into the business climate in a month than Obama did in 8 years and there is nothing Trump has done that Obama couldn't have done and then some. Trump's viewed as a positive change probably mostly because he simply speaks to the issue of businesses investing and growing domestically. Obama in contrast criticized businesses and successful people and simply wanted to take more money from both and in the process hurt the very voters that supported him. He politicized everything in a very selfish fashion. He crapped on his constituents in many cases. Trump is doing what he said he would do and people like that.

[Meathead]

the longer you live the more you see the same things happen over and over and over

 

your post could be written at the start of many presidencies. fans of that particular president will say exactly the kinds of stuff you just said. foes of the previous president will lay all blame on anything bad on him. and if anything good happened in a previous term, they will refuse to acknowledge that president had any impact on it

 

the state of the economy is mostly cyclical, but presidents can have impacts that last many months. but those impacts take several years to come to fruition, so really you can only legitimately credit any presidents economic policy at a bare minimum two years and more likely the next term after they were elected

 

certainly now is the time to paint rosy pictures and bask in this alleged magic the don holds. but it most likely will be fragile and temporary and the markets will recede, enormously if don keeps on his current fubar in charge course. obviously, you and other don fans will be nowhere to be found when that happens

[Nanker]

You are so warped. Held the country together, ended slavery, beat a secessionist movement first president to invite Blacks to WH

 

What's to like? Idiot

And what's your position on California's current secessionist movement, pray tell?

Would you support President Trump moving Federal troops in to that state to quell the "rebellion"?

 

The world awaits your reply.

[Prickly Pete]

 

If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Democrat's base is mostly young, inexperienced voters who have a lot passion, but little knowledge. As they enter adulthood, they get some sense and become more Conservative. However, some never enter the real world, but stay in school, becoming college professors, -forever stuck inside the bubble of adolescent naivete.

 

Life in the Institution. That is something I mention here often. My family is full of these people. They went to from college, to teaching jobs with tenure.

[DC Tom]

You are so warped. Held the country together, ended slavery, beat a secessionist movement first president to invite Blacks to WH

 

What's to like? Idiot

 

Suspended habeus corpus and posse comitatus. And DID NOT end slavery, but maintained the institution of it in the North while declaring freed slaves in the South to be property. Those are all hard facts. You can look them up.

 

Any conservative president, historians And liberals would vilify him for any ONE of those, never mind all four. Just more evidence of the reprehensible attitude of people like you eager to accept in your leaders what you decry in your opponents.