Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with enough money to impact Harvard’s bottom line and who is also giving that money to Harvard is smart enough to know their stand is a good thing. Plus they’ll likely attract new donors in the process.

99% of smart people are anti Trump. It’s the dummies we need to convince

Over 70 million voters voted for Trump in the last election and you think only 1% of them are smart? Hmmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard refuses to capitulate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-trump-reject-demands.html?unlocked_article_code=1._k4.idC2.ERp74pm7qHbc&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

With an endowment of over 50 Billion, why would it?

And why would it take federal money when it has so much? I’ve never understood this. Taking federal money comes with strings.

. It didn't until recently

[Anonymous]

For the millionth time, being pro-Palestine is NOT antisemitism. Enough with this ridiculous nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the millionth time, being pro-Palestine is NOT antisemitism. Enough with this ridiculous nonsense.

Ok. Thanks for your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Bidens age didn't lose the election, woke narratives, identity politics and liberal elitism did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with enough money to impact Harvard’s bottom line and who is also giving that money to Harvard is smart enough to know their stand is a good thing. Plus they’ll likely attract new donors in the process.

99% of smart people are anti Trump. It’s the dummies we need to convince

Over 70 million voters voted for Trump in the last election and you think only 1% of them are smart? Hmmm...

Yes, this is accurate. 1%.

[Anonymous]

YAY Harvard!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

agree, I never realized how much money is given to Ivy League schools , elite schools that should never be subsidized by taxpayers

how the elites justify this is beyond me.

Are you just playing dumb or do you really not know how the U.S. researches pretty much everything it needs to research?

Or they’re being paid to influence the conversation?

That’s idiotic. Research, and research labs are very expensive. Harvard has top notch research labs. It’s easier and cheaper for them to subsidize these than study everything in government labs. This admin probably just wants to cut research, which will have very real effects on research for diseases that impact society.

It’s more efficient to just stop poisoning us.

[Anonymous]

Peter Navarro has a Harvard PhD in Economics. Obviously, Harvard doesn't have rigorous standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is unwise for Harvard. They are going to piss off all their wealthy Zionist donors if they refuse to crack down on pro-palestine speech.

Why should Harvard crack down on “pro-Palestine” speech? Or any speech, for that matter?

Is pro KKK speech acceptable to you? Is pro white speech acceptable to you? Is speech ranting against African Americans acceptable to you?

DP. No, pro-KKK speech is not acceptable to me, which is precisely why anti-Zionists speech IS acceptable. They have a lot in common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with enough money to impact Harvard’s bottom line and who is also giving that money to Harvard is smart enough to know their stand is a good thing. Plus they’ll likely attract new donors in the process.

99% of smart people are anti Trump. It’s the dummies we need to convince

Over 70 million voters voted for Trump in the last election and you think only 1% of them are smart? Hmmm...

Yes, this is accurate. 1%.

You must be a comedian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

It is all a matter of perspective. If you a Democrat party partisan, you will see what is correct one way, while Republicans see correct another way. The rest of us can see that there is a lot of blame to go around.

It’s like people who see that the Union was on the right side of history, yet fail to see that the Union was also extremely racist. The Dems are like the Union and we are not allowed to see them as anything other as noble and the GOPers are like Confederates who we anre only anllowed to see them as wholely evil.

+100 the sad part of this is the fact that the hyper-partisan idiots currently outnumber the people who see the big picture for what it is by a wide margin.

Like yourself? I don’t want Stephen Miller dictating who can speak and what can be taught at any college. You people have gone full Maoist.

I have yet to see any diversity statements being required as a condition of employment, admission, funding or accreditation.

We used to require diversity statements in those instances. That's was pretty maoist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is unwise for Harvard. They are going to piss off all their wealthy Zionist donors if they refuse to crack down on pro-palestine speech.

Why should Harvard crack down on “pro-Palestine” speech? Or any speech, for that matter?

Is pro KKK speech acceptable to you? Is pro white speech acceptable to you? Is speech ranting against African Americans acceptable to you?

DP. No, pro-KKK speech is not acceptable to me, which is precisely why anti-Zionists speech IS acceptable. They have a lot in common.

Not really, but you're entitled to your biased opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.