Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard, along with the rest of the ancient-eight, have become little more than indoctrination centers.

They no longer provide a meaningful university education.

MAGA and their indoctrination and reeducation camps. Sorry send your own kids to North Korea or Israel.

[Anonymous]

It's a good political move. It appears that Trump has found a well of dissatisfaction with the elite education institutions. I mean who isn't fed up with the Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a good political move. It appears that Trump has found a well of dissatisfaction with the elite education institutions. I mean who isn't fed up with the Ivies.

Haha. What great institutions are worthy of educating your little superstars? let us know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a good political move. It appears that Trump has found a well of dissatisfaction with the elite education institutions. I mean who isn't fed up with the Ivies.

I mean we should all just learn about the benefits of coal and how the world is less than 10,000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur amirite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good political move. It appears that Trump has found a well of dissatisfaction with the elite education institutions. I mean who isn't fed up with the Ivies.

Haha. What great institutions are worthy of educating your little superstars? let us know.

Towson, Louisburg, Kent State, Belmont

[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...

The easy explanation is "I am right and everyone else is stupid"

When conservatives do this it is correctly ridiculed.

When liberals do this, people clap like fkn seals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a good political move. It appears that Trump has found a well of dissatisfaction with the elite education institutions. I mean who isn't fed up with the Ivies.

Got to make the world safe for Israel no more how much it cost.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what law firm Harvard will use given that nearly all of Big Law has pledged $960 million of pro bono work to advance Trump's agenda.

[Anonymous]

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

Are you really so unaware that these tax dollars are used for medical and scientific research. Think Salk polio vaccine, the HPV, or, the latest, the mRNA vaccines for COVID. There is a chance that the mRNA vaccine may be able to be used for pancreatic cancer, which is nearly always a death sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

Because support before wasn't conditioned on factors like "this administration."

[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...

The easy explanation is "I am right and everyone else is stupid"

When conservatives do this it is correctly ridiculed.

When liberals do this, people clap like fkn seals.

I can confidently say that 155 million fools were duped into voting for elderly jerks who had absolutely no business in The White House in 2020. Half of those fools did the same thing in 2024. Sorry, I know the truth hurts the feelings of the hyper-partisan fruitcakes but denying the truth gets us nowhere.

[Anonymous]

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.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

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

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what law firm Harvard will use given that nearly all of Big Law has pledged $960 million of pro bono work to advance Trump's agenda.

That doesn't bar them from representing Harvard. Paying clients take priority over pro bono work. Moreover, many of those firms are already conflicted (having represented Harvard in one case or another over the years).

[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%.

People like you, are the reason I troll this place. Just so I can sh!t in your little safe space sandbox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

Because support before wasn't conditioned on factors like "this administration."

But just think of all the federal funding that can be withheld from red states because they aren't useful!