Donald Trump has repeatedly disavowed David Duke, Richard Spencer, white supremacists, the KKK, and neo-nazis, etc. since well before 2000 These people and groups have nothing to do with Trump or his supporters, but Democrats simply refuse to hear
https://t.co/8vi7z1qF6V
https://t.co/AoXVrCyhmw
THREAD
— \u274cTimothy Tobin\u274c (@tatobin2) July 24, 2020
Biden's a racist and always has been.
\u201cUnless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a JUNGLE, the JUNGLE being a RACIAL JUNGLE with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point,\u201d\u2013Joe Biden 1977https://t.co/STkojDN0cL
https://t.co/ZHfjc6UYVd
https://t.co/bBgqAxKsgt
1 https://t.co/HjjuFU6Do6
2 https://t.co/qPoqPfzMRw
3 https://t.co/oBoP57vTYg
4 https://t.co/2S2QW0ZHjh
5 https://t.co/syRLJRfVXF
.
More from Trump
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?