RE: Claudine Gay should say: "When someone actually says 'Death to Jews', we'll take action."
Sure. Now do 'Death to trans people', or 'Death to black people', etc..
The problem with Harvard etal. is the glaring hypocrisy and double-standard. They have highly restrictive de-facto policies on speech, then ignored those policies when it comes to the Jews.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." -- Saul Alinsky.
Regarding Trump. He admits that it's not clear whether Trump engages in an insurrection. He then points to the 2nd impeachment, and in a startling lack of trust in the institutions, declares that Trump should have been found guilty and it's only Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty that cleared Trump
So... the argument is this:
1) Historically, local officials got to remove people from ballots. But in those cases, there was a clear prima-facie case for insurrection.
2) Trump wouldn't have a prima-facie case, except he was impeached. And he *should* have been found guilty.
3) Therefore, Trump *is* guilty and should be disqualified. A trial with a finding of "not guilty" provides the prima-facie evidence of guilt???
RE: Claudine Gay should say: "When someone actually says 'Death to Jews', we'll take action."
Sure. Now do 'Death to trans people', or 'Death to black people', etc..
The problem with Harvard etal. is the glaring hypocrisy and double-standard. They have highly restrictive de-facto policies on speech, then ignored those policies when it comes to the Jews.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." -- Saul Alinsky.
Regarding Trump. He admits that it's not clear whether Trump engages in an insurrection. He then points to the 2nd impeachment, and in a startling lack of trust in the institutions, declares that Trump should have been found guilty and it's only Mitch McConnell's dereliction of duty that cleared Trump
So... the argument is this:
1) Historically, local officials got to remove people from ballots. But in those cases, there was a clear prima-facie case for insurrection.
2) Trump wouldn't have a prima-facie case, except he was impeached. And he *should* have been found guilty.
3) Therefore, Trump *is* guilty and should be disqualified. A trial with a finding of "not guilty" provides the prima-facie evidence of guilt???