Lets debate... I hear you are free on Wednesdays!

You know he can't. It's not possible to measure it.
Sure it is. You can quantify many aspects of a president in office. You can also do binary tests like success of say a treaty or its failure to deliver. What most Presidential surveys I've seen do is little quantification, lots of opinion with no real attempt to measure anything.
 
Sure it is. You can quantify many aspects of a president in office. You can also do binary tests like success of say a treaty or its failure to deliver. What most Presidential surveys I've seen do is little quantification, lots of opinion with no real attempt to measure anything.
You can measure such things, but that is not a measurement of the 'best' or 'worst' presidents. The problem is that such successes or failures might be counted as 'good' or 'bad' depending on who you're talking to.

In other words, who is 'best' or 'worst' as a President is strictly a personal opinion, using such things as a metric.

For example:
Pulling out of the Paris Accord treaty can be considered a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, depending on who you talk to.
Creating a treaty with, say, Russia, can be a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, depending on who you talk to.
 
You can measure such things, but that is not a measurement of the 'best' or 'worst' presidents. The problem is that such successes or failures might be counted as 'good' or 'bad' depending on who you're talking to.

In other words, who is 'best' or 'worst' as a President is strictly a personal opinion, using such things as a metric.

For example:
Pulling out of the Paris Accord treaty can be considered a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, depending on who you talk to.
Creating a treaty with, say, Russia, can be a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, depending on who you talk to.
In that sense, such lists based that way are worthless. They are nothing but opinion. Since you are asking academics in history at universities these questions, it means the results will be heavily skewed in favor of the Left / Progressives / Democrats as that is the bulk of those you are using in the survey to get results.
 
In that sense, such lists based that way are worthless. They are nothing but opinion. Since you are asking academics in history at universities these questions, it means the results will be heavily skewed in favor of the Left / Progressives / Democrats as that is the bulk of those you are using in the survey to get results.
I love how you righties hate academia.
 
In that sense, such lists based that way are worthless. They are nothing but opinion. Since you are asking academics in history at universities these questions, it means the results will be heavily skewed in favor of the Left / Progressives / Democrats as that is the bulk of those you are using in the survey to get results.
Exactly.
 
I love how you righties hate academia.
I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.

Professors in colleges and universities are about 60% Leftist with another, roughly 25% being Left-of-center liberals. Even centrist academics are a rarity today.




And, as with everything the Left gets control of, they're turning higher education into a pile of shit.
 
it came off as trashy. he is a trash can human

laughing at how he is weaponing the doj. he is going to lose so bigly.
Yep, trump praising Hannibal Lector, or accusing Megyn Kelly of "having blood coming out of her whatever", or bragging how he can "grab women by the pussy"? That's so classy!

You fucking trumptards are so unaware of your own hypocrisy!
 
I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.

Professors in colleges and universities are about 60% Leftist with another, roughly 25% being Left-of-center liberals. Even centrist academics are a rarity today.




And, as with everything the Left gets control of, they're turning higher education into a pile of shit.
Academia is full of intelligent people. Historians are for the most part intelligent and learned people. You fear facing someone with real credentials You are more comfortable with Fox liars and far right loons. The left is in academia, because for the most part, rightys would not qualify. Listen to your favorite president talk history. He is your standard bearer.
 
I don't hate academia. I hate the Left and the Left has pretty much taken control of academia.

Professors in colleges and universities are about 60% Leftist with another, roughly 25% being Left-of-center liberals. Even centrist academics are a rarity today.




And, as with everything the Left gets control of, they're turning higher education into a pile of shit.
Boring read your posts. You hate the left.
 
Academia is full of intelligent people. Historians are for the most part intelligent and learned people. You fear facing someone with real credentials You are more comfortable with Fox liars and far right loons. The left is in academia, because for the most part, rightys would not qualify. Listen to your favorite president talk history. He is your standard bearer.
I regularly take on some of those loons in academica who are historians in areas I do research in. I usually get a whinny, irrelevant, appeal to authority in response from them.

For example, John Moiser, an English professor at Loyola who wrote this book:

default.jpg


I sent him a multi-page review / analysis of this shitty book and how wrong it is on almost everything. His response was he has a Ph D and I don't. That's typical of those in academia. When confronted by facts or someone who is knowledgeable but not an academic themselves, they fall back on their credentials rather than try and debate.

That's become the norm for the Left on campuses today.
 
Academia is full of intelligent people. Historians are for the most part intelligent and learned people. You fear facing someone with real credentials You are more comfortable with Fox liars and far right loons. The left is in academia, because for the most part, rightys would not qualify. Listen to your favorite president talk history. He is your standard bearer.
Engineering students are more to the right and are far smarter than your average liberal arts student. Medical students tend to be more conservative also.
 
I regularly take on some of those loons in academica who are historians in areas I do research in. I usually get a whinny, irrelevant, appeal to authority in response from them.

For example, John Moiser, an English professor at Loyola who wrote this book:

default.jpg


I sent him a multi-page review / analysis of this shitty book and how wrong it is on almost everything. His response was he has a Ph D and I don't. That's typical of those in academia. When confronted by facts or someone who is knowledgeable but not an academic themselves, they fall back on their credentials rather than try and debate.

That's become the norm for the Left on campuses today.
If you are doing research, you are reading books written by historians. You are so wrong. Debates and discussions are the bread and butter of historians. Your statement makes no sense . If you watch CSPAN, you will see lots of long discussions from historians. You are seeking info that feeds your biases.
 
If you are doing research, you are reading books written by historians. You are so wrong. Debates and discussions are the bread and butter of historians. Your statement makes no sense . If you watch CSPAN, you will see lots of long discussions from historians. You are seeking info that feeds your biases.
I'm absolutely correct. Historians get it wrong all the time. They don't go into depth like they should. Moiser is a perfect example. At one point he credits the French in 1940 as having 12 "armored divisions." Among those he counts 5 Divisions Légères de Cavalerie. His research is horribly flawed and badly done. These divisions aren't even really what most historians would call a division. They're more akin to a brigade or reinforced regiment--about a third of a division. Worse, their entire tank complement amounts to just 13 light tanks, 13 armored cars, and 10 machinegun armed tankettes, about a tenth of what a typical German panzer division had.

That's one example of dozens of mistakes Mosier makes.

Here's another:

81MrhLpmj4L._SL1500_.jpg


Mills' research is great. In depth and thorough. His analysis and conclusions are for crap however. He doesn't grasp the technology from the engineering and science side of things and often draws conclusions from preconceived notions. Carlos Kopp out of Australia is another such PhD that does this in related fields to the above. Mills was one of Kopp's graduate students...
 
duhhhh loony left duhhhhh
I'm absolutely correct. Historians get it wrong all the time. They don't go into depth like they should. Moiser is a perfect example. At one point he credits the French in 1940 as having 12 "armored divisions." Among those he counts 5 Divisions Légères de Cavalerie. His research is horribly flawed and badly done. These divisions aren't even really what most historians would call a division. They're more akin to a brigade or reinforced regiment--about a third of a division. Worse, their entire tank complement amounts to just 13 light tanks, 13 armored cars, and 10 machinegun armed tankettes, about a tenth of what a typical German panzer division had.

That's one example of dozens of mistakes Mosier makes.

Here's another:

81MrhLpmj4L._SL1500_.jpg


Mills' research is great. In depth and thorough. His analysis and conclusions are for crap however. He doesn't grasp the technology from the engineering and science side of things and often draws conclusions from preconceived notions. Carlos Kopp out of Australia is another such PhD that does this in related fields to the above. Mills was one of Kopp's graduate students...
Knowing about weapons is not knowing history. It is weird you do not understand.
 
duhhhh loony left duhhhhh

Knowing about weapons is not knowing history. It is weird you do not understand.
I understand perfectly, it is you missing the point. If you can't get the details correct, cannot grasp the basic facts, you can't put the rest of the picture together. My knowing what an 'armored division' is as opposed to something that isn't is an important detail. Not understanding that leads to wrong conclusions.
 
Back
Top