Today, we are faced with a moral test. As historians, we recognize both the ominous ...Someone might think that a "threat to American democracy" with "a campaign of violence" might mean stealing ballots at gunpoint, or something like that.
Historians Against Trump ... are united by the belief that the candidacy of Donald J. Trump poses a threat to American democracy. ...
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability; against historical analysis and fact. ...
Writers On Trump and Citizen Therapists are organizing in defense of the ideals in which their professions are grounded. ...
When Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination on July 21st, a Grand Old Party born out of the struggle for abolition and justice will have succumbed to snake oil. We are here to say, “No more.”
This reminds me of how, at the end of the Ronald Reagan administration, the academic historians declared Reagan to be the worst President of the XX century. Then someone wrote an essay arguing that he was the best, because he won the Cold War. The historians admitted that they never considered crediting him for that.
You would think that a statement from historians like this would include some historical facts. Nope. Or have some facts about Trump. Nope. Or accurately state some of his policy positions. Nope. Or state teh premises underlying their political opinions. Nope. Or use their expertise to say what we can expect from a Trump presidency. Nope.
The first signatory is an Ethiopian attorney.
If anything, the campaign of violence is coming from Black Lives Matter, and the Democrats. Obama, Clinton, and other Democrat leaders are openly encouraging BLM, and accusing police of systemic racism for doing their jobs.
I am assuming that these historians are smart enuf to make a case against Trump, if they wanted to. So I conclude that they are concealing their true motivation, which is probably hatred of America or of White Christian culture.