As the parent of a child of a developmental disability, Trump absolutely made fun of those who are disabled by doing what he did in mocking a person w/ a disability.
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
As the parent of a child of a developmental disability, Trump absolutely made fun of those who are disabled by doing what he did in mocking a person w/ a disability.
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
Yeah, it's an attempt at humor that missed the mark, not cool, but relateable. It's light years better than the ridiculous gesticulation that Trump used, but I wouldn't expect a Trump fanboy to admit it.
As the parent of a child of a developmental disability, Trump absolutely made fun of those who are disabled by doing what he did in mocking a person w/ a disability.
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
As the parent of a child of a developmental disability, Trump absolutely made fun of those who are disabled by doing what he did in mocking a person w/ a disability.
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have never seen any contempt for the wealthy on here. examples?
the idea that independently wealthy people want to enter government as some type of philanthropic exercise is laughable. it's to make more money and to gain more power. plain and simple. Hillary included. I think Obama is probably the exception to this rule. But that remains to be seen.
I agree with your point #4, that not all Trump supporters are hillbillies. But my problem lies with your admission that "they recognize that this whole experiment might fail". That is an insanely monumental gamble people are taking, and for what? doesn't the potential downside exponentially outweight the upside?
I am disturbed when people say they are happy with his cabinet choices.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
Don't worry, when your boy takes office he will shatter all these stats!
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
Don't worry, when your boy takes office he will shatter all these stats!
I take it your answers are no and no? I won't say whether your correct or not to allow for others to answer.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Did america become really ignorant naive in 9 and 5 years or really racist in that time? Or was america always ignorant naive or racist? I thought we cleared a hurdle 9 and 5 years ago. Maybe america is much more sexist that ignorant naive or racist. Is interesting when you think about it.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Did america become really ignorant naive in 9 and 5 years or really racist in that time? Or was america always ignorant naive or racist? I thought we cleared a hurdle 9 and 5 years ago. Maybe america is much more sexist that ignorant naive or racist. Is interesting when you think about it.
I think voter apathy had its influence as well. Many, who couldn't see the possibility, didn't bother to cast their vote.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Did america become really ignorant naive in 9 and 5 years or really racist in that time? Or was america always ignorant naive or racist? I thought we cleared a hurdle 9 and 5 years ago. Maybe america is much more sexist that ignorant naive or racist. Is interesting when you think about it.
It's just a matter of who bothers to show up to the polls. America is very informed,diverse and accepting...and racist, ignorant and intolerant at the same time. When one of those factions is more motivated on election day, they win.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Did america become really ignorant naive in 9 and 5 years or really racist in that time? Or was america always ignorant naive or racist? I thought we cleared a hurdle 9 and 5 years ago. Maybe america is much more sexist that ignorant naive or racist. Is interesting when you think about it.
It's just a matter of who bothers to show up to the polls. America is very informed,diverse and accepting...and racist, ignorant and intolerant at the same time. When one of those factions is more motivated on election day, they win.
Good point, and I think many were motivated against Obama (some bec of race) and by Trump (more bec of race).
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have no problem with people gaining wealth in the private sector (the only area one could accrue wealth). My father, with minimal education, rose from rags to riches (so to speak) in construction. He did so fairly... not stepping on anyone or cheating the process to do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
Did america become really ignorant naive in 9 and 5 years or really racist in that time? Or was america always ignorant naive or racist? I thought we cleared a hurdle 9 and 5 years ago. Maybe america is much more sexist that ignorant naive or racist. Is interesting when you think about it.
I think voter apathy had its influence as well. Many, who couldn't see the possibility, didn't bother to cast their vote.
I would guess that in swing states the polls motivated Trumpsters and gave reason for Clintonites to stay home.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
It's all about your hero I don't care what Obama did or didn't do or what Hillary is doing or not doing , let's see what Bafoon will accomplish , what administration is responsible for the distabilization of the Middle East región let's start there ok ... Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
Most who run for president aren't clinically diagnosable with narcissistic personslity disorder like trump. It shouldn't be confused with self- centered or big ego, which you might be doing.
Oh...have you clinically diagnosed Trump yourself? I would love to read your clinical notes on him compared to your notes on other Presidents and Presidential candidates provided that doesn't violate anybody's confidentiality of course.
I have an idea. We can compare our notes on past presidents as well, and discuss why you feel trump is a "full narcissist", like, as you said, most who run for president are. Then we'll agree. Oh wait, we'll disagree he a narcissist? One thing we can agree on, you're trying to rationalize trump by saying he's just like the others. You have an opinion on trump's personality, but it's not well informed.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
It's all about your hero I don't care what Obama did or didn't do or what Hillary is doing or not doing , let's see what Bafoon will accomplish , what administration is responsible for the distabilization of the Middle East región let's start there ok ... Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
I'll assume your answer is No and No and you are correct.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
It's all about your hero I don't care what Obama did or didn't do or what Hillary is doing or not doing , let's see what Bafoon will accomplish , what administration is responsible for the distabilization of the Middle East región let's start there ok ... Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
I'll assume your answer is No and No and you are correct.
You can assume anything you want , Trump is your savior I will oppose him in any way I can and you can blow your Trumpet at the Trumpsters ball all day long at the end of the day you side with the candidate that stands for everything I'm against ! So enjoy it ...
Without knowing with certainty whether Trump was mocking the reporter in general like he has so many others or if he mocked the disability not being certain if he has ever had anything against the disabled, the question is what's more reprehensible?
1. Mocking people in general 2. Mocking this reporter because he "don't remember" 3. Using a disability for political gain
Remember Trump denied mocking the disability many times well before the tv ad.
Now here is the real irony and hypocrisy in this meme....ready???
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
It's all about your hero I don't care what Obama did or didn't do or what Hillary is doing or not doing , let's see what Bafoon will accomplish , what administration is responsible for the distabilization of the Middle East región let's start there ok ... Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
If black and female democrat did all those things, JC would throw a hissy fit. Racist sexist partisan hackery cog dis is a serious mental disorder.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
You could just as easily changed the channel , I'm glad the stars are coming out against Bafoon if not them then who ? Me & you how would we go about voicing our displeasure with this asshole ? Protest I hope Ed comes out and rants about him next PJ show I attend !
Are you attending the farewell address? I doubt you will hear any anti war rants from Ed.
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama? Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
It's all about your hero I don't care what Obama did or didn't do or what Hillary is doing or not doing , let's see what Bafoon will accomplish , what administration is responsible for the distabilization of the Middle East región let's start there ok ... Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
If black and female democrat did all those things, JC would throw a hissy fit. Racist sexist partisan hackery cog dis is a serious mental disorder.
Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people
Trump supporters are not offended by wealth. They see successful people and are happy to have them put their vast knowledge to work in goverment. "Egghead" academics who have not achieved much in the real world have had their chance. This will be an administration of doers.
I just saw this post.
There's one bit of truth to it: if your 'egg head' peer group (you have expressed many times you are a distinguished professor from a really cool university) thinks like this... a country might do well limiting their influence.
Im curious... are you an egg head of the 'doer' variety? What makes you a doer if you are?
Well let's get a few things straight...
1) I have never stated that I am a "distinguished" professor from a "really cool university". Credentials have come up certainly over time as certain subjects have been debated but it is generally the people who oppose my arguments who have been making a bigger deal of my qualifications. It seems to bother some that I don't fit the stupid, uneducated, buck-toothed caricature of a conservative that they have created in their own minds. As you know of course I don't back away from arguments so I am happy to own my academic background where necessary but please don't confuse that with me claiming to be "distinguished"...I mean I have won awards but I am generally modest with respect to my greatness.
2) In terms of myself being an "egghead" vs a "doer"...these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I have been in and out of academia (currently in) while being in the private sector at the same time. I know great full time academics who are "doers" in their fields and I know full time academics who have no concept of what takes place in the real world. The topic at hand is this idea put forward by many of you that the "wealthy" running the country is just terrible when compared to the "academic" running the country. The assumption is being made that "academics" are being purged from goverment and are being replaced with narrow minded fools from the private sector who don't really understand and/or care for the overall needs of their fellow citizens. This whole argument is absolute nonsense and this is what I am responding too. Academics with no concept of the real world or how their policies and regulations affect the citizen/small business person have been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy for years and the results have been terrible.
3) The hate many on here have for the "wealthy" or for those who have achieved success in the private sector is contemptible. It is one thing to be opposed to the ideology/policy of an individual but you should embrace the idea that personally successful people want to enter government to put their experience to good use. Government by the bureaucrat, while well intentioned, has been failing and a dose of the private sector is desperately necessary. The concept of the "doer" is not to denigrate the academic but is used to differentiate between those who understand how policy affects the individual in the real world.
4) To finalize my point that many of you laugh at (which clearly says more about you then me) the Trump supporter has decided that the status quo has failed and is taking a chance on the "doer". They are very clear headed about what they selected to run government and they recognize that this whole experiment might fail. When you criticize the Trump nominee's "wealth" as a bug the Trump supporter sees it as a feature. The Trump supporter wants the successful to take over to see if they can repair a broken government. They are not offended by how wealthy someone is and neither should you.
I have never seen any contempt for the wealthy on here. examples?
the idea that independently wealthy people want to enter government as some type of philanthropic exercise is laughable. it's to make more money and to gain more power. plain and simple. Hillary included. I think Obama is probably the exception to this rule. But that remains to be seen.
I agree with your point #4, that not all Trump supporters are hillbillies. But my problem lies with your admission that "they recognize that this whole experiment might fail". That is an insanely monumental gamble people are taking, and for what? doesn't the potential downside exponentially outweight the upside?
I am disturbed when people say they are happy with his cabinet choices.
1) Your second sentence demonstrates contempt. 2) You are correct it is a monumental gamble but if you are of the belief that the status quo is the road to danger then a monumental gamble is all that's left. If you have the time read " The Flight 93 Election" which lays out the case from the conservative perspective of what is at stake. Not all conservatives agree with this but it outlines the debate pretty well. http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/ 3) Happiness with his cabinet choices comes down to where you are on the ideological spectrum. If you are a conservative like myself then you are happy because there was no guarantee (there still isn't) that Trump himself would govern like one. These individuals are not only conservative but are people who are extremely qualified in a number of diverse fields and who are willing to make bold changes. It is these choices that allow me to look past the asinine tweets because it is what is happening behind the scenes that matters most.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's light years better than the ridiculous gesticulation that Trump used, but I wouldn't expect a Trump fanboy to admit it.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Rand Paul on confirmations and repeal/replace...general thoughts.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
the idea that independently wealthy people want to enter government as some type of philanthropic exercise is laughable. it's to make more money and to gain more power. plain and simple. Hillary included. I think Obama is probably the exception to this rule. But that remains to be seen.
I agree with your point #4, that not all Trump supporters are hillbillies. But my problem lies with your admission that "they recognize that this whole experiment might fail". That is an insanely monumental gamble people are taking, and for what? doesn't the potential downside exponentially outweight the upside?
I am disturbed when people say they are happy with his cabinet choices.
www.headstonesband.com
Trivia or better yet I'll make it easier yes or no question.
Has any other president been at war longer than Obama?
Bonus: has any other president bombed more nations than Obama?
We'll have to agree to disagree on your fourth point. Many exceptions aside... i think you give the general public way too much credit. I think much of the voter base was inherently racist and/or lacking critical thought (exactly how is America going to become great again?).
When one of those factions is more motivated on election day, they win.
Yeah it must burn you that the band you like so much has nothing in common with your beliefs of the world or politics , see you at the next show no ?
2) You are correct it is a monumental gamble but if you are of the belief that the status quo is the road to danger then a monumental gamble is all that's left. If you have the time read " The Flight 93 Election" which lays out the case from the conservative perspective of what is at stake. Not all conservatives agree with this but it outlines the debate pretty well. http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
3) Happiness with his cabinet choices comes down to where you are on the ideological spectrum. If you are a conservative like myself then you are happy because there was no guarantee (there still isn't) that Trump himself would govern like one. These individuals are not only conservative but are people who are extremely qualified in a number of diverse fields and who are willing to make bold changes. It is these choices that allow me to look past the asinine tweets because it is what is happening behind the scenes that matters most.