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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
these are the people you are happy about?
They're doers with no regard to how the doers does to do or how they won't do to does. All for the benefit of the doers at the expense of the takers. Simple, see?
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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
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.
"Extremely qualified". That's hilarious. I have to remind myself that we're in the era of low expectations.
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.
"Extremely qualified". That's hilarious. I have to remind myself that we're in the era of low expectations.
yeah, I was questioning with that comment whether I was being trolled or not.
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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
these are the people you are happy about?
Don't forget Mattis, Sessions, Pompeo and DeVos
Who could forget the Attorney General pick who was considered too racist to be a Federal judge and the Sec of Ed pick who spent her life as an antagonist to public schooling. These appointments are kooky. It's like he let Rush Limbaugh build his cabinet. How anyone could think these scrubs are up to the job is beyond me, it seems like utter lunacy.
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they won't fight for the American people, but when you choose mega-rich individuals to head the very institutions of government which they could profit from dismantling, it is the people who will be screwed, you'd have to be dense not to see that. I wouldn't be surprised to see the CEO of FedEx appointed Postmaster General, and would you applaud it because of a wackadoo anti-government ideology, or would you stop to think of how idiotic and corrupt it is?
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.
my second statement isn't contempt. I have nothing against wealthy people in general. I just have suspicions about the ones who enter politics when they are already independently wealthy.
Exxon CEO as SOS. Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished. Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field. Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights Breitbart CEO as senior advisor his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal EPA administrator who is a climate change denier UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
these are the people you are happy about?
Don't forget Mattis, Sessions, Pompeo and DeVos
Who could forget the Attorney General pick who was considered too racist to be a Federal judge and the Sec of Ed pick who spent her life as an antagonist to public schooling. These appointments are kooky. It's like he let Rush Limbaugh build his cabinet. How anyone could think these scrubs are up to the job is beyond me, it seems like utter lunacy.
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they won't fight for the American people, but when you choose mega-rich individuals to head the very institutions of government which they could profit from dismantling, it is the people who will be screwed, you'd have to be dense not to see that. I wouldn't be surprised to see the CEO of FedEx appointed Postmaster General, and would you applaud it because of a wackadoo anti-government ideology, or would you stop to think of how idiotic and corrupt it is?
I think amazon wants to "acquire" the post office so jeff bezos is the better example...but i do agree with you on fox hen house.
I bet the Russians have something on trump that will bring him down. Like him admitting to sexually assaulting women?
Hookers and blow in Moscow hotels? Nah, that wouldn't do it either.
Underage?
Well, you know what there are a lot of in Russia, right? Yup, children's orphanages. Maybe Trump will produce his itinerary for his travels to PutinLand? Still wouldn't bring him down.
'BuzzFeed Runs Unverifiable Trump-Russia Claims' #FakeNews https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819000924207251456 The online news site BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a letter containing salacious allegations — which even the left-leaning outlet acknowledged are unverified — against President-Elect Donald Trump
When I think of "soft sensuality" I think of donald trump. Please make sure someone controls any wind gusts during the inauguration, as to not disturb the don's do.
Any body see Sessions answer to the Bafoon groping? He labeled it Sexual assault ! lol the incoming president is a sexual predator and has been for yrs ..
Comments
Exxon CEO as SOS.
Secretary of Energy who thinks the whole department should be abolished.
Secretary of Housing. A surgeon who previously said he isn't experienced enough to be in government after dropping out of the race, and also has ZERO experience in this field.
Secretary of Agriculture (rumored) is anti-animal rights
Breitbart CEO as senior advisor
his son in law as senior advisor, which could in fact turn out to be illegal
EPA administrator who is a climate change denier
UN ambassador with no foriegn policy experience
Rasslin' tycoon's wife as small business administration
these are the people you are happy about?
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
These appointments are kooky. It's like he let Rush Limbaugh build his cabinet.
How anyone could think these scrubs are up to the job is beyond me, it seems like utter lunacy.
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they won't fight for the American people, but when you choose mega-rich individuals to head the very institutions of government which they could profit from dismantling, it is the people who will be screwed, you'd have to be dense not to see that.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the CEO of FedEx appointed Postmaster General, and would you applaud it because of a wackadoo anti-government ideology, or would you stop to think of how idiotic and corrupt it is?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
but this one I don't, who is Michael Cohen?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I will let myself out.....
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819000924207251456
The online news site BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a letter containing salacious allegations — which even the left-leaning outlet acknowledged are unverified — against President-Elect Donald Trump
Rubio suggests Trump wet his pants on debate stage
Stevie Wonder could see that coming
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©