President Elect Trump

BS44325 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

So much this.

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

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/

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.

JC29856 said:

Free said:

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.

Any thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/arqiOm92GDA

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Free said:

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.

Any thoughts on this?

https://youtu.be/arqiOm92GDA

Yeah and he APOLOGIZED for that...

BS44325 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

So much this.

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

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/

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.

JC29856 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Free said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

BS44325 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

So much this.

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

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/

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.

JC29856 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BS44325 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

So much this.

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

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/

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.