2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: rxwineIF this is true...
then what's the beef?
usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/13/24-7-wall-st-most-educated-countries/15460733
Taxpayers don't AUTOMATICALLY get the benefit of the extra $200,000; the government gets their hands on it first...whether or not the taxpayers actually see the benefits of it depends on how well the government does with the money taken for those who earned it. The person having the $200,000 taken from them would surely rather keep it than have it go to the government...
Quote: RonCHe asked about discussing "why" he should vote for her, not why you (presumably) and I won't. That is a fair question and it deserves a answer deeper than our usual answers about her.
--Senator
--Secretary of State
Two pieces of experience that Trump, for example, does not have.
Ok, let's try this.
Greatest contribution as a Senator?
Greatest contribution as Secretery of State?
There's a big difference between the substance of one's education and one's education level. AZ is arguing against the value of a liberal arts degree without actually having one, and that's as credible as a blind person criticizing a Monet. He thinks the real world is only about laying pipes, fixing air conditioners, or eliminating pests, and to him knowledge work isn't "real work." In other words, he thinks that white collar work isn't part of the "real world", which is a supremely naive viewpoint considering that, as he reads this, he is using forum code written by a software engineer. The fact that millions of American workers' daily physical labor consists of sitting at a desk typing does not invalidate their work product or make them somehow lesser contributors to "the real world." I am literally in a meeting right now with six attorneys and several government officials, with hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars on the line (yes, we're on a break), and nobody with a shred of sense would say that what we're doing isn't "real work." And how can you take someone seriously who argues that degree ROI is supremely important when they went to school and studied undergraduate business and history? A much higher ROI degree would have been computer science or electrical engineering, so why not study that if making money is all that matters?Quote: BozQuestioning peoples education seems to be a big issue for you and Mike BJ. Goes back to that typical elitist liberal argument that they are better and smarter than the average person.
...
AZ's education level shouldn't be an issue and I have no clue about him,
The answer is that money is not all that matters. The true value of a liberal arts degree lies not in the specific subjects studied or but in the way one learns to study them, and in turn learns how to learn. Alfred Mander wrote:
If AZ's experience with the "business world" is that managers do not value critical thinking and the other non-physical skills that should be learned as part of a good liberal arts education, the businesses he's interacting with are poorly managed.Quote: Logic for the MillionsThinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically - without learning how, or without practicing. People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge players, or pianists.
Also, you aren't criticizing Donald Trump for going to Penn or Antonin Scalia for going to Harvard, so don't stereotype and suggest that all students who go to good schools are liberal elitists. I know of many Ivy League conservatives and so do you.
Quote:The presumptive GOP presidential nominee sued Deutsche Bank to try to get out of $40 million in personal loans he'd taken out to build Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago in 2008, arguing the financial collapse was an unexpected "force majeure," or act of God, that negated his duties to repay the loan.
The lawsuit came just two years after Trump suggested he was rooting for a real estate collapse so he could swoop in and buy up property at a steep discount.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-sued-bank-40m-debt-housing-crash-article-1.2648758
Quote: MathExtremistThere's a big difference between the substance of one's education and one's education level. AZ is arguing against the value of a liberal arts degree without actually having one, and that's as credible as a blind person criticizing a Monet.
Nonsense. I can see what courses someone took and get an idea for what they mean. Same as I can look at the global warming argument and draw intelligent conclusions. Your attitude here is a huge part of why I do not take educated elitists seriously. I am intelligent enough to draw conclusions. I do not think you need a degree to "understand" something.
Quote:He thinks the real world is only about laying pipes, fixing air conditioners, or eliminating pests, and to him knowledge work isn't "real work." In other words, he thinks that white collar work isn't part of the "real world", which is a supremely naive viewpoint considering that, as he reads this, he is using forum code written by a software engineer.
Hardly. When I do title chains I often go home more physically tired than when I have done a day of labor. Minimal physical work there. I have been in white collar work much of my life. I consider my career "gray collar" as I have often had to know how to manage the P&L then later go figure out how to do something constructive.
What I despise is the idea that people are somehow less worthy because they so the physical work you say above. There is an idea among too many in the education class that they are better because they work in an office. The same people often cannot even assemble their IKEA purchase. Look at how many college freshman dropouts there are. Look at how many "general studies" majors there are. If you cannot select a major, you do not belong in college. Both groups would be better to learn some "hard" skills as they will make more money with far less debt.
Quote:The answer is that money is not all that matters. The true value of a liberal arts degree lies not in the specific subjects studied or but in the way one learns to study them, and in turn learns how to learn.
Once again, faculty lounge talk. The person with a business or computer major is going to get hired out of college far faster than the liberal arts major. At the entry level, they want you to contribute NOW! Any degree shows you "can learn." Practical skill gets you hired.
Listen to some Dave Ramsey to get a feel for what I am talking about.
College degrees are not "worthless" but some are worth less.
Sometimes people go to overly expensive colleges, borrow lots of money, and pursue degrees that are not a good value for their intended occupation.
Yes, there are great advantages to getting a degree. There are more advantages to getting a degree that prepares you for what you want to do instead of what you like to study. Major in Business; minor in the Fine Arts....or even do it as a double major...
Quote: RonC
Yes, there are great advantages to getting a degree. There are more advantages to getting a degree that prepares you for what you want to do instead of what you like to study. Major in Business; minor in the Fine Arts....or even do it as a double major...
Hear Hear, what I am trying to say. We are, however, in a society where nobody dares "judge" anymore. Years ago a kid would say he wanted to major in German Polka and his dad would slap him silly and tell him to straighten out. Today the kid wants such a major and the parents say, "we want him to follow his dream!" The kid then has to work some low-wage job to pay the monthly vig to the Feds for his loans because he is unemployable.
Guys like Mike Rowe are starting to make some progress in fixing the way we think, But the road is long.
Quote: AZDuffmanYears ago a kid would say he wanted to major in German Polka and his dad would slap him silly and tell him to straighten out.
Alrighty then!
Let's be clear here: It doesn't matter to me one bit whether someone completed college or not. The *actual* issue for me is that when someone can't even correctly spell simple three-letter words (e.g., they can't differentiate homonyms I learned in third grade), then it's pretty hard to take their arguments seriously. And, it's not surprising that it's the people who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag who are the ones making the most ridiculous arguments. Coincidence? I think not.Quote: BozQuestioning peoples education seems to be a big issue for you and Mike BJ.
I know not why....
Just like your intelligent conclusions on evolution, including the part about drowned bears turning into fish? Your so-called "common sense" doesn't cut it where actual science is concerned.Quote: AZDuffmanNonsense. I can see what courses someone took and get an idea for what they mean. Same as I can look at the global warming argument and draw intelligent conclusions.
My point exactly. You view "managing a P&L" as non-constructive. That's a wholesale dismissal of the value of knowledge work. It's nonsense that office work is abstractly "better than" non-office work, but of equal nonsense is your idea, which you very clearly believe, that someone who works in an office is somehow inferior to those engaged in the physical trades. You call me elitist (for what, valuing education?), but I call you a hypocrite for thinking that knowledge work isn't as worthwhile as physical labor. That's your own personal elitism. And you've dedicated a significant portion of your past few weeks to denigrating the educations of a meaningful percentage of the US population, and generally denigrating liberal arts education overall. In your own way, that's as elitist as it gets -- you think you're "better than" all those liberal arts majors just because you have a business degree and you've chosen to pursue money as a life goal. Good for you, but your priorities aren't shared by everyone. And I'm glad for that -- if everyone were as narrowly-focused as you are on money as the sole source of life's worth, there'd be no firefighters or school teachers.Quote:I have been in white collar work much of my life. I consider my career "gray collar" as I have often had to know how to manage the P&L then later go figure out how to do something constructive.
If you're only going to school to learn a trade for an intended occupation, and that occupation doesn't actually require advanced schooling, you're probably better off not going to college in the first place. You shouldn't bother getting a college degree if you know you want to be an auto mechanic or irrigation installer for the rest of your life. But who knows that at 18?Quote: RonCWe're off on another tangent here regarding education.
College degrees are not "worthless" but some are worth less.
Sometimes people go to overly expensive colleges, borrow lots of money, and pursue degrees that are not a good value for their intended occupation.
I totally, emphatically disagree. College is the last opportunity in most young adults' lives where they have no responsibilities other than getting an education. Wasting that opportunity learning undergraduate business management is a terrible mistake when, for the vast majority of those students, such practical management skills can be learned on the job, while doing it, with little to no risk. You don't get to learn theoretical matters or the liberal arts on the job, and if you believe (as I do) that life isn't all about managing businesses, it's a better use of one's time during college to educate yourself on less practical topics. College is not meant to be vocational training.Quote:Yes, there are great advantages to getting a degree. There are more advantages to getting a degree that prepares you for what you want to do instead of what you like to study. Major in Business; minor in the Fine Arts....or even do it as a double major...
I studied computer science in college (and Chaucer, and the Crusades, and ancient Egyptology, and modern musicology, and moral justice, and...), but I didn't get really good at actual software programming until I had my first job. Nothing about my college degree was directly related to working in a large commercial software team with million-dollar customers filing angry bug reports. It's far, far more important to learn how to learn (in college) than to learn a particular skill. There were two types of programmers in 1999 that made a lot of money on Y2K, those who actually remembered COBOL from the 70s and the younger ones who learned it in 1998 when they saw the Y2K bug coming. I guarantee that none of the younger coders in 1998 who learned COBOL got any of that from college. Curricula had moved on to C++ by then. Adaptability (learning ability) is always more valuable than excellence at a particular skill as long as your job isn't entirely static. Manual cow-milking is a good example of a static job -- the cows don't change so the job doesn't change. Nothing in technology is static. And I didn't learn gaming math in college, I learned it afterwards, on my own, because I wanted to. Learning how to learn and think clearly is more important than almost anything else for virtually every 18-21 year old in the US economy. Without that ability to think clearly, you end up with idiot senators bringing snowballs to Congress as proof that climate change doesn't exist.
Quote:Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he raised $6 million for veterans groups at a January fundraiser. The Washington Post's accounting, based on interviews with charities, only found $3.1 million in donations to veterans groups. In addition, almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans' causes, Trump moved to fulfill that pledge. (McKenna Ewen/The Washington Post)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/
Quote: MathExtremistIf you're only going to school to learn a trade for an intended occupation, and that occupation doesn't actually require advanced schooling, you're probably better off not going to college in the first place. You shouldn't bother getting a college degree if you know you want to be an auto mechanic or irrigation installer for the rest of your life. But who knows that at 18?
I totally, emphatically disagree. College is the last opportunity in most young adults' lives where they have no responsibilities other than getting an education. Wasting that opportunity learning undergraduate business management is a terrible mistake when, for the vast majority of those students, such practical management skills can be learned on the job, while doing it, with little to no risk. You don't get to learn theoretical matters or the liberal arts on the job, and if you believe (as I do) that life isn't all about managing businesses, it's a better use of one's time during college to educate yourself on less practical topics. College is not meant to be vocational training.
I studied computer science in college (and Chaucer, and the Crusades, and ancient Egyptology, and modern musicology, and moral justice, and...), but I didn't get really good at actual software programming until I had my first job. Nothing about my college degree was directly related to working in a large commercial software team with million-dollar customers filing angry bug reports. It's far, far more important to learn how to learn (in college) than to learn a particular skill. There were two types of programmers in 1999 that made a lot of money on Y2K, those who actually remembered COBOL from the 70s and the younger ones who learned it in 1998 when they saw the Y2K bug coming. I guarantee that none of the younger coders in 1998 who learned COBOL got any of that from college. Curricula had moved on to C++ by then. Adaptability (learning ability) is always more valuable than excellence at a particular skill as long as your job isn't entirely static. Manual cow-milking is a good example of a static job -- the cows don't change so the job doesn't change. Nothing in technology is static. And I didn't learn gaming math in college, I learned it afterwards, on my own, because I wanted to. Learning how to learn and think clearly is more important than almost anything else for virtually every 18-21 year old in the US economy. Without that ability to think clearly, you end up with idiot senators bringing snowballs to Congress as proof that climate change doesn't exist.
You did exactly what I said one should do and then you said how strongly you disagreed with what I said.
You studied something that could end up being a career (business was an example, not the be all end all of it...) and learned how to think in the process by taking courses over a broad range of subjects (the strong minor or even double major I mentioned would allow one to be well studied in a particular area). I am sure you didn't use your degree exactly as you thought you would in an ever-changing field, but the computer science courses taught you basics that helped you easily learn new things in the field. Learning to learn is part of the whole package.
You also aren't really free to study whatever with no repercussions in college--using a whole lot of future resources to get a degree in fields where there aren't a lot of jobs or opportunities to use the degree is probably not the best use of college loans or even government grants. Most people do go to college to get a better job in the end...not just to become better thinkers. That part is just part of the process. The dirty little secret is that more than a few (like your Senators, for example) don't really learn to think. They learn to pass.
Quote: MathExtremistJust like your intelligent conclusions on evolution, including the part about drowned bears turning into fish? Your so-called "common sense" doesn't cut it where actual science is concerned.
For someone who says they went to college to learn to think, you have really missed it. My point of bears becoming fish was satire to point out your completely closed mind to a theory, namely Intelligent Design. My point is that new species do not just pop up from nowhere, something must drive it to happen, Spontaneous Generation was disproved by scientific methods. We do not know why life formed. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.
Quote:You call me elitist (for what, valuing education?), but I call you a hypocrite for thinking that knowledge work isn't as worthwhile as physical labor. That's your own personal elitism. And you've dedicated a significant portion of your past few weeks to denigrating the educations of a meaningful percentage of the US population, and generally denigrating liberal arts education overall. In your own way, that's as elitist as it gets -- you think you're "better than" all those liberal arts majors just because you have a business degree and you've chosen to pursue money as a life goal. Good for you, but your priorities aren't shared by everyone. And I'm glad for that -- if everyone were as narrowly-focused as you are on money as the sole source of life's worth, there'd be no firefighters or school teachers.
Once again, you are missing the point. I have been saying that college is not the best option for half or more of the college-age population. College takes 4 years and currently 50 grand or more. Most office work could be taught in six months or less at a fraction of that cost. Phone manners, computer skills, how to behave, etc. I would like it if a University of Phoenix type school could get with the largest employers and design such a course of study. Then certify it, then promise to interview from that pool. The skills would be such that smaller employers would accept the standards set and see the value. It would save a ton of money,
As to your idea on liberal arts majors and there being things more important than money, fine. Then tell them to quit crying about how much they pay for their school loans. As to people not going into teaching or firefighting for the money, I am afraid you did not learn much street sense from all those fancy liberal arts classes.
Quote: MichaelBluejayLet's be clear here: It doesn't matter to me one bit whether someone completed college or not. The *actual* issue for me is that when someone can't even correctly spell simple three-letter words (e.g., they can't differentiate homonyms I learned in third grade), then it's pretty hard to take their arguments seriously. And, it's not surprising that it's the people who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag who are the ones making the most ridiculous arguments. Coincidence? I think not.
There are a lot of complete idiots out there with great education credentials (not necessarily great educations) who write a whole lot of bullshit extremely well.
I'd rather someone have a decent position that they can defend even if they misuse a word or punctuation every once in a while.
Quote: AZDuffman. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.
.
LOL
Religious fanatics insisting that scientists need to consider a make believe being residing in the sky or unknown dimension.
How about scientology and Xenu, the intergalactic warlord that dropped beings onto the planet Earth from a spaceship millions of years ago.
No less valid then intelligent design
Yup, scientists need to look into xenu
Why stop at intelligent design or Xenu.
Shouldn't scientists look into the thousands of religions out there and examine all the crack pot theories about some figment of their imagination creating Man.
Hey, scientists need to look into the greek gods, maybe they started mankind
Just as valid as Xenu or intelligent design by an imaginary being
Save it for the church. Does not belong in the classroom.
I agree with AD that there are many kids who should not go to college that do. But I'll agree more with MB and ME that the value to the majority who go to college can't be simply measured in dollars and cents.
I studied comp sci because I was interested in it, not because I wanted a career as a software engineer. It's the same reason I studied Chaucer or played in the jazz band -- for interest, not visions of commercial profit. There may be many 18 year olds who know exactly what they want to do when they grow up, but I wasn't one of them. I certainly didn't think I'd be a gaming mathematician. If I had had my heart set on that back then I would have done things differently in college, and also gotten a Ph.D. I've been accused more than once of being unqualified because I "only" have a bachelor's degree.Quote: RonCYou did exactly what I said one should do and then you said how strongly you disagreed with what I said.
But again you're judging the "best use of college loans" by their financial ROI. I contend that's an inappropriate metric. Learning to think critically is almost always a predicate to getting a better job, and there too "better job" includes more than just money. You can make an awful lot of money doing some pretty menial jobs these days, but nobody goes to college to learn how to park cars or drive a garbage truck. Look, I'm not advocating for just completely screwing off in college, doing whatever you want with no thought to future planning or economic self-sufficiency. But neither am I suggesting that the best course is to identify the highest paying job you can get and take courses to get it. Someone like Senator Inhofe who comes out of college with a good job/career clearly didn't go there to learn to think. Maybe he went there to learn to evangelize. Behold, the holy snowball that disproves climate change.Quote:You also aren't really free to study whatever with no repercussions in college--using a whole lot of future resources to get a degree in fields where there aren't a lot of jobs or opportunities to use the degree is probably not the best use of college loans or even government grants. Most people do go to college to get a better job in the end...not just to become better thinkers. That part is just part of the process. The dirty little secret is that more than a few (like your Senators, for example) don't really learn to think. They learn to pass.
There are so, so many things wrong with this. First of all, you're using the egregious logical fallacy of the false dichotomy -- namely that if Spontaneous Generation is disproved, there is no other explanation but Intelligent Design. That's false logic. And it's also false facts: if you had studied biology, or had even bothered to look it up, you would know that biologists have observed speciation in real-time:Quote: AZDuffmanFor someone who says they went to college to learn to think, you have really missed it. My point of bears becoming fish was satire to point out your completely closed mind to a theory, namely Intelligent Design. My point is that new species do not just pop up from nowhere, something must drive it to happen, Spontaneous Generation was disproved by scientific methods. We do not know why life formed. An intelligent, thinking person would at least consider some kind of Intelligent Design, but your mind being closed on the subject, some satire was used.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
And it's not satire to try to disprove a theory by using nonsensical examples that have nothing to do with that theory. That's just idiocy. No scientist has ever said that drowning a bear turns it into a fish. But you said drowning a bear turns it into a fish, and then you said "see, science can't explain that, so Intelligent Design must be true!" That's such blatant illogic that it's embarrassing.
And if you're such an intelligent, thinking person, why have you not intelligently considered that your particular flavor of Intelligent Design is the only one you accept? Why do you not accept the theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see and feel? On what scientific basis do you accept one theory but reject the other? Why aren't you being "open-minded" and "considering all theories"?
It's a trick question, there is no scientific basis to distinguish the two, because neither are testable scientific theories. You just don't have the courage to admit that your concept of Intelligent Design is nothing more than thinly-veiled evangelism and a shameful attempt to insert religious indoctrination into grade school classrooms. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
You didn't fully comprehend my theological comment from before. Science will never expand to include the untestable. That's just not possible, any more than ten will expand to include eleven. But likewise, faith in a deity -- dealing as it does with the ineffable -- should not expand to include the testable. If you can test God, you can disprove God, and you don't want your religious community in a position where God is not just disbelieved but disproven. Don't just take my word for that, ask your clergy. When you say "science can't explain speciation, therefore God did it" and then science explains speciation, the natural conclusion is that God didn't do it. If you conclude "God didn't do it" enough times, then you get to "God didn't do any of it." Is that really where you want to be?
Quote: terapinedLOL
Religious fanatics insisting that scientists need to consider a make believe being residing in the sky or unknown dimension.
How about scientology and Xenu, the intergalactic warlord that dropped beings onto the planet Earth from a spaceship millions of years ago.
No less valid then intelligent design
Yup, scientists need to look into xenu
Why stop at intelligent design or Xenu.
Shouldn't scientists look into the thousands of religions out there and examine all the crack pot theories about some figment of their imagination creating Man.
Hey, scientists need to look into the greek gods, maybe they started mankind
Just as valid as Xenu or intelligent design by an imaginary being
Save it for the church. Does not belong in the classroom.
Funny. For all the mind building you said your degree gave you this shows none of it.
I have heard more than one science person credit "Mother Nature" for many things. Maybe you could at least consider such a position instead of letting your hate for religion blind you so.
Quote: SOOPOOThere are 2 different reasons to go to college, that of course overlap quite a bit. There is the "It is so that I can get a job" reason, but there is also the "It will help me grow as a person" reason. When I was applying for colleges, I was definitely in the first camp. I knew I would have a better chance to get into Med School from a 'better' college, hence I went to Columbia. My oldest son was in the second camp. He had no idea what he wanted to do for a career, and he was very well rounded, hence he went to the 'best' college that was strong in both the arts and sciences (Carnegie Mellon). He found his calling (Entomology) early on in college, but then took as many extra classes (Philosophy, eg.) as he could. His senior year he took way more credits than he needed to to graduate, maturely stating that he will never have this opportunity again. My younger son wanted to be a journalist. So he went to the best Journalism school he could get into (Missouri). It could have been looked at as a 'trade' school. Interestingly, he didn't like journalism, switched to Computer Programming, and got a job in his field directly from college.
I agree with AD that there are many kids who should not go to college that do. But I'll agree more with MB and ME that the value to the majority who go to college can't be simply measured in dollars and cents.
CMU is unusual in that regard. Their computer department produced all kinds of things but the drama department gave us Lenny and Squiggy
Yeah, and when they can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag *and* their positions are preposterous... (two things which usually go hand in hand)Quote: RonCThere are a lot of complete idiots out there with great education credentials (not necessarily great educations) who write a whole lot of bullshit extremely well.
I'd rather someone have a decent position that they can defend even if they misuse a word or punctuation every once in a while.
Considering global warming, one might keep in mind that every generation has had prophets of doom and they've all been wrong.
But you become a fool when you use these mechanisms as a path to just believing whatever makes you feel good, and to ignore all inconvenient evidence and expertise. Global warming isn't predicated on an invisible being punishing us for not sacrificing enough goats, but upon observable changes to the world, which differentiates it from past prophesies of doom.
Just because a concept like evolution is difficult to grasp and you don't like it, doesn't mean it is illegitimate.
But I'm a terrible speller, so what do I know?
Or Lowes workers and shoppers are just uneducated racists. Time will tell.
Quote: BozWas wearing my "Make America Great Again" hat to Lowes today to buy some yard supplies. Received multiple compliments from customers and employees (male and female) and was asked where I purchased it. May not be a scientific sampling but to me these are everyday Americans, and are willing to admit they like Trump.
Or Lowes workers and shoppers are just uneducated racists. Time will tell.
1.) Everyday Americans who are willing to admit they like Trump
2.) Uneducated racists
These are not mutually exclusive. They could be both.
The report, which you can read in its entirety here, badly complicates Clinton's past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication. And it virtually ensures that Clinton's email practices will be front and center in Donald Trump's fusillade of attacks against her credibility and honesty between now and Nov. 8.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/?tid=a_inl
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/arrest-and-prosecute-donald-j-trump-incitement-violence-legal-precedent-brandenburg-v-ohio
Quote: RigondeauxRuh Roh.
The report, which you can read in its entirety here, badly complicates Clinton's past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication. And it virtually ensures that Clinton's email practices will be front and center in Donald Trump's fusillade of attacks against her credibility and honesty between now and Nov. 8.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/?tid=a_inl
If Clinton gets indicted by the FBI - that's a ruh roh.
Everything else is just noise. This changes nothing in the minds of Hillary haters or Hillary supporters.
Quote: ams288If Clinton gets indicted by the FBI - that's a ruh roh.
Everything else is just noise. This changes nothing in the minds of Hillary haters or Hillary supporters.
Seems to me, even if Hillary was out, Bernie, who is more popular (and populist) would likely take her delegates.
Since I don't actually believe Bernie could get his most leftist ideas to pass, I'm not opposed to voting for him if he were the one left standing. I also think he's a realist when push comes to shove. so not that concerned that he is too out there. Win win.
Quote: rxwineSeems to me, even if Hillary was out, Bernie, who is more popular (and populist) would likely take her delegates.
Since I don't actually believe Bernie could get his most leftist ideas to pass, I'm not opposed to voting for him if he were the one left standing. I also think he's a realist when push comes to shove. so not that concerned that he is too out there. Win win.
Exactly. Hillary gets indicted?
Superdelegates can shift to Bernie and push him over the nomination threshold.
Bernie beats Trump.
Easy.
If you want to make it a scientific sampling, put on a Feel The Bern hat and go back to Lowes. Then repeat the two hats experiment at Pottery Barn.Quote: BozWas wearing my "Make America Great Again" hat to Lowes today to buy some yard supplies. Received multiple compliments from customers and employees (male and female) and was asked where I purchased it. May not be a scientific sampling but to me these are everyday Americans, and are willing to admit they like Trump.
Or Lowes workers and shoppers are just uneducated racists. Time will tell.
And then, let's be fair, your sampling is hardly a geographically diverse one. You have to repeat your experiment in Las Vegas, then Anchorage, Boca Raton, Fargo, Louisville, Lubbock, both Portlands, the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Not everybody who supports Trump is an uneducated racist. Trump himself is a racist, but he's not uneducated. But racism is the least of my concerns with Trump's stated and reasonably-inferred policy positions, which basically all boil down to "I'm going to do whatever I perceive to be in my best interests, regardless of the consequences for anyone else." Putting someone with that philosophy in charge of the US government seems like a really bad idea.
"... that this nation, under Donald J. Trump, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, and for Donald J. Trump, shall not perish from the earth."
Of course, it is big news when a Trump thug (yeah, he has them, too...but they have been quieter of late) does something wrong. The NBC folks pretty much showed pictures of bad behavior and did not really call them out for it on the Today show this morning, They were too busy getting in their jabs at Trump.
Quote: RonCOf course, it is big news when a Trump thug (yeah, he has them, too...but they have been quieter of late) does something wrong.
Because he said he'd pay their legal fees.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you want to make it a scientific sampling, put on a Feel The Bern hat and go back to Lowes. Then repeat the two hats experiment at Pottery Barn.
And then, let's be fair, your sampling is hardly a geographically diverse one. You have to repeat your experiment in Las Vegas, then Anchorage, Boca Raton, Fargo, Louisville, Lubbock, both Portlands, the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Not everybody who supports Trump is an uneducated racist. Trump himself is a racist, but he's not uneducated. But racism is the least of my concerns with Trump's stated and reasonably-inferred policy positions, which basically all boil down to "I'm going to do whatever I perceive to be in my best interests, regardless of the consequences for anyone else." Putting someone with that philosophy in charge of the US government seems like a really bad idea.
"... that this nation, under Donald J. Trump, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, and for Donald J. Trump, shall not perish from the earth."
Calling someone a racist is a serious charge. Can you explain why you believe he is?
I said it was not scientific at all, but some of the people who liked the hat were they type the media would have you believe would never vote for Trump. Young female working at Lowes should be a Bernie or Hillary supporter. Again maybe she is not speaking for others but it warms my heart that there are some out there.
And I would expect to get a lot of grief or worse if I walked through downtown Baltimore with it.
Quote: RonCI see that the peaceful protesters were out in force in New Mexico. I am all for peaceful protest, of course, but I think that ends when you start jumping on cop cars and breaking windows. There is a thug element in the protest movement--you know the ones who protest everything and contribute nothing to society--that threatens the legitimacy of every protest they are involved in.
Of course, it is big news when a Trump thug (yeah, he has them, too...but they have been quieter of late) does something wrong. The NBC folks pretty much showed pictures of bad behavior and did not really call them out for it on the Today show this morning, They were too busy getting in their jabs at Trump.
Which is why the silent majority is joining with Trump. The media will be a large part of why he won, if he does in November. CNN cut a person off yesterday when they brought up Bill Clinton settling with Paula Jones. They don't want people knowing that, hurts the view they are pushing.
Quote: BozWas wearing my "Make America Great Again" hat to Lowes today to buy some yard supplies. Received multiple compliments from customers and employees (male and female) and was asked where I purchased it. May not be a scientific sampling but to me these are everyday Americans, and are willing to admit they like Trump.
Or Lowes workers and shoppers are just uneducated racists. Time will tell.
Shoppers at Lowes are manly men and the women who like the same, easy to see why they like Trump,
So let me see if I got this straight. Mexicans who are angry that Trump called some Mexicans criminals go out and cause a violent riot?
How is he being a racist again?
:Quote: MathExtremistThere are so, so many things wrong with this. First of all, you're using the egregious logical fallacy of the false dichotomy -- namely that if Spontaneous Generation is disproved, there is no other explanation but Intelligent Design. That's false logic.
I never said "there is no other possibility." I keep saying that you have to *consider* Intelligent Design, You cannot really be intelligent without considering it to be quite honest. It is quite a simple concept, really. Life forms cannot be infinite. We know this because we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old. So it had to form from somewhere. Why did it not form on any of the other 8 (I am grandfathering Pluto) planets? Should be just as much chance. And just because science sees *that* life might evolve in real time, it does not know *why* this is. Your religion (atheism) is blinding you to a huge solution to what has made the earth happen. You decry "fundamentalists" yet you are one yourself.
Quote:And if you're such an intelligent, thinking person, why have you not intelligently considered that your particular flavor of Intelligent Design is the only one you accept? Why do you not accept the theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see and feel? On what scientific basis do you accept one theory but reject the other? Why aren't you being "open-minded" and "considering all theories"?
Read what I wrote above.
Meanwhile, in other news, I heard on a podcast today a stat that college enrollment after peaking in 2010 has fallen by about 800,000 since. Maybe people are waking up to the idea that it is not one-size-fits-all and taking a different path. Or they do not want to sell themselves to debt serfdom for decades on so many false promises. No matter what, an early sign that the system must change,
Quote: AZDuffmanAnti-Trump protests turn violent outside New Mexico rally
I don't know why those idiots were even protesting to begin with. Trump is currently a private citizen with zero political power. He is powerless against the people protesting him.
Then again, we live in a country where people start violent riots when their favorite sports team WINS a game. Tell me what sense THAT makes??
Quote: ams288Rumor has it the bookies are going to start favoring Trump to win in November based on Boz's enlightening Lowes anecdote.
Rumor has it bookies just adjust a line based on action to keep bets in balance. Rumor also has it most of their bets come from coutries outside the USA as POTUS betting is illegal here.
Quote: AZDuffmanRumor has it bookies just adjust a line based on action to keep bets in balance. Rumor also has it most of their bets come from coutries outside the USA as POTUS betting is illegal here.
Tell that to EvenBob.
He says they'll soon start favoring Trump because of a few polls showing him competitive with Hillary....
Quote: ams288Tell that to EvenBob.
He says they'll soon start favoring Trump because of a few polls showing him competitive with Hillary....
You tell him. He and I are both for the candidate of alpha males and not the one of the Omegas.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou tell him. He and I are both for the candidate of alpha males and not the one of the Omegas.
I would, but he blocked me.
He hates being told the truth.
Quote: ams288I would, but he blocked me.
Does that tell you something?
Quote: AZDuffmanDoes that tell you something?
That he hates being told the truth (like I said above, but you edited out of the quote).
Quote: ams288That he hates being told the truth (like I said above, but you edited out of the quote).
Bob does talk to liberals all the time. Would there be a reason he blocked you?
Quote: ams288Because he said he'd pay their legal fees.
Interesting non-point. Shouldn't violence on EITHER side be unacceptable and reported as such by the news folks? It is to me--be it a Trump thug or a whatever the hell they are thug...
