Yes but a president who knows nothing about everything would be new territory.
The party of PhDs?
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
Unlike our current pres, who knows everything about everything, but has no leadership skills, and has surrounded himself with neophytes.
Last edited:
Having thin skin and the ability to compromise with those of differing political views is an underrated trait in a President.
He complains about Congress not agreeing with him. Their job is not to be a rubber stamp.
Dictators make edicts for all to follow.
Just because he might have a good idea, doesn't make it law. It must go through Congress first.
It's part of the "Checks and Balance" detailed in the CONSTITUTION.
He didn't even play nice with Congress when the dems controlled both the House and Senate.
He lacks LEADERSHIP!
Dictators make edicts for all to follow.
Just because he might have a good idea, doesn't make it law. It must go through Congress first.
It's part of the "Checks and Balance" detailed in the CONSTITUTION.
He didn't even play nice with Congress when the dems controlled both the House and Senate.
He lacks LEADERSHIP!
Obama could have proposed massive tax cuts for the middle class and put cut social programs and congress would have still gone against him. That's the way the game goes these days. The other team always wants to be the 'winning' team.
Compromise became a dirty word during W's tenure. I don't know that the Democrats did much to change that during Obama's presidency. But I don't think the Democrats are equally at fault on that issue. Though I am a republican, I would lay it 70% on the Republicans. The Republicans have become extremists and the Democrats can't play ball if the Republicans don't want to. I do think the Democratic party has swung further left. The Democrats are defensive and that is partly their fault, but it is also somewhat out of necessity in today's toxic environment.
The most public recent example of PHDs versus the real world I can recall was with Obamacare. The PHDs were certain that hospitals and other health care providers would drop prices due to having to absorb less cost from less uninsured patients. This drop would then be passed along by the insurance companies in the form of lower premiums. Non-PHDs who understood how business actually works knew that the health care marketplace is not driven by prices nor are prices even offered in most cases. Thus, there is no incentive for health care providers to drop prices which results in no drop in premiums.
Well, I suppose it's good that they at least made an effort to overhaul the system. There was, prior to obsmacare, clearly a problem in the health care sector, specifically in relation to the poor. That problem wasn't completely fixed but at least it was helped a bit.
I didn't hear any realistic proposals from the conservative base on how to solve health care issues. All that kept being pushed was esentially more privatization tax cuts. However, that was pretty much what we already have / had. The conservative side always wants to double down on Keynesian economics when it's been tried and tried again and it just doesn't have the positive outcomes that are always promised when they're presented.
I didn't hear any realistic proposals from the conservative base on how to solve health care issues. All that kept being pushed was esentially more privatization tax cuts. However, that was pretty much what we already have / had. The conservative side always wants to double down on Keynesian economics when it's been tried and tried again and it just doesn't have the positive outcomes that are always promised when they're presented.
Good efforts are, I suppose, when a great team only beats you by 30 points and the line was 40. Obamacare has been a disaster and rates will be going up by a large amount next year. The roll out was absolutely awful.
It mostly put more people on Medicaid and cost many people who wanted to keep their old insurance more. Almost everyone saw copayments and deductibles rise.
It didn't bring those without insurance up to a better position as much as it brought many people working for small businesses down to less coverage at more cost.
Making an effort in itself is like getting a ribbon for participation. The current anger at government is directed at both parties. It will take more than saying "they at least made an effort" to restore faith in our government.
It mostly put more people on Medicaid and cost many people who wanted to keep their old insurance more. Almost everyone saw copayments and deductibles rise.
It didn't bring those without insurance up to a better position as much as it brought many people working for small businesses down to less coverage at more cost.
Making an effort in itself is like getting a ribbon for participation. The current anger at government is directed at both parties. It will take more than saying "they at least made an effort" to restore faith in our government.
On the other hand, it will take more than not making an effort, to restore faith in our government as well. The republican intelligentsia and especially non intelligentsia scream about getting rid of obamacare all time. I've yet to hear about any alternate plan to replace it that isn't just a bunch of nebulous campaign promises with no substance. I'm tired of hearing people bitch about Obamacare, without hearing about some new ideas to fix the problem. Our healthcare was no shining city on a hill, otherwise we wouldn't have Obamacare. It was already a huge sink drain budget problem now it is just a worse one. And when I say budget, I mean personal, state, local, federal, across the board. I've heard bout a simple yet effective and almost painless solution to make SS solvent, yet I hear nothing about health care.
Last edited:
The ACA was sold based on lies and total fabrications. Imagine if Ford came out tomorrow with a Ad blitz about the F150 that was a blatant lie about a material aspect of the vehicle and the lie was repeated over and over in order to convince people to buy the product. There would be congressional inquiries and likely charges brought by the Justice Dept.
Sadly the cost of Obamacare was placed squarely on an already struggling middle class.
Sadly the cost of Obamacare was placed squarely on an already struggling middle class.
Don't forget that the opposition was based on lies and fabrications as well. "Obama's creating death panels" "you won't get to keep your doctor" and so on and so forth....also, the states that seem to be complaining the most about rising insurance costs are the ones that refused the Medicaid expansion.
Maybe if everyone would have tried to sit down and craft a real solution it would have been perceived better. Instead, it was the period when the republican aisles of congress began their anti-Obama obstructionist policy in earnest. They presented no true alternatives.
It was kind of like Tulsa having to play the Sooners but only the offense decides that they want to play. The defense sat on the bench pointing out how bad a job the offense was doing without stepping foot on the field to lend a hand.
What exactly about that highlighted statement is untrue? As someone (along with my employees) who lost their insurance and subsequently their doctor when the group didn't accept the new provider I can unequivocally state that the above statement was true.
I don't really care about the states who are complaining. I care about the middle class whose footing the bill. Our company's policy was part of a small business group plan. Many of these plans were eliminated by the ACA. Millions of middle class small business employees suffered the same fate and are no longer able to take advantage of group rates. It's a wonderful situation.
I was referring to the system of awarding awards as a reward (pun). The awards mentioned (with the exception of the Nobel prizes for science/medicine only) are completely subjective such as the academy awards, emmy's, Pulitzer's. That is the group think referred to. For instance George C Scott's performance in Patton was one of the greats, but he turned down the award because he felt it was dishonest to award it/them on the basis of personal preference and politics. The other glaring example of the Nobel was Obama's Peace Prize for - doing zilch other than being elected. So imo there is a component of group-think/popularity involved in many of these awards and too much politics. It's a way of encouraging friends and colleagues and even a way to engender more money when a book or movie advertises the awards on their poster or cover.
I didn't see that DeCaprio movie he won the award for, but the first thing I thought when he was nominated was (he is being rewarded by the lieberals in Hollywood for his politics more than his performance). But of course, I exclude him in my mind BECAUSE of his politics. But my view of his work is subjective as well.
Show business getting all dolled up and awarding itself trophies is really something.
I'll watch some red carpet sure, but I really can't handle how collectively proud they are of themselves.
I'll watch some red carpet sure, but I really can't handle how collectively proud they are of themselves.
In another year, I'm not even sure Patton would have won many Oscars. If you look at the competition it faced from other films, it was pretty light. The MASH movie and Jack Nicholson's Five Easy Pieces were the only other contenders that year. Look at a couple of years later in 1974, you had the sting, american graffiti, the exorcist, last tango in paris, serpico, and the way we were. All in one year. Patton is pretty good but only if you're into that sort of movie.
Leo was nominated (and won) not because of his politics, but because he had 10 or so performances that deserved to be rewarded and weren't.
In light of schools abolishing graduate valedictorian, etc, hollywood should abolish it's award shows, . . .
You're reinforcing my point that the "award system" as designed is completely subjective and has more to do with a person's (and voter's) individual preference rather than some well defined criteria. Saying that one movie is better than the other or that one actor's performance is better is completely in the eye of the beholder. But I do like your knowledge of the movies. That's one thing both of us must have in common. We have a collection of over 1,200 DVD's in the rabid household and its just a hobby we enjoy, just like posting on rivals.
I always love it when the libs trot out how dumb bush was/is... Yet we have never seen bho's transcrpits from Columbia...
But that aside. I met W. back when he was running for TX governors office the first time. He was not an overpowering presence but I got the impression that he would be a formidable opponent in Texas Holdem.
But that aside. I met W. back when he was running for TX governors office the first time. He was not an overpowering presence but I got the impression that he would be a formidable opponent in Texas Holdem.
Well, considering Bush's legacy... I'd say it reflects most poorly on the people that voted for him. Twice. I'm just glad I wasn't on that side.
Another thing we share. I have stated several times on this site I have never voted for a Bush and wouldn't have voted for Jeb. But I haven't always been a Republican either nor a conservative. I chose those out of conviction. As long as they do not change under Trump I will support them, but may also stay home in November or just vote for Bridenstine ----- again.
Different between hrc and dt;
Dt shoots from the hip. Not always pc.
HRC bases her opinion on polls and POPULAR peer pressure. Always pc. Not what she really believes
Dt shoots from the hip. Not always pc.
HRC bases her opinion on polls and POPULAR peer pressure. Always pc. Not what she really believes
Last edited:
That's BS of the highest degree. Trump is the one that's always trotting out polls. He's also flip-flopped on just about EVERY issue there is to pander to whichever demographic will get him elected.
I'm not saying Hillary doesn't pander too, but Trump is just a glorified used car salesman. "He shoots from the hip. SOMETIMES HE MIGHT EVEN SAY A SWEAR! We should buy a civic from him. Or maybe a timeshare."
Trump just wants to close the deal. All sales are final.
If you don't think Donald Trump is basing his campaign off of polls and popular opinion then you are sadly mistaken. He just appeals to the baser more repulsive instincts in working class Republicans. I guarantee that was why he took just a little bit longer than necessary decrying David Duke. Then he looks 'semi-ok', but still keeps the racist element of the population on his side. He is walking a dangerous line of 'not pollitically correct' for all the wrong reasons. It is not just because he shoots from the hip. I would venture to say that his campaign has been premeditated almost from the start. A lot more of the offensive things he said are probably loosely scripted, and not so much from the hip as one might assume. I guarantee you his campaign crew has a few hollywood script writers amongst the political hoi polloi that he pulled out from under a rock. His campaign is not exactly his views or beliefs either.
Last edited:
Hrc stance:
Works for womens issues. Ran the bimbo assault on all of bill's girls.
Just recently favored gay marriage.
Claims to be just part of the middle class while making $300,000.00 - $600,000.00 per speach.
. . .
Works for womens issues. Ran the bimbo assault on all of bill's girls.
Just recently favored gay marriage.
Claims to be just part of the middle class while making $300,000.00 - $600,000.00 per speach.
. . .
They could both be cast in The Wizard of Oz. DT could be the Wizard. HRC could be Elmira Gulch/the wicked witch.
bs could be munchkin town mayor.
bs could be munchkin town mayor.
Trump reversed so quickly today on yesterday's statement that he'd "love to debate Bernie" that it almost gave me whiplash. I'm waiting for him to change position mid presidential debate one of the days.
Mod: "Mr. Trump, will you build a wall?"
Trump: "I'll build the biggest wall, the best wall you've ever seen"
Mod: "Thank you Mr. Trump. We'll be right back after these messages, when we'll again hear from Mr. Trump; this time on foreign policy."
Geico commercial plays...
Mod: " ... And we're back! Mr trump could you please enlighten us as to your plans for America's state of nuclear affairs"
Trump: "well, first off... you know that thing I said before the break about the wall? Scratch that. No wall. We will be wall-less"
Mod: "Mr. Trump, will you build a wall?"
Trump: "I'll build the biggest wall, the best wall you've ever seen"
Mod: "Thank you Mr. Trump. We'll be right back after these messages, when we'll again hear from Mr. Trump; this time on foreign policy."
Geico commercial plays...
Mod: " ... And we're back! Mr trump could you please enlighten us as to your plans for America's state of nuclear affairs"
Trump: "well, first off... you know that thing I said before the break about the wall? Scratch that. No wall. We will be wall-less"
Yeah this is not the year to be shaming people about not voting. Whatever graduation speech Obama gave recently that hit on that...it's not the year for that message.
Refusing to vote can be a statement of your civic duty too.
