Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1854584 wrote:I don't believe you find this stunning at all. What Trump wrote is consistent with what you already know about him - there's no "there" there. What he wrote - that's all he's got. I really don't believe you thought he'd pen something profound, did you?
  
  I can only imagine what he's saying to these leaders this week.

  Personally, no I am not stunned anymore. We elected a complete moron as President.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Lol. Since when did you turn into a giant *****, sleeper?
  
  Oh noes! I'm embarrassed by how little thought trump put into a holocaust memorial guest book! Oh noes!
• Heretic

  

  SportsAndLady;1854606 wrote:Lol. Since when did you turn into a giant *****, sleeper?
  
  Oh noes! I'm embarrassed by how little thought trump put into a holocaust memorial guest book! Oh noes!

  It's Rule #1 from the Emulate QQ handbook. Be a little bitch about everything, whether it's remotely significant or just frivolous bullshit.
• isadore

  like_that;1854000 wrote:Or she would prefer a system where our dumbass government doesn't make it difficult for her offspring (and then theirs and so forth) to afford a college education..

  gosh a ruddies, you of course prefer the good old days before government programs like land grant colleges and the GI Bill when post secondary education was only for a small rich elite.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1854624 wrote:gosh a ruddies, you of course prefer the good old days before government programs like land grant colleges and the GI Bill when post secondary education was only for a small rich elite.

  In the mid-1800s, Brown University cost $75 per year, and Harvard was about $150 per year. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $3,000 and $6,000 per year, respectively and contemporarily.
  
  I pay about that annually in paying back my student loans, most of which goes toward interest.
  
  Yeah, who wants to go back to that? Sounds like it's only for the rich, amirite?
• gut

  O-Trap;1854640 wrote:In the mid-1800s, Brown University cost $75 per year, and Harvard was about $150 per year. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $3,000 and $6,000 per year, respectively and contemporarily.

  So crazy. And Harvard has a nearly $40B endowment....but only the poor and the rich can afford to go there.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1854640 wrote:In the mid-1800s, Brown University cost $75 per year, and Harvard was about $150 per year. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $3,000 and $6,000 per year, respectively and contemporarily.
  
  I pay about that annually in paying back my student loans, most of which goes toward interest.
  
  Yeah, who wants to go back to that? Sounds like it's only for the rich, amirite?

  gosh a ruddies, in the mid 1800s a college education was needed for what. Did Lincoln, Carnegie or Rockefeller go anywhere near a College?
  To be a doctor, no, a lawyer no, an engineer, no, hell not even a scientist, what was the main thing colleges produced back then Ministers. Universities really grew in the modern form beginning later in the 19th century following the German University Model. Land Grant Universities also began teaching more useable skills.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1854645 wrote:gosh a ruddies, in the mid 1800s a college education was needed for what. Did Lincoln, Carnegie or Rockefeller go anywhere near a College?
  To be a doctor, no, a lawyer no, an engineer, no, hell not even a scientist, what was the main thing colleges produced back then Ministers. Universities really grew in the modern form beginning later in the 19th century following the German University Model. Land Grant Universities also began teaching more useable skills.

  Why do you suppose a college degree is necessary?
  
  Because enough people were getting them that it became prudent to add that as a hiring requirement.
  
  As for the notion that ministers were the primary recipient, that wouldn't be reflected by the curriculum of that time (though there is indeed historical precedent for those in ministry placing a great deal of important in knowing more about the world, equating it to a way of worshiping God). Moreover, college was not a requirement of being a member in the clergy. It still isn't.
  
  It's true that colleges and universities have become more like job training facilities (more or less, glorified technical schools), which then gave rise to employers being able to use it as another hurdle by which they could whittle down groups of candidates, thereby bolstering the reality of a college degree being a requirement for a career that would sustain you and possibly your household.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1854651 wrote:Why do you suppose a college degree is necessary?
  
  Because enough people were getting them that it became prudent to add that as a hiring requirement.
  
  As for the notion that ministers were the primary recipient, that wouldn't be reflected by the curriculum of that time (though there is indeed historical precedent for those in ministry placing a great deal of important in knowing more about the world, equating it to a way of worshiping God). Moreover, college was not a requirement of being a member in the clergy. It still isn't.
  
  It's true that colleges and universities have become more like job training facilities (more or less, glorified technical schools), which then gave rise to employers being able to use it as another hurdle by which they could whittle down groups of candidates, thereby bolstering the reality of a college degree being a requirement for a career that would sustain you and possibly your household.

  gosh a ruddies, you picked the 1850 with your low costs of $150 yearly tuition. Of course average yearly income was about just over a year in country where a large portion of the population are subsistence farmers. And 15% of the people were slaves.
  The preponderance of colleges were established by churches and their major function at the time was to produce ministers.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I would argue that while religion was a mainstay of college education in the 1800's, that it wasn't the predominant reason for college in the US during that time. We've got to keep in mind that the merchant class was burgeoning, industry was booming so average courses included specifics for that, the medical field was becoming evermore specialized also.
  Plus Isadore, THE SLAVE OWNING PLANTER CLASS often went to college as a matter of course :RpS_w00t:
  
  At any rate, the average college had courses such as the one below, according to the UPenn archives:
  

  Once admitted, all students followed the standard four-year course schedule, as also described in the University Catalogue, 1851-1852. Much of the instruction focused on classical languages and literature; moral philosophy and religion; ancient and modern history; algebra, geometry and calculus. Subjects of a more contemporary nature included constitutional law, mechanics, chemistry, optics, electricity and magnetism. Instruction in modern languages were available for an extra fee.

  http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/1800s/1852/curriculum.html
• isadore

  CenterBHSFan;1854660 wrote:I would argue that while religion was a mainstay of college education in the 1800's, that it wasn't the predominant reason for college in the US during that time. We've got to keep in mind that the merchant class was burgeoning, industry was booming so average courses included specifics for that, the medical field was becoming evermore specialized also.
  Plus Isadore, THE SLAVE OWNING PLANTER CLASS often went to college as a matter of course :RpS_w00t:
  
  At any rate, the average college had courses such as the one below, according to the UPenn archives:
  
  
  
  http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/1800s/1852/curriculum.html

  1. The University you selected is hardly reflected of colleges at the time. It was started by Ben Franklin in the 1740s and was more reflective of his values and was non sectarian. Almost all other colleges were established to promote a particular sect and train its minister.
  2. But even at that despite your claims about a merchant class, the curriculum does little to reflect their skill set.
  3. The Plantation owners are exactly the type of elitist that could afford the education, Not the slaves or the subsistence white farmers who made up over 90% of southern population at the time.
• like_that

  

  https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
  
  Interesting read. Granted I was relatively young, but I vaguely recall Trump being articulate during the first few seasons of the apprentice. It crossed my mind during the election cycle on what the fuck happened to him.
• GOONx19

  

  like_that;1854687 wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
  
  Interesting read. Granted I was relatively young, but I vaguely recall Trump being articulate during the first few seasons of the apprentice. It crossed my mind during the election cycle on what the fuck happened to him.

  Good article. I don't think it's that unlikely that at his age he is suffering from some degree of cognitive decline. He's definitely a shitty speaker now.
• like_that

  

  GOONx19;1854711 wrote:Good article. I don't think it's that unlikely that at his age he is suffering from some degree of cognitive decline. He's definitely a shitty speaker now.

  True, there are other old politicians though that don't sound like complete morons. I think it is also a product of who you hang out with. Trump started his reality show and all of a sudden he went from speaking with intelligent 1%ers to speaking with fucking dipshit hollywood people.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1854657 wrote:gosh a ruddies, you picked the 1850 with your low costs of $150 yearly tuition.

  Of course I did. You brought up land grant colleges, so I went to the time prior to the Morrill Land Grant College Act. What time period would you prefer I use?
  

  isadore;1854657 wrote:Of course average yearly income was about just over a year in country where a large portion of the population are subsistence farmers. And 15% of the people were slaves.

  I have no objection to the problem raised regarding the inability of slaves to attend college. That's fair.
  
  However, the objection you raise regarding subsistence farmers really isn't a problem, because that sort of life precluded many of the conventional life expenses that we deem necessities in our current era, namely food and shelter (as many homes were lived in through multiple generations and did not require rent or mortgage payments nearly as often as today).
  
  Beyond that, we don't see a significant difference in the regard to yearly income comparisons to tuition. The two are inflated at about the same rate between then and now.
  

  isadore;1854657 wrote:The preponderance of colleges were established by churches and their major function at the time was to produce ministers.

  This is a false cause-effect. The fact that a college was established by churches does not necessitate that they're created for the purpose of producing ministers.
  
  Make no mistake. At the time the colleges were founded (before the time in which we're talking here, I should add), ministers WERE expected to be well-rounded, with adequate knowledge of sciences, mathematics, and philosophy. Ministers were held to a higher standard at the time than they are today in that regard.
  
  However, the overarching reason for both the start of colleges AND the insistence of well-rounded ministers was a high value placed on a well-rounded, well-educated populace. In essence, the churches saw a value in a well-educated population, and they insisted that the ministers in their local churches demonstrated that value. That doesn't, however, require the purpose of the college to be for the education of ministers at all. In fact, documented church history would show that assumption to be untrue.
  
  For example, the mid-1800s were after the Second Great Awakening, which did plant the seeds for devaluing a well-rounded education (including within their own clergy), but the schools in question were started prior to that, and that shift made the church's desire for a well-educated clergy almost nonexistent in some denominations. As such, for the time frame we're talking about, colleges really weren't for the purpose of educating the clergy, because it was no longer a priority to have such an educated clergy. For reference, see documentation on the revivals of Charles Finney and the Layman's Prayer Revival, which were major movements during the Second Great Awakening.
  

  isadore;1854667 wrote:1. The University you selected is hardly reflected of colleges at the time. It was started by Ben Franklin in the 1740s and was more reflective of his values and was non sectarian. Almost all other colleges were established to promote a particular sect and train its minister.

  I don't know if you actually looked at the link, but Penn is not pulling exclusively from its own history. It's merely the university aggregating the information on the swath of colleges at the time.
  

  isadore;1854667 wrote:2. But even at that despite your claims about a merchant class, the curriculum does little to reflect their skill set.

  This is true. As I said above, colleges were not glorified trade schools. You studied under an experienced person in the field you wished to enter for that sort of training. Colleges were for the purpose of helping bring about a well-rounded, well-educated population at large. College was optional and not connected to the ability to make a living at all.
  
  Frankly, given the level of education in many universities, I think there are elements of that model that are better than what we currently have. If students wish to attend college solely for the purpose of gaining the necessary knowledge for a career, perhaps we should instead be pursuing a wider variety of trade schools as opposed to four-year universities, where the students often do not have much interest in half the classes they take.
  
  If our goal is to allow more people to receive the necessary education for a career, why not have two-year schools for things like accounting, business, medicine, etc? It would make achieving that much cheaper, lowering the financial bar and allowing more people to achieve that sort of education without going into obscene amounts of debt.
  

  isadore;1854667 wrote:3. The Plantation owners are exactly the type of elitist that could afford the education, Not the slaves or the subsistence white farmers who made up over 90% of southern population at the time.

  True of the slaves, and again, that was certainly a problem (though I would submit that there were other inhibitors to slaves attending college beyond the cost). However, the subsistence farmers didn't deal with the sorts of everyday expenses we deal with today, and as such, it wouldn't have been as out-of-reach to them as you're implying. It simply wasn't important, because a college education wasn't the sort of thing that lent itself to a better career.
• QuakerOats

  like_that;1854687 wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
  
  Interesting read. Granted I was relatively young, but I vaguely recall Trump being articulate during the first few seasons of the apprentice. It crossed my mind during the election cycle on what the fuck happened to him.

  
  Interesting. And the twitter bite world doesn't help.
• gut

  like_that;1854687 wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
  
  Interesting read. Granted I was relatively young, but I vaguely recall Trump being articulate during the first few seasons of the apprentice.

  Articulate is never a word I've associated with Trump.
  
  And don't forget, on The Apprentice he had the benefit of scripted dialogue and multiple takes, along with editing.
• like_that

  

  gut;1854876 wrote:Articulate is never a word I've associated with Trump.
  
  And don't forget, on The Apprentice he had the benefit of scripted dialogue and multiple takes, along with editing.

  True, but watch the short clips in the article. It's not even comparable to the Trump we see now.
• Automatik

  

  Reminds me of Bush when people were pushing the dementia angle.
• gut

  like_that;1854889 wrote:True, but watch the short clips in the article. It's not even comparable to the Trump we see now.

  I don't see a major difference in the clips. Same comparatively limited vocabulary, same repetitive phrasing and overuse of adverbs.
  
  Obama had some doozy gaffs, too. You speak that much extemporaneously, with cameras recording every utterance, and you'll have some gaffs. Trump is not articulate and he is not eloquent...never has been.
• sleeper

  

  U.S. President Donald Trump told his Philippine counterpart that Washington has sent two nuclear submarines to waters off the Korean peninsula, the New York Times said, comments likely to raise questions about his handling of sensitive information. Trump has said "a major, major conflict" with North Korea is possible because of its nuclear and missile programs and that all options are on the table but that he wants to resolve the crisis diplomatically. North Korea has vowed to develop a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead that can strike the mainland United States, saying the program is necessary to counter U.S. aggression.
  
  We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all," the newspaper quoted Trump as telling Duterte, based on the transcript. The report was based on a Philippine transcript of the call that was circulated on Tuesday under a "confidential" cover sheet by the Americas division of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.

  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
  
  The disaster rolls on...
• isadore

  O-Trap;1854832 wrote:Of course I did. You brought up land grant colleges, so I went to the time prior to the Morrill Land Grant College Act. What time period would you prefer I use?
  
  
  
  I have no objection to the problem raised regarding the inability of slaves to attend college. That's fair.
  
  However, the objection you raise regarding subsistence farmers really isn't a problem, because that sort of life precluded many of the conventional life expenses that we deem necessities in our current era, namely food and shelter (as many homes were lived in through multiple generations and did not require rent or mortgage payments nearly as often as today).
  
  Beyond that, we don't see a significant difference in the regard to yearly income comparisons to tuition. The two are inflated at about the same rate between then and now.
  
  
  
  This is a false cause-effect. The fact that a college was established by churches does not necessitate that they're created for the purpose of producing ministers.
  
  Make no mistake. At the time the colleges were founded (before the time in which we're talking here, I should add), ministers WERE expected to be well-rounded, with adequate knowledge of sciences, mathematics, and philosophy. Ministers were held to a higher standard at the time than they are today in that regard.
  
  However, the overarching reason for both the start of colleges AND the insistence of well-rounded ministers was a high value placed on a well-rounded, well-educated populace. In essence, the churches saw a value in a well-educated population, and they insisted that the ministers in their local churches demonstrated that value. That doesn't, however, require the purpose of the college to be for the education of ministers at all. In fact, documented church history would show that assumption to be untrue.
  
  For example, the mid-1800s were after the Second Great Awakening, which did plant the seeds for devaluing a well-rounded education (including within their own clergy), but the schools in question were started prior to that, and that shift made the church's desire for a well-educated clergy almost nonexistent in some denominations. As such, for the time frame we're talking about, colleges really weren't for the purpose of educating the clergy, because it was no longer a priority to have such an educated clergy. For reference, see documentation on the revivals of Charles Finney and the Layman's Prayer Revival, which were major movements during the Second Great Awakening.
  
  
  
  I don't know if you actually looked at the link, but Penn is not pulling exclusively from its own history. It's merely the university aggregating the information on the swath of colleges at the time.
  
  
  
  This is true. As I said above, colleges were not glorified trade schools. You studied under an experienced person in the field you wished to enter for that sort of training. Colleges were for the purpose of helping bring about a well-rounded, well-educated population at large. College was optional and not connected to the ability to make a living at all.
  
  Frankly, given the level of education in many universities, I think there are elements of that model that are better than what we currently have. If students wish to attend college solely for the purpose of gaining the necessary knowledge for a career, perhaps we should instead be pursuing a wider variety of trade schools as opposed to four-year universities, where the students often do not have much interest in half the classes they take.
  
  If our goal is to allow more people to receive the necessary education for a career, why not have two-year schools for things like accounting, business, medicine, etc? It would make achieving that much cheaper, lowering the financial bar and allowing more people to achieve that sort of education without going into obscene amounts of debt.
  
  
  
  True of the slaves, and again, that was certainly a problem (though I would submit that there were other inhibitors to slaves attending college beyond the cost). However, the subsistence farmers didn't deal with the sorts of everyday expenses we deal with today, and as such, it wouldn't have been as out-of-reach to them as you're implying. It simply wasn't important, because a college education wasn't the sort of thing that lent itself to a better career.

  1. “To advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie in the dust” The reasonfor the founding of Harvard. Yale- An Act for Liberty to Erect a Collegiate School," passed by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut on October 9, 1701, while meeting in New Haven. The Act was an effort to create an institution to train ministers and lay leadership for Connecticut. From the beginning the purpose was to prepare minister, they came to provide an education for the children of the elite, as can be seen with the Adams, Jefferson and Madison with an occasional charity student like Hamilton. The long list of religious domination schools in Ohio illustrates the effort which continued through the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] great awakening. And a college trained minister was still of great importance in the more established denominations. For others a college education was a luxury, “optional” as you describe, something for the rich almost exclusively.
  2. Personally I believe in free post secondary education for citizen, including vocational. Your system of two year schools may very well be workable.
  3. And if you read that list of course. They begin with religion, dead language and skills necessary for a minister.
  4. You seem suggest all subsistence farmers as unable to appreciate the value of education. I don’t know if that is true. What I do know though is that subsistence existence is extremely unlikely to leave cash for college or really anything else.
  5. We accept the income, tuition level of their time and now with tuition greater than average income. Of course the change is the government intervention making college available to those who could not afford the tuition.
  
  
  
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Isadore and O-Trap, as Bill S. said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."
• O-Trap

  

  I appreciate the numbered points.
  

  isadore;1854959 wrote:1. “To advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie in the dust” The reasonfor the founding of Harvard. Yale-An Act for Liberty to Erect a Collegiate School," passed by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut on October 9, 1701, while meeting in New Haven. The Act was an effort to create an institution to train ministers and lay leadership for Connecticut. From the beginning the purpose was to prepare minister, they came to provide an education for the children of the elite, as can be seen with the Adams, Jefferson and Madison with an occasional charity student like Hamilton. The long list of religious domination schools in Ohio illustrates the effort which continued through the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] great awakening. And a college trained minister was still of great importance in the more established denominations. For others a college education was a luxury, “optional” as you describe, something for the rich almost exclusively.

  
  
  Harvard, while named for the first benefactor (who, while a minister himself, did so on behalf of himself, and not the church), was founded by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
  
  Note that the quote you've referenced is both incomplete AND not written by anyone during the founding of Harvard College, but by a circulated flier several years afterward.
  
  The entirety of the quote is this (my bolding):
  
  "After God had carried us safe to New-England, and wee had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, rear’d convenient places for Gods worship, and setled the Civill Government: One of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust. And as we were thinking and consulting how to effect this great work, it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard (a godly gentleman and a lover of learning; then living amongst us) to give one-half of his estate (it being in all about £1,700) towards the erecting of a Colledge, and all his library. After him, another gave £300; others after them cast in more; and the public hand of the State added the rest. The Colledge was by common consent appointed to be at Cambridge (a place very pleasant and accommodate), and is called (according to the name of the first founder) Harvard Colledge."
  
  It was officially founded by civil entities and was also funded and consented to by as much. Moreover, dreading an illiterate ministry (ie, ministers who were not well-rounded in knowledge of the sciences, mathematics, language, and philosophy) does not preclude any other reasons for its founding. A desire to "advance Learning" was the intention, as stated, and as such, the college was never, at any point, associated with any branch or denomination of Christian churches.
  
  The Christian movement had long-since placed a value on studying the world, going so far as to view it as an objective means of pleasing God. If you need references, feel free to refer to Martin Luther's "An Open Letter to the Christian nobility," written to the German nobility in an effort to promote widespread education. Or further back, to Augustine of Hippo, who advocated for Monasteries to be places where anyone could go to learn and study not only the Bible, but also languages, literature, reason/logic, math, the arts, philosophy, and more trade/self-reliance skills like agriculture, medicine, metallurgy, and technology.
  
  

  isadore;1854959 wrote:2. Personally I believe in free post secondary education for citizen, including vocational. Your system of two year schools may very well be workable.

  
  
  I would submit that it would be far more advantageous than what we currently have. However, the notion of a "free" post secondary education for citizens doesn't work unless it is on a volunteer basis. Paying for something with funds raised in taxation is still paying for it, and is thus not free.
  
  

  isadore;1854959 wrote:3. And if you read that list of course. They begin with religion, dead language and skills necessary for a minister.

  
  
  At the time, those were seen as valuable to the general public, and not exclusively for the clergy. It had been that way since the Reformation. If you want to tell me that colleges WERE for the purpose of training people in not only a wide variety of arts and sciences, but also in Christian theology, you'd be correct. The assumption that teaching those means that it was geared toward creating clergymen is to assume, inaccurately, that there was no value seen in the general public being skilled in those areas. However, as I've stated, the churches saw value in an educated population, INCLUDING in spiritual things.
  
  

  isadore;1854959 wrote:4. You seem suggest all subsistence farmers as unable to appreciate the value of education. I don’t know if that is true. What I do know though is that subsistence existence is extremely unlikely to leave cash for college or really anything else.

  
  
  I do not suggest that "all" (your word, not mine) subsistence farmers are unable to appreciate it. I do suggest that some simply didn't appreciate it. Whether or not any given person CAN appreciate something is different from whether or not they DO. Moreover, if we're approaching "college" as a means to a financial end, then the colleges at the time wouldn't have been fruitful anyway, as they largely didn't address the ability to increase one's vocational options.
  
  

  isadore;1854959 wrote:5. We accept the income, tuition level of their time and now with tuition greater than average income. Of course the change is the government intervention making college available to those who could not afford the tuition.

  But again, the difference is also that colleges today have a different value than they did then. Colleges were, even in early America, for the purpose of learning "the good, the true, and the beautiful" about the world. Not to provide any vocational advantage.
  
  Frankly, apart from trade schools, I think they should still be that way.
  
  As for the price eclipsing income ...
  
  2016:
  Median US Income: $56,516
  Average yearly PRIVATE college tuition: $33,480
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1854964 wrote:Isadore and O-Trap, as Bill S. said, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

  Well, I've never claimed to be witty, have I?
• majorspark

  

  sleeper;1854914 wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
  
  The disaster rolls on...

  Floating the thought that we have nuclear armed subs submerged somewhere just off the coast of a nation that threatens us with currently possessed nuclear power and is actively developing the capability to deliver a nuclear device to the west coast of the USA is hardly a disaster.