Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

• salto

  

  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.

  Thanks for the link. Very interesting read!
• QuakerOats

  majorspark;1855006 wrote: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.

  
  Sleeper was in love with the disastrous appeasement policies of the last 8 years; unable to handle a strong leader.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  QuakerOats;1855034 wrote:Sleeper was in love with the disastrous appeasement policies of the last 8 years; unable to handle a strong leader.

  Correction: Strategic Patience!
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1855034 wrote:Sleeper was in love with the disastrous appeasement policies of the last 8 years; unable to handle a strong leader.

  Have to have a strong leader before anyone knows how he'll handle one.
• BoatShoes

  like_that;1854729 wrote: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.

  Yeah I've seen people say "He talks like guys at the loading dock!" and I would agree, it could be a tactic that he is talking that way personally connect with salt of the earth guys but as the article points out...he didn't use to alk that way???
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1855006 wrote: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.

  Unless it is a liberal democrat giving away our strategy to the enemy
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Trump's speech at NATO today was complete bullshit.
  No mention of Article 5, no mention of collective security to contain Russian in Ukraine, and he focused more on payments.
  
  The sub stuff is just the new reality with Trump: he likes to brag.
  
  I'm sure he has told other things to other world leaders too.
• sleeper

  

  majorspark;1855006 wrote: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.

  Well the Pentagon disagrees with you.
  
  The location of an arm of the nuclear triad is a closely kept secret. Trump shouldn't be sharing that information with a dictator who doesn't need to know this information.
  
  Also the impacts of Trump not being sensitive with intel data is already harming the security of this country. The UK is no longer willing to share sensitive intel with us; the GOP is now, through their inaction, harming the security of this country.
• sleeper

  

  A federal appeals court upheld Thursday an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries.
  
  The ruling upholds a lower court's decision to halt core portions of the executive order indefinitely.
  The new ban was announced in March, but never got off the ground because federal courts blocked it just hours before it was set to go into effect. It would have banned people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

  http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html
  
  The unconstitutional President continues.
• QuakerOats

  Actually the opposite is true, which is why Trump making numerous judicial appointments over the next 4-8 years will be beneficial to The People, and save countless lives.
  
  
  Looking forward to common sense ultimately prevailing.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1855115 wrote:Actually the opposite is true, which is why Trump making numerous judicial appointments over the next 4-8 years will be beneficial to The People, and save countless lives.
  
  
  Looking forward to common sense ultimately prevailing.

  Except the appeal was heard by the 4th circuit which is the most conservative of all federal appeals courts. Sorry, the constitution won and Trump lost...again.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1855003 wrote:I appreciate the numbered points.
  
  
  
  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.
  [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  [FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]
  
  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
  
  
  
  Well, I've never claimed to be witty, have I?

  [FONT=Times New Roman] 1. Harvard was founded in 1636. The government of the colony was basically theocratic. Only people with the acceptable Puritan faith approved by the ministers of the colony were allowed in the legislature. The Puritans, were the established Church, supported with tax funds. Other churches were persecuted. The college was set up for the training of Puritan clergy, not any other faith. The government was hardly civil in the sense we thing of the term. Luther’s views were hardly enlightened. He saw the colleges role preparing Christians and rejected the learning of Artistotle and the ancients. From his open letter. “The universities also need a good, thorough reformation—I must say it no matter whom it vexes—for everything which the papacy has instituted and ordered is directed only towards the increasing of sin and error. What else are the universities, if their present condition remains unchanged, than as the book of Maccabees says, 'Places for training youth in Greek glory,' in which loose living prevails, tile Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith are little taught, and the blind, heathen master Aristotle rules alone, even more than Christ?"
  
  [FONT="Helvetica"]"In truth, much depends upon it (that is, the reformation of the schools—DE); for it is here that the Christian youth and the best of our people, with whom the future of Christendom lies, are to be educated and trained…
  2. Public education should provide for the needs of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, with post secondary education for all who wish it at no cost to them.
  3. Luther obviously saw the training of Christians in the faith as the role of college education
  4. At the time most people in society did not see the value of a college education except the clergy wannabes and the children of the rich. Of course land grant colleges offerings helped to change the view of colleges as a site for professional training.
  5. I see the changes in colleges as a positive. Land Grant Universities began a change to make them more useful. The GI Bill involved the government in providing post secondary education to millions for their and our great benefit. The earlier system was served the needs of theocrats and dilettantes
  
  
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Trump made a complete ass of himself at the NATO meeting. What a complete jerk.
• Spock

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1855178 wrote:Trump made a complete ass of himself at the NATO meeting. What a complete jerk.

  Link?
• sleeper

  

  Spock;1855180 wrote:Link?

  
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1855161 wrote:1. Harvard was founded in 1636. The government of the colony was basically theocratic. Only people with the acceptable Puritan faith approved by the ministers of the colony were allowed in the legislature. The Puritans, were the established Church, supported with tax funds. Other churches were persecuted. The college was set up for the training of Puritan clergy, not any other faith. The government was hardly civil in the sense we thing of the term. Luther’s views were hardly enlightened. He saw the colleges role preparing Christians and rejected the learning of Artistotle and the ancients. From his open letter. “The universities also need a good, thorough reformation—I must say it no matter whom it vexes—for everything which the papacy has instituted and ordered is directed only towards the increasing of sin and error. What else are the universities, if their present condition remains unchanged, than as the book of Maccabees says, 'Places for training youth in Greek glory,' in which loose living prevails, tile Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith are little taught, and the blind, heathen master Aristotle rules alone, even more than Christ?"
  
  "In truth, much depends upon it (that is, the reformation of the schools—DE); for it is here that the Christian youth and the best of our people, with whom the future of Christendom lies, are to be educated and trained…

  
  
  There is a lot here that is flat-out untrue.
  
  The government wasn't basically theocratic. There's a difference between a member of a government recognizing a particular deity and a member of government seeking to legislate according to the morality of that deity.
  
  Second, the Quakers, who existed at that time in large numbers, were not Puritans. They were also not actively persecuted by them.
  
  Third, a college that teaches theology among its classes is not inherently interested in teaching clergy. In fact, one of the issues that caused problems with the Church in England and those who left was the disagreement over whom could read and study the Bible, the relocators having fallen on the side of individuals being able to do so.
  
  So again, the teaching of Christian doctrine in a college doesn't support the notion that the intent was to exclusively teach clergy members.
  
  You're certainly not wrong that Luther's views were, in all aspects, enlightened. In fact, during the Reformation, it is likely that he had people put to death in turn.
  
  However, you're again ignoring what I was addressing there. I wasn't calling Luther enlightened. I was suggesting that even from his time, the purpose of universities that he supported was to educate the people at large. He obviously intended that they should be educated in Scriptures as well as other studies, but not exclusively for the clergy.
  
  

  isadore;1855161 wrote:2. Public education should provide for the needs of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, with post secondary education for all who wish it at no cost to them.

  
  
  No. It should not. If the education itself is of value, the information is available using our modern modes of communication (ie, the Internet). However, a diploma isn't necessarily an education.
  
  The needs involving education within a population are no different today. If you care about your education, you can find the information necessary to be educated. The fact that we still employ anyone based on their receiving a diploma that might mean little more than the fact that they didn't quite party too hard to pass their classes is more problematic than anything related to going to a university.
  
  

  isadore;1855161 wrote:3. Luther obviously saw the training of Christians in the faith as the role of college education

  
  
  He saw it as part, but you're trying to fit him into a smaller narrative than he fits.
  
  

  isadore;1855161 wrote:4. At the time most people in society did not see the value of a college education except the clergy wannabes and the children of the rich. Of course land grant colleges offerings helped to change the view of colleges as a site for professional training.

  
  
  An unnecessary expense, as there were already established avenues for that brand of learning that cost even less, something akin to an apprenticeship.
  
  As for those who saw the value, you're again incorrect. The colonists, including those who founded Harvard, valued higher education for a variety of reasons. First, a large portion of the colonists were graduates from universities in England, and as such, saw the value. Second, those who were interested in civil leadership also saw the value, as there was a value placed on a well-rounded education for civil leaders, even for small, local jurisdictions. And yes, as you've wanted to push this whole time, they also valued a clergy that was learned in a wide variety of studies.
  
  As for cost, however, the cost was relatively low even compared to the average household's yearly income. Hell, it remained that way at least through the 1800s.
  
  

  isadore;1855161 wrote:5. I see the changes in colleges as a positive. Land Grant Universities began a change to make them more useful. The GI Bill involved the government in providing post secondary education to millions for their and our great benefit. The earlier system was served the needs of theocrats and dilettantes

  Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The universities were not useful as vocational education until after the Morrill Land Grant Act. It laid the foundation for universities to usurp hands-on experience vocational training, which was more affordable, even with the land grants.
  
  The earlier system served the desires of those who valued a widely-educated population. The only way you can come up with anything else is by cherry-picking and ignoring the context of anything else.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1855190 wrote:

  The guy is a classic schoolyard bully
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  The NATO speech and event was a shit show.
  He did not say anything about Russian aggression, which is the number 1 threat to many NATO countries, especially the eastern ones. He also failed to do the simple thing, talk about how Article V is important, an attack on one is an attack on all. Now a days for the eastern European countries, the reassurance that the U.S. is there to invoke Article V if needed is crucial.
  Sure, we are still pledging funds to our eastern partners through the ERI, but come on Trump at least acknowledge them and the threat from Russia.
  He did none of that.
• superman

  ptown_trojans_1;1855215 wrote:The NATO speech and event was a shit show.
  He did not say anything about Russian aggression, which is the number 1 threat to many NATO countries, especially the eastern ones. He also failed to do the simple thing, talk about how Article V is important, an attack on one is an attack on all. Now a days for the eastern European countries, the reassurance that the U.S. is there to invoke Article V if needed is crucial.
  Sure, we are still pledging funds to our eastern partners through the ERI, but come on Trump at least acknowledge them and the threat from Russia.
  He did none of that.

  Russia is the number 1 threat?
  
  The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The cold war has been over for quite some time now.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  superman;1855216 wrote:Russia is the number 1 threat?
  
  The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The cold war has been over for quite some time now.

  For eastern Europe...yes it is.
  Poland, Estonia, Latvia. Lithuania, etc.
  
  Trump also said zero, nadda on Russia and their illegal occupation of Ukraine.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1855198 wrote:[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
  
  [/B]There is a lot here that is flat-out untrue.
  
  The government wasn't basically theocratic. There's a difference between a member of a government recognizing a particular deity and a member of government seeking to legislate according to the morality of that deity.
  
  Second, the Quakers, who existed at that time in large numbers, were not Puritans. They were also not actively persecuted by them.
  
  Third, a college that teaches theology among its classes is not inherently interested in teaching clergy. In fact, one of the issues that caused problems with the Church in England and those who left was the disagreement over whom could read and study the Bible, the relocators having fallen on the side of individuals being able to do so.
  
  So again, the teaching of Christian doctrine in a college doesn't support the notion that the intent was to exclusively teach clergy members.
  
  You're certainly not wrong that Luther's views were, in all aspects, enlightened. In fact, during the Reformation, it is likely that he had people put to death in turn.
  
  However, you're again ignoring what I was addressing there. I wasn't calling Luther enlightened. I was suggesting that even from his time, the purpose of universities that he supported was to educate the people at large. He obviously intended that they should be educated in Scriptures as well as other studies, but not exclusively for the clergy.
  
  
  
  No. It should not. If the education itself is of value, the information is available using our modern modes of communication (ie, the Internet). However, a diploma isn't necessarily an education.
  
  The needs involving education within a population are no different today. If you care about your education, you can find the information necessary to be educated. The fact that we still employ anyone based on their receiving a diploma that might mean little more than the fact that they didn't quite party too hard to pass their classes is more problematic than anything related to going to a university.
  
  
  
  He saw it as part, but you're trying to fit him into a smaller narrative than he fits.
  
  
  
  An unnecessary expense, as there were already established avenues for that brand of learning that cost even less, something akin to an apprenticeship.
  
  As for those who saw the value, you're again incorrect. The colonists, including those who founded Harvard, valued higher education for a variety of reasons. First, a large portion of the colonists were graduates from universities in England, and as such, saw the value. Second, those who were interested in civil leadership also saw the value, as there was a value placed on a well-rounded education for civil leaders, even for small, local jurisdictions. And yes, as you've wanted to push this whole time, they also valued a clergy that was learned in a wide variety of studies.
  
  As for cost, however, the cost was relatively low even compared to the average household's yearly income. Hell, it remained that way at least through the 1800s.
  
  [FONT=Calibri]
  
  Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The universities were not useful as vocational education until after the Morrill Land Grant Act. It laid the foundation for universities to usurp hands-on experience vocational training, which was more affordable, even with the land grants.
  
  The earlier system served the desires of those who valued a widely-educated population. The only way you can come up with anything else is by cherry-picking and ignoring the context of anything else.

  [FONT=Times New Roman] The government of the Massachusetts Bay was theocratic. Puritans controlled, made laws based on their religious doctrine, oppressed other religion and supported theirs through taxes. Catholics and Quakers in particular got harsh treatment.
  “The first known Quakers to arrive in Boston and challenge Puritan religious domination were Mary Fisher and Ann Austin. These two women entered Boston's harbor on the Swallow, a ship from Barbados in July of 1656. The Puritans of Boston greeted Fisher and Austin as if they carried the plague and severely brutalized them. The two were strip searched, accused of witchcraft, jailed, deprived of food, and were forced to leave Boston on the Swallow when it next left Boston eight weeks later. Almost immediately after their arrival, Fisher and Austin's belongings were confiscated, and the Puritan executioner burned their trunk full of Quaker pamphlets and other writings. Shortly after they arrived in Boston, eight more Quakers arrived on a ship from England. This group of eight was imprisoned and beaten. While they were in prison, an edict was passed in Boston that any ship's captain who carried Quakers into Boston would be fined heavily. The Puritan establishment forced the captain, who had brought the group of eight Quakers to Boston, to take them back to England, under a bond of £500.”
  Mary Dyer was executed for being a Quaker by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1659 by the theocratic government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony..
  http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/quakers-fight-religious-freedom-puritan-massachusetts-1656-1661
  Harvard and other universities were set up for the purpose originally of preparing the clergy and using education in indoctrinating in terms of their faith. Luther was pushing that idea a century before when he was not sucking up to the rulers, calling for the slaughter of peasants and acting as a precursor of the nazis with his calls to persecute the Jews.
  Your cloud cuckooland view of education hardly fits the needs or realities of our time. As free public education fit the needs of early republic, as free public secondary education fit the needs of industrial America, so free post secondary academic and vocational education fits the needs our technological age. Although you seem to be enamored to the apprenticeship system without calling it by name, it very much limits the education and even training of the recipient.
  
  
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1855156 wrote:Except the appeal was heard by the 4th circuit which is the most conservative of all federal appeals courts.

  No it isn't. The 5th is...and it's not close.
• superman

  ptown_trojans_1;1855217 wrote:For eastern Europe...yes it is.
  Poland, Estonia, Latvia. Lithuania, etc.
  
  Trump also said zero, nadda on Russia and their illegal occupation of Ukraine.

  A lot has changed in 4 years. Maybe Obama should have taken them a little more seriously.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  superman;1855224 wrote:A lot has changed in 4 years. Maybe Obama should have taken them a little more seriously.

  Sure, there I agree.
  Obama should have done more, but at least he mentioned Article V and Ukraine when speaking.
  
  But, Trump is President now, at least acknowledge the problem and the threat for our European allies.
  He did none of that.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  I thought NATO was obsolete.