I dunno, maybe the former National Security advisor, whom the White House fought tooth-and-nail to prevent from testifying went public with even more evidence against Trump?
And it’s worth noting that the path from the darling of the Trumpkins and a regular feature on Trump TV (yes, I mean FoxNews) to becoming the “tool of the radical left” and a “snake” is extremely short.
You defy the God Emperor once and you’re ostracized.
I’ve seen clips of fox and friends and those guys have to be gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but they are less masculine than Rachel Maddow.
Maybe you should ask the side that is keeping anything from happening? Why do people call witnesses in any trial? Shouldn’t they have all the proof they need?
Wonder why the Republicans had witnesses during Clinton’s? And Clinton actually gave a bunch of stuff unlike Trump who has done what he’s always done which is fake like he has nothing to hide and will testify but never will because he would crucify himself.
Not that we should be surprised when Graham says he won’t be a fair juror and Mitch says he will work hand in hand with the White
House.
The independents will decide this next election . Democrats will come out and support their candidate and his base will also. This will be a battle for the independents.
Trumps geography knowledge begs to differ.
He is good at some things like cons, knowing his audience, and selling propaganda. Academic things not so much.
I didn’t use to consider the ability to Google a city to see what state it’s in academic. Now I do!
2020s shaping up to be a hella good year. First the Pats lose the Superbowl and now this! Huzzah
I don’t disagree, @magnumd…but I’ve always been a firm believer that the “stronger”, more motivated group is the one the is “for” someone or something…as opposed to being “against” someone or something.
While I’m sure that maybe Bernie or Warren have some inspired followers…I just don’t feel the rabid unwavering following that Trump has, bolstered each and every day by Conservative Media and Trump’s Tweets.
Yes…there are plenty of people that are against a lot of what Trump stands for; but I firmly believe that the true power comes for the voter motivated for a candidate and not simply against another one.
The questions is…will independents be motivated enough, AND in enough numbers to vote Trump out of office?
We’ll see.
In your typical liberal west coast states, the intelligent educated folks are liberal and the more rural, trashy folks are populist/Republican. But, nationwide, smart educated is pretty evenly split between the two. This would lead me to believe that in huge parts of the country it’s flip-flopped from the West coast split.
What factors lead smart, educated populations to two very different conclusions, and similarly what factors lead poor uneducated populations to two very different conclusions?
Well… One could argue the use of the word “intelligence” being a bit misguided or misapplied. I know “intelligent” liberals that wouldn’t know a toaster from a sledgehammer. Nor are they street smart. That’s what’s so off putting about a lot of libs. That condescending arrogance. But they call those “uneducated” rubes to fix their cars, appliances, etc…
Multiple intelligences exist.
Take those same high horse streetdumb booksmart folks, but put em in the southeast and you have an entirely different political leaning than their west coast doppleganger.
Liberals don’t have a monopoly on arrogance and elitism haha.
I disagree about multiple intelligences. You’re either smart or you’re not. You don’t have to be very smart to get a BS, and their are headscratchingly dumb people in every profession. But, a learned skill doesn’t make you smart. The speed at which you learned it and how you can apply that skill shows intelligence.
Probly just arguing semantics though. More smart people have college degrees than not, but a college degree sure as shit doesn’t mean you’re smart.
It’s a theory proposed by Gardner. A well respected psychologist. It’s neat. Musical. Interpersonal. Spatial. Mathematical.
Mozart is a perfect example. Inherent genius. Eddie Van Halen. Those types.
You’re right. Liberals have no monopoly on arrogance.
My perspective is that each of those dudes would kill it in pretty much anything they wanted to (provided motivation), but they are geniuses in their chosen fields due to innate interest and a certain level of extra natural talent.
Similar to sports. Pro athletes are usually best suited for their pro sport, but almost all of them are really good at another hobby sport. Cause they are super athletic.
In any case, why do you think the West elites vote so differently than the Midwest, southern elites?
Midwest and southern libs or cons ? We’ve both.
See one of my above posts for the full question.
Michael Jordan was an all time great, many say The Best at basketball. He “retired” to try baseball, played AA, performed very poorly.
Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Decided to push mega doses of Vitamin C as a cure for cancer.
My .02 -I think the greater the genius, the greater the specificity.
Agree. No matter how hard I tried and studied I never could grasp math, but got an A in Renaissance Literature with not too much effort. I excelled at wrestling. Suuuucked at basketball. Mozart wrote an entire Symphony as a child. No mistakes. You don’t learn that… He was born with that genius.
MJ hit .202 in AA after not having played for more than a decade. Thats extremely impressive. Really bad example for your argument.
Charles Barkley playing golf, on the other hand, is a great example haha. Actually he just has the yips.
.202 b.a. is not even comparable to his bball prowess. Very disproportionate skill wise. Ever see NBA players try to fight ?