I don't think most schools are making kids read "Little Black Sambo" any more (we read it in Grade 1 in 1973 -- no joke).
I never read the book so I have idea what your talking about, since your reaction to me is one of outrage I assume is a racist book?
In other words, are you really suggesting that racism is primarily a product of the public school system?
I know that schools aren't perfect, but they're subject to scrutiny that parents never will be.
Miscommunication here, totally agree with your statement. Schools are very good to socialize kids with postive messaging.
I never read the book so I have idea what your talking about, since your reaction to me is one of outrage I assume is a racist book?
It's not outrage at all, or anything like it. But yes, Little Black Sambo is a pretty racist little children's book, and it was part of my Grade 1 curriculum.
In other words, are you really suggesting that racism is primarily a product of the public school system?
Exactly the opposite. I'm suggesting it's primarily the product of upbringing and family. That doesn't mean there isn't more that schools can do. But I don't think they're the primary locus of the problem. People don't become militant white supremacists because their school made them use a colouring book where all the doctors and leaders sort of looked white. Heck, even the smallest pack of Crayola crayons included brown.
Personally, I think the balance of power has changed with the changes to the economy and having both parents working. With the schools giving out positive messaging and positive peer pressure with reinforces positive programming we can do a lot of good.
I dont think above will go any good to militant white supremacist but I do wonder if a child shows to in kindergarten "my father said the (insert race) are very bad people". I think I remember a story on the CBC in the last 5 years? where child services took a white supremacist mother to court to seize her child. If I can find a link I will post it.
Please keep tweeting Mr President
https://www.google.ca/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1D92HF
SAPS, your premise is flawed. The humanities grads do just fine, choosing a discipline outside STEM is not a "failure". I've a degree in Fine Arts - take that one more step toward the uncultered bonehead's definition of useless - and I've held a variety of positions that were as good or better than some of my more techy, sciency friends. There are a crap ton of stats out there that indicate your position is completely full of shit.
Which is thread drift anyway. Speaking of uncultured boneheads, isn't this supposed to be about Trump?
SAPS, your premise is flawed. The humanities grads do just fine, choosing a discipline outside STEM is not a "failure". I've a degree in Fine Arts - take that one more step toward the uncultered bonehead's definition of useless - and I've held a variety of positions that were as good or better than some of my more techy, sciency friends. There are a crap ton of stats out there that indicate your position is completely full of shit.
Which is thread drift anyway. Speaking of uncultured boneheads, isn't this supposed to be about Trump?
That's very interesting TB since your using fine arts education to good effect as your greatest contribution here seems to be teach everyone the use of gutter language. Classy indeed. Where are those stats? I hold a humanities degree as well and I worked in more in IT than any else before my health went bad. I would never give up my education.
Not being "classy" enough is a peculiar slam to bring out on a progressive/left board. Sure you don't want to rethink that? If my language is too strong for you, feel free to retire to your fainting couch.
The "humanities degrees = unemployment" bullshit has been debated on this board many times, even recently. Go check some of those threads, as I've pasted copious links (as have others) refuting your nonsense. I don't have time to go look them up for you, I've a deadline and a meeting early tomorrow. Google is your friend.
While the specific skill of analyzing poetry may not be required in the job market, analysis of other things often is, as are many of the other skills and general knowledge bases gained through studying the arts and humanities. Even tech companies are looking for people with well-rounded educations and experience, not just techies.
Not being "classy" enough is a peculiar slam to bring out on a progressive/left board. Sure you don't want to rethink that? If my language is too strong for you, feel free to retire to your fainting couch.
The "humanities degrees = unemployment" bullshit has been debated on this board many times, even recently. Go check some of those threads, as I've pasted copious links (as have others) refuting your nonsense. I don't have time to go look them up for you, I've a deadline and a meeting early tomorrow. Google is your friend.
While the specific skill of analyzing poetry may not be required in the job market, analysis of other things often is, as are many of the other skills and general knowledge bases gained through studying the arts and humanities. Even tech companies are looking for people with well-rounded educations and experience, not just techies.
Lazy and a loud mouth. Charming
Let me help you out with something evidence-based rather than rabble opinion.
US Dept of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014141.pdf
page 14
Bachelor’s degree major
first column is Hours worked in current job average
second column is percentage employed full time
third column is part time salary
fourth column is part time median
Fifth column full time salary
Sixth column full time median
STEM major5 Column one 43.7 Column two 92.4 Col3 30,700 Col4 23,400 Col5 65,000 Col6 60,000
Computer and information sciences 42.0 95.8 40,000 ‡ 72,600 66,000
Engineering and engineering technology 44.8 94.7 44,100 34,900 73,700 67,600
Biological and physical sciences, science technology, etc- 43.4 88.0 22,500 17,100 50,400 46,800
Non-STEM major 40.8 84.1 25,500 20,000 49,500 44,000
General studies and other6 41.1 83.1 ‡ 25,000 ! 53,700 44,000
Social sciences 40.9 84.2 22,500 15,600 46,700 40,000
Humanities 38.6 73.3 21,100 16,600 43,100 38,400
Health care fields 36.6 76.3 38,300 32,800 58,900 54,800
Business 42.8 90.7 26,700 20,800 55,500 50,000
Education 41.0 84.8 23,000 21,600 40,500 37,000
Other applied7 40.7 84.3 20,900 16,400 44,800 41,500
Busy and not deferential. Get over yourself.
Let me help you out with something evidence-based rather than rabble opinion.
US Dept of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014141.pdf
page 14
Bachelor’s degree major
first column is Hours worked in current job average
second column is percentage employed full time
third column is part time salary
fourth column is part time median
Fifth column full time salary
Sixth column full time median
STEM major5 Column one 43.7 Column two 92.4 Col3 30,700 Col4 23,400 Col5 65,000 Col6 60,000
Computer and information sciences 42.0 95.8 40,000 ‡ 72,600 66,000
Engineering and engineering technology 44.8 94.7 44,100 34,900 73,700 67,600
Biological and physical sciences, science technology, etc- 43.4 88.0 22,500 17,100 50,400 46,800
Non-STEM major 40.8 84.1 25,500 20,000 49,500 44,000
General studies and other6 41.1 83.1 ‡ 25,000 ! 53,700 44,000
Social sciences 40.9 84.2 22,500 15,600 46,700 40,000
Humanities 38.6 73.3 21,100 16,600 43,100 38,400
Health care fields 36.6 76.3 38,300 32,800 58,900 54,800
Business 42.8 90.7 26,700 20,800 55,500 50,000
Education 41.0 84.8 23,000 21,600 40,500 37,000
Other applied7 40.7 84.3 20,900 16,400 44,800 41,500
so -- some difference but not that much. A lot less than most think.
Humanities about 20% less in employment but still 73%.
Here are Canadian stats:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/education-pays-new-study-shows-average-sa...
When it comes to average wages perhaps a third but I suspect the best in the Humanities does as well as the best in any field.
The research also confirmed what many suspect: average salaries vary widely based on the type of credential earned, with fine arts and humanities paying the least and math, computer science and engineering paying the most.
But the study’s authors also point out that even humanities and fine arts graduates earn far more than the $22,000 earned by the average coffee shop employee, which they say counters the popular myth of the “barista with a B.A.”
I have long felt that people will be better in the things they like to do and will make more money in the the things they are better at than going into a job based on the idea that the money is there.
TB say: "But in the end, it's not the economics that they're voting on, anyway. It's the racism and hate. Read the last paragraph. Chilling."
The last paragraph of the politico article was exactly what bothers me most about DNC media coverage of Trump supporters. It was placed last in the article, with deliberate line break spacing added for emphasis. It was placed that way to create an effect in the reader -- whatever concerns, issues or reasons these people mentioned, whatever empathy the rest of the article may have managed to gin up in the reader, feel free to let it go because what it comes down to is these people are racists, to be deplored, disenfranchised and/or ignored. I can almost hear Kruse thinking, "if only we could take their vote away!"
It was amazing to me that the politico writer Kruse thought that telling someone their candidate wouldn't do the things he said he'd do during the campaign was an argument, or persuasive. That people vote for candidates based on image, personality and speaking style is not exactly a revelation. Perhaps Kruse was unaware there is an assumption among many Americans that all politicians lie and the system is rotten, and this does not lead to votes based on rational analysis of policy proposals. .
On this board and elsewhere, I used to run across the phrase :
Racism = prejudice + power
I like that formulation alot and I wish the left kept it around instead of "structural racism".
I don't think this DNC-led focus on the bigotry of middle and lower class Americans who have little power is a productive path for progressives to walk down. In some ways it has served as a useful distraction from the racism of American foreign policy and the racism in the American judicial systems, both of which the DNC is fully complicit in.
TB says: "Ultimately, the question of who is going to make things better for the people in places like Johnstown isn't even relevant. It doesn't even matter to them. They just don't want football players taking a knee or brown immigrants getting in."
I think this is unkind, reductive and gives up on the possibility they or their circumstances could change. Class is a strong factor in the resentment of NFL players, I think as much if not moreso than race.
Let me help you out with something evidence-based rather than rabble opinion.
US Dept of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014141.pdf
page 14
Bachelor’s degree major
first column is Hours worked in current job average
second column is percentage employed full time
third column is part time salary
fourth column is part time median
Fifth column full time salary
Sixth column full time median
STEM major5 Column one 43.7 Column two 92.4 Col3 30,700 Col4 23,400 Col5 65,000 Col6 60,000
Computer and information sciences 42.0 95.8 40,000 ‡ 72,600 66,000
Engineering and engineering technology 44.8 94.7 44,100 34,900 73,700 67,600
Biological and physical sciences, science technology, etc- 43.4 88.0 22,500 17,100 50,400 46,800
Non-STEM major 40.8 84.1 25,500 20,000 49,500 44,000
General studies and other6 41.1 83.1 ‡ 25,000 ! 53,700 44,000
Social sciences 40.9 84.2 22,500 15,600 46,700 40,000
Humanities 38.6 73.3 21,100 16,600 43,100 38,400
Health care fields 36.6 76.3 38,300 32,800 58,900 54,800
Business 42.8 90.7 26,700 20,800 55,500 50,000
Education 41.0 84.8 23,000 21,600 40,500 37,000
Other applied7 40.7 84.3 20,900 16,400 44,800 41,500
so -- some difference but not that much. A lot less than most think.
Humanities about 20% less in employment but still 73%.
Here are Canadian stats:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/education-pays-new-study-shows-average-sa...
When it comes to average wages perhaps a third but I suspect the best in the Humanities does as well as the best in any field.
The research also confirmed what many suspect: average salaries vary widely based on the type of credential earned, with fine arts and humanities paying the least and math, computer science and engineering paying the most.
But the study’s authors also point out that even humanities and fine arts graduates earn far more than the $22,000 earned by the average coffee shop employee, which they say counters the popular myth of the “barista with a B.A.”
I have long felt that people will be better in the things they like to do and will make more money in the the things they are better at than going into a job based on the idea that the money is there.
I believe that numbers you are using for full time employment should be read the as 73.3 are full time and remaining are employed part time. Not a measure of unemployment or employment, that is I read the numbers.. I don't want mislead anyone.
In the study Table 2 discusses Employment
In the study Table 3 subsection of Table 2
In the study Table 4 how many jobs a person held over the study period.
In the study Table 5 More of a breakdown labour status in the general work force.
In the study Table 6 which I cut and pasted the edited to rabble. This shows how much a person makes and if they are full time or part time. Rather a % employment which is handled in the prior tables. By looking at the data I would conclude that if you major in humanities because of the money or employment wishes your going have work much harder than someone with a stem or even non stem degree to reach your goals.
Class is a strong factor in the resentment of NFL players, I think as much if not moreso than race.
Which is why they resent all those white billionaires and ex-Goldman Sachs in the Trump administration...
I think that 20% or so of the U.S. population are living in an alternate reality created by the right wing media bubble. This group includes most of Trump's "deplorables". I see no hope of changing their minds by persuasion. I think all efforts should go towards convincing the other 80% who are still willing to change their minds if given a good enough reason. The hard core 20% must simply be written off as a total political loss.
Micheal: Do you think someone who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Trump successively, as did several of the interviewees in the Politico article, falls into this 20%?
I agree there are a large number of people who support Trump who will not change their mind through reasoned arguments. When people identify with politicians as personalities, or characters, that can create a powerful bond. I think this is true of many people on the left and right. But perhaps these Trump supporters in Pennsylvania will change their minds when there is a change their circumstances. They've done it before.
I don't see the most urgent task forward for American progressives as changing the minds of Trump supporters and getting a Democrat elected next time. I hope some progressive elements in the USA will try to unite the middle and lower classes, left and right, in the US to fix their healthcare, crappy working conditions and (most crucially) their out of control foreign policy. I hope progressives will try to bring these things, and the economy, under democratic control.
As for the mainstream DNC media, I think they are hardening Trump supporters support, with patronizing and beside the point articles like Kruse's. And they don't care about that - they are just searching for clicks, and flattering their audience of totally not racist liberals.
Micheal: Do you think someone who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Trump successively, as did several of the interviewees in the Politico article, falls into this 20%?
I don't believe most of the people who say they changed their votes to Republican recently. I've read too many hundreds of posts on U.S. discussion boards in the last 20 years by people who claimed to have been lifelong Democrats until the latest Fox/Drudge/Breitbart outrage happened, but now they have been forced to reluctantly abandon their previous party and become Republicans.
According to an article on The Intercept, Duterte, who is about to receive Trump in the Philippines, recently bragged in a speech that he murdered a man when he was 16.
PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, whose bloody war on drugs has led to the deaths of more than 12,000 Filipinos, boasted on Thursday that he is no more concerned with killing now than he was at the age of 16, when he said he stabbed a man to death just because he looked at him the wrong way.
Duterte, who is preparing to make President Donald Trump feel at home in Manila this weekend, made the remarks in an address to Filipinos living in Vietnam, where he was attending an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
By looking at the data I would conclude that if you major in humanities because of the money or employment wishes your going have work much harder than someone with a stem or even non stem degree to reach your goals.
How tragic that you boil goals down to economic -- wages only.
I think that 20% or so of the U.S. population are living in an alternate reality created by the right wing media bubble. This group includes most of Trump's "deplorables". I see no hope of changing their minds by persuasion. I think all efforts should go towards convincing the other 80% who are still willing to change their minds if given a good enough reason. The hard core 20% must simply be written off as a total political loss.
Do you think it is only 20%?
I would guess that this is more than 25%. This is why with Trump hitting into the low 30s he is about to hit his floor after which he could do anything and it won't go lower becuase that is what they want.
Micheal: Do you think someone who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Trump successively, as did several of the interviewees in the Politico article, falls into this 20%?
I agree there are a large number of people who support Trump who will not change their mind through reasoned arguments. When people identify with politicians as personalities, or characters, that can create a powerful bond. I think this is true of many people on the left and right. But perhaps these Trump supporters in Pennsylvania will change their minds when there is a change their circumstances. They've done it before.
I don't see the most urgent task forward for American progressives as changing the minds of Trump supporters and getting a Democrat elected next time. I hope some progressive elements in the USA will try to unite the middle and lower classes, left and right, in the US to fix their healthcare, crappy working conditions and (most crucially) their out of control foreign policy. I hope progressives will try to bring these things, and the economy, under democratic control.
As for the mainstream DNC media, I think they are hardening Trump supporters support, with patronizing and beside the point articles like Kruse's. And they don't care about that - they are just searching for clicks, and flattering their audience of totally not racist liberals.
This 20% never voted for Obama.
By looking at the data I would conclude that if you major in humanities because of the money or employment wishes your going have work much harder than someone with a stem or even non stem degree to reach your goals.
How tragic that you boil goals down to economic -- wages only.
I deal with information that can be found in the statistical database. If you want discuss outcomes that are not economic in basis I am happy to engage you on. But those conversations are speculative and at best are opinion based unless you have you have some sort underlying data.
Micheal: Do you think someone who voted for Obama, then Romney, then Trump successively, as did several of the interviewees in the Politico article, falls into this 20%?
I don't believe most of the people who say they changed their votes to Republican recently. I've read too many hundreds of posts on U.S. discussion boards in the last 20 years by people who claimed to have been lifelong Democrats until the latest Fox/Drudge/Breitbart outrage happened, but now they have been forced to reluctantly abandon their previous party and become Republicans.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-county-in-america-that-vote...
How tragic that you boil goals down to economic -- wages only.
To be fair, we seem to find such measures valuable and important in other similar contexts.
Can you imagine the discussion if someone pointed out that women earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, but someone else suggested "sure, but maybe they're happier, and feel more fulfilled!"?
I don't see anyone saying "good point! I guess I was just obsessed with the bottom line."
Thanks for the link, Josh. That's a very interesting article, and it definitely shows that there are places in the U.S. where people who had voted for Obama switched to Trump. My bad.
-- Sadly, the percentage of white voters voting on their racist opinions is extremely high
The evidence doesn't support this.
The percentage of the white vote was only 1% higher for Trump than it was for Romney. Compared with Romney, Trump gained 7% more of the African American vote, 8% more of the Hispanic vote, and 11%!! more of the Asian vote. He gained the least with white people, by a large margin.
But go ahead. Keep blaming racist white people. Ignore the economics. Ignore the trade deals. Ignore the inter- and intra-cultural issues that are driving away moderates. That's working out great.
Do yourself a favour, try not to fall for the alt-right's latest social media campaign. It's a doozy.
-- Sadly, the percentage of white voters voting on their racist opinions is extremely high
The evidence doesn't support this.
The percentage of the white vote was only 1% higher for Trump than it was for Romney. Compared with Romney, Trump gained 7% more of the African American vote, 8% more of the Hispanic vote, and 11%!! more of the Asian vote. He gained the least with white people, by a large margin.
But go ahead. Keep blaming racist white people. Ignore the economics. Ignore the trade deals. Ignore the inter- and intra-cultural issues that are driving away moderates. That's working out great.
Do yourself a favour, try not to fall for the alt-right's latest social media campaign. It's a doozy.
I could just insult you back but instead I'll just post this for now.
https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vot...
Don't accuse others of ignoring things just because they don't agree with you. They will not be swayed and instead they will (correctly) conclude that you are being an a-hole.
From Cody87:
The percentage of the white vote was only 1% higher for Trump than it was for Romney. Compared with Romney, Trump gained 7% more of the African American vote, 8% more of the Hispanic vote, and 11%!! more of the Asian vote. He gained the least with white people, by a large margin.
Remember that the higher the percentage of vote for Romney from any given group allows less room for increasing the vote within that group.
F'rinstance, if Candidate A receives 90% of the vote from group X, the next candidate coming along will not have much room to improve the percentage of vote from that group. For example, if we assume a group size of 1000 voters, and a candidate that gets 900 of those votes. The next candidate, if they receive 950 votes, they've increased their share of that group of voters by 5.5%
If Candidate A receives 10% of the vote from group Y, the next candidate has a lot of room to increase their percentage of the vote. Again, if Candidate A gets 100 votes, and the next candidate get 150 votes, the second candidate has increased their vote percentage by 50%, which is a hell of a lot more than the first example, even though the increase in number of votes was exactly the same.
You really have to look at absolute numbers, not percentages.
From Cody87:
The percentage of the white vote was only 1% higher for Trump than it was for Romney. Compared with Romney, Trump gained 7% more of the African American vote, 8% more of the Hispanic vote, and 11%!! more of the Asian vote. He gained the least with white people, by a large margin.
Remember that the higher the percentage of vote for Romney from any given group allows less room for increasing the vote within that group.
F'rinstance, if Candidate A receives 90% of the vote from group X, the next candidate coming along will not have much room to improve the percentage of vote from that group. For example, if we assume a group size of 1000 voters, and a candidate that gets 900 of those votes. The next candidate, if they receive 950 votes, they've increased their share of that group of voters by 5.5%
If Candidate A receives 10% of the vote from group Y, the next candidate has a lot of room to increase their percentage of the vote. Again, if Candidate A gets 100 votes, and the next candidate get 150 votes, the second candidate has increased their vote percentage by 50%, which is a hell of a lot more than the first example, even though the increase in number of votes was exactly the same.
You really have to look at absolute numbers, not percentages.
This is a good point. The graph I linked didn't indicate the changes were percentages, although a bit of examination shows they clearly are (Romney got ~6% of the African American vote, not 1%). Another thing which I did not explicitly mention is that obviously the group sizes are different as well. So it's entirely possible that from an absolute number of voters point of view, Trump gained the most votes with white people. But if Trump changed the minds of 1 in 200 white voters (as the data suggests - roughly a half of a % point), but changed the mind of 6 in 200 Asian Americans (26% to 29%) and 4 in 200 African Americans (6% to 8%), that still goes to show that as a portion of their respective groups, Trump was the least convincing to white people compared with other groups.
So to keep the numbers even, let's say hypothetically there are 10 white Americans for every Asian American - this would mean that Trump gained 10 white votes (relative to Romney) for every 6 Asian votes. It would therefore be true (but misleading) to say that Trump gained the most votes with white voters, because he convinced very few of them, there's just more of them to begin with. In truth the most illustrative and honest comparison is the percentage change in each group - ie. 26% to 29% for Asian Americans is a 3% change, because it isn't skewed by cases close to the margin nor by differences in population size.
Again, you're totally correct about the % of the group stat though, and thank you for pointing out that oversight. In this case the margins are big enough that even looking in terms of absolute percent shift, the other groups still have much bigger shifts (as a percentage of population, not absolute numbers because that is skewed by demographic size) to the R side than white voters.
I could just insult you back but instead I'll just post this for now.
https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vot...
First, we created a racial resentment scale, based on a series of four questions developed by Lynn Sanders and Donald Kinder. Racial resentment measures dog-whistle or color-blind forms of racism, such as the belief that black people need to simply “try harder” to be successful in America, or that generations of discrimination do not hold back black Americans. However, some have criticized the concept of racial resentment and the various questions designed to measure it as essentially equating conservative beliefs and “race-neutral” principles with racism and racial animus. We believe that such concerns are exaggerated and that racial resentment captures an important dimension of racial animus in American politics.
Nonetheless, in order to speak to such concerns, we created a second measure we call “black influence animosity” derived from questions that more directly examine voters’ views about whether the US government favors black people over white people and how much influence black people have in US politics.
Third, we created a scale based on views about immigration—such as whether one believes immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and take away jobs. We created a stereotyping scale which measures views like believing people of color are more violent or lazier than whites, but it was not included in our final models because it did not predict voting behavior.
So wait, the thesis is that the racists are why Trump won but responses to "people of color are more violent" and "people of color are lazier than whites" did not predict voting behaviour?
Instead, voting behaviour was predicted by (in their words) conservative beliefs and "race-neutral" principles, and that's proof of racism?
I'm sorry, but if the (by far) most racist part of their questioning is not a predictor of voting behaviour, and their response is to disregard that evidence because it doesn't fit the conclusions they are seeking - and then essentially say that being "race neutral" is racist (which it may be, but that's clearly a major difference in opinion between the left and the right, so an impartial study would not make that presupposition) - I'm not convinced of their impartiality nor their conclusions.
The entire underlying left vs right debate on race right now is what constitutes racism - eg. "not seeing race is proof of privilege" and "you can't be racist against white people" vs "seeing race is by definition racist" and "saying you can't be racist against white people is inherently racist". This study uses the left wing definition of racism, and then says "hey people on the right are really racist, as long as we use the left wing definition of racism from 2015 and ignore the results from the definition of racism everyone agreed on in 1995."
One Trump tweet is what US will recall about Asia trip
Not being "classy" enough is a peculiar slam to bring out on a progressive/left board. Sure you don't want to rethink that? If my language is too strong for you, feel free to retire to your fainting couch.
The "humanities degrees = unemployment" bullshit has been debated on this board many times, even recently. Go check some of those threads, as I've pasted copious links (as have others) refuting your nonsense. I don't have time to go look them up for you, I've a deadline and a meeting early tomorrow. Google is your friend.
While the specific skill of analyzing poetry may not be required in the job market, analysis of other things often is, as are many of the other skills and general knowledge bases gained through studying the arts and humanities. Even tech companies are looking for people with well-rounded educations and experience, not just techies.
Lazy and a loud mouth. Charming
Skating on thin ice bud.
I am compared to trump and called a bonehead, uncultured. What exactly is the problem Meg, TB engaged me.
Not being "classy" enough is a peculiar slam to bring out on a progressive/left board. Sure you don't want to rethink that? If my language is too strong for you, feel free to retire to your fainting couch.
"Feel free to retire to your fainting couch" is a peculiar attitude toward someone being offended on a progressive board. For a second I thought I was reading Milo - I can even hear it in his voice if I try: "if I've triggered you, darling, do feel free to retire to your fainting couch." xD
One Trump tweet is what US will recall about Asia trip
Silly Trump, if only he hadn't called the fat tyrant of the a starving population fat, then surely the people would remember the historic honor he was extended by the Chinese.
TB after talking with Meg I decided that having further communication with you is counterproductive to be my rabble goals. Whatever you post my way I will just ignore it, your time will better be spent posting to other individuals. And I will not bother to post any of my thoughts on anything that you post for discussion.
Ivanka, the Fraudster and the Panama Hotel That Made Trump Rich
Ivanka worked with a Soviet-connected salesman to sell hotel units. He fled. Trump got rich. Where are they now?
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.823393
Ivanka, the Fraudster and the Panama Hotel That Made Trump Rich
Ivanka worked with a Soviet-connected salesman to sell hotel units. He fled. Trump got rich. Where are they now?
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.823393
I don't think the comma was needed in the title.
Ha!
