You don't think that Trump won't make an unfair system even worse? Do you know what kind of scam operations he runs? Read up on Trump University, and if you don't think a mind like his won't immediately start eroding the as of yet intact elements of our government, then I have a bridge in the bay area to sell you. Not to mention that Scalia is not my definition of 'bright' by any standard. Bloviating quasi intellectual douchenozzle, sure, but not exactly a contributor to constitutional scholarship.

Hillary will be a boring drag; an uninspired and predictable apparatchik, but not remotely as harmful as the narcissistic psychopathy that's absofuckinglutely going to get us into severe confrontations around the globe that a Trump administration would bring.

Think about it. Yesterday the Russians put out a sabre-rattling presser about a US destroyer in the Black Sea (its international waters). Under Obama or Clinton, I can be pretty confident that any ruffled feathers will be smoothed and that things won't escalate. With Trump, if he has a bad morning because the viagra didn't kick in on time, or Ivana talks back or whatever, god knows what his decisions would be.

@ChaosEngine
he does credit them!
Massive thanks to:
AListProductions: https://www.youtube.com/user/AListPro...
Saul Rosales: https://www.youtube.com/user/superman...
River A.C.E. for the amazing logo: https://www.youtube.com/user/rEdits92...
Shadow Rabbit for the amazing logo:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCURN...

**This video was made purely for fun.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended.

and you guys...sheesh...i can't do stuff like this,and the 10yr old that resides in me still thinks this is awesome!

I think article linked below on reading level is important to note in regards to this.
https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/ By keeping his language simple, he is able to reach, and have his keywords understood by a larger American audience. Of course understanding speech and reading are slightly different, but it's word choice still becomes important.

As this video notes. Trump is a salesman. And he's selling his crap expertly well. He circumvents the answer with babble that never actually answers the question. He never answered if it's un-American to have a religious litmus test to allow people to visit the US, he just says we have a problem, and implicates all the people of one faith in that, which ISIL itself said sometime ago was their goal, to turn the world against all of Islam to make it easier to recruit and radicalize more people... which is off topic. He doesn't address the point of the question, he sort of skirts it and generalizes it into his overall framework. One could argue that yes, saying there's a problem is itself an answer to the question, but it isn't a direct answer.

I don't know as if he's intentionally talking at that low a level though, or if he's just his style period.

It'd also be interesting to see if Hitler's run-up to being elected, if he used similar style. That is if he used a simple style to appeal to the masses. Not just Hitler, but other leaders of his ilk. I choose Hitler here as more an example of an elected leader gone wrong, that had mass appeal to his people, but later regretted to the point of shame.

Even if Britt's famed Warning Signs of Fascism isn't fully accurate by all scholars (and I'm aware he doesn't actually have academic scholarship) many do come close. I think most can agree that it requires at least Extreme Nationalism, warmongering, a loss of civil liberties and rights (Patriot Act, wanting to increase the spy power of the NSA, etc), corporatism a merger of the state and corporate power, racism (Britt's warning signs says sexism, but I think racism is more apt and I don't think what people normally think about sexism applies, though we need more of a racism slash something, to note those who "sin" differently than others, such as the gays).

I recommend the book; seems to have a fair amount of scholarship.

Wow. I just found out that he also believes the pyramids were made by the biblical Joseph as grain storage buildings!


EDIT: And now his claim of having been offered and turning down a full scholarship to West Point has been contradicted by West Point, who said he never even applied and they don't offer full scholarships, and he's admitted he made it up...and other personal claims are also in question. It's looking more and more daily like he might just be a pathological liar.

While I don't think college players should be paid like pro athletes, I think all of their scholarships should include housing, meal plans, and some extra money (like what other students would get if they worked part time). They should also get to keep their scholarship if they get injured (up to 4 year bachelors), as long as they maintain some GPA.

And the coaches shouldn't make more money than provosts & chancellors of the same university. I'll never understand that. If schools have so much extra cash to burn to stay non-profit, LOWER THE PRICE OF TUITION.

"But when people are not only wrong, but so dismissive of those who know a thousand times more than they do, one realizes that such people are simply ineducable: they don't know how to assess evidence or argument; they don't know what real scholarship consists of; and they don't know who the real scholars are; yet they do not hesitate for even an instant before insulting and ridiculing scholars whose shoes they are unfit to tie, often people who have spent decades immersing themselves in the study of a particular subject." -- Trancecoach's inspiring profile quote.

@Trancecoach - keeping in mind that you hold scientific rigour in the highest regard, judging by your love for the text above - could you please tell me what you think of the paper after my criticism?

You can either claim that i do not have a scientific objection to the paper, or you can admit that the paper is unscientific, and therefore meaningless in the context of a scientific discussion about climate change.

Surely a man of science such as yourself (see above paragraph, very inspiring) wouldn't disagree with me - no uncertainties, highlighting of meaningless data points showing a total lack of statistical understanding, no key or legend for plots rendering them COMPLETELY useless, not listing sources therefore none of it is provable, having sarcastic digs at previous scientific work..... It isn't as though i've nit-picked problems with it, these are problems that render the work meaningless. The author is not making a scientific argument, and this is a scientific debate.

Right?

Would you say, perhaps, that you don't 'know how to assess evidence or argument?' That you 'don't know what real scholarship is, nor who the real scholars are?'

Please. Please read your own profile quote back to yourself and consider it and how it relates to your own approach. I would love you to come out of this with a net gain in understanding, i am not trying to ridicule anyone. Ensure that you are one of the educable.. I have also had to reconsider my own approach in the past, i would say it's a good thing.

Every SINGLE ONE of these shots could have been a $53,000 scholarship.. but no... why should we give our hard earned tax money to people who want education... the poor are bankrupting us!!!

We spend $1.8 million dollars on our Military every minute of every day.

Take 1 day of funding away and you could send 25,920 kids to college on $100,000 scholarships.

I was in honors and AP classes with all the legit bullies at my high school. At least 2 of them played football, got scholarships and now work in biotech. So these bullies work for bullying corporations, they drive awesome cars, have families and fuck more women than ever.

Sadly, it's the bully's lackeys that take on the weight of this perceived punishment. You were just too blind to know who was pulling the strings in the first place.

Cycle continues, as it always has, as it always will.

Happy to be the 10th vote for this.

That guy was a total twat. I only wish the camera had showed his face so that if I passed him on the street I could call him out for being a twat.

The actual comment from Paul Robinson in the New York Times in 1979 (which Chomsky paraphrased in this talk) is as follows:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

Chomsky's coming to Japan next month and my wife and I are going to try to see him give a talk on linguistics (unfortunately his other talk on democracy and capitalism booked up as soon as it was announced).

One possible solution:

1) provide the police an operating budget that comes from the taxes that a city normally collects.
2) ALL money from police citations, fines, etc. goes into a separate account.
3) Appoint a citizens committee (Absolutely no government employees/contractors etc) that will decide at the end of the year where the money is spent. with some limitations. It can NOT be spent on day to day police or city budgets. For example. They can decide to fund the city homeless shelter, fund a city beautification project, scholarships for residents of the community, fourth of July celebration, etc. (MAYBE a %5-%10 amount could be budgeted to be given to fund special projects for the city or police force).

a brilliant professor of mine, the late Dr. William Braud, explored the implications of "retroactive influence" (i.e., influence on the past) on wellness in this superb piece of scholarship.

@drk421 You've been duped. That study isn't from Harvard.

It's from a student newsletter entitled. "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy"

ABOUT HARVARD JLPP

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students.

The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.

The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.

I finished the equivalent of 1.5 years of high school over a 4-year period, dropped out for a few years, did my equivalency, and got in the top ten percentile, then made the Dean's List and got scholarships my first year at university.

So yeah, screw high school. Bloody useless, especially comapred with taking care of your family. Geez.