I wonder how much antagonism of what is obviously an extreme anti-Trump sentiment comes from simple fear.

There is a thinking that people with degrees are more intelligent than the rest of us. That's why in German-speaking countries you use your title of Dr if you have one. It opens up many doors and people take you more seriously.

This is a flash back to old times when only kids from rich families, and the extremely gifted could go to university. In a world where it is awkward if not taboo to speak of class, academic titles became a sort of placeholder.

But we now live in an age where more and more people are getting degrees. Degrees have thus lost much of their old elitist connotation. Many people who thought getting a degree was elevating them to an elite have noticed that they are not the rare or lucky minority they thought they were. They find themselves sold short, remaing part of the mass. Such people (well, some of them) take it out by feeling superior to those who aren't so favoured. The common uneducated man is suddenly looked on with suspicion, and is suddenly blamed for te ills of the world.

Feel free to remove your groan if you feel you gave it unjustly

It is a shame, and something that I find hypocritical. I am from a place where degrees just mean you may be smart (school is soul destroyingly difficult..and single, since there is no time left), maybe you can use your knowledge (no guarantee) but there is a certainty of poverty. So people do respect those with degrees, in a charitable, annoyingly philantropic way. "Somebody has to do it", they smile at you empathetically. And cross you out as a complete impractical fool.

Snubbing others for lack of degrees these days when people can buy them is as bad as snubbing those for other things they cannot buy.

School is democratic in the way we don't know how much one takes from it. The opportunity is there. But if somebody doesn't have a degree, should not be a reason to discriminate. Everybody I know never talks about degrees, anyways. It is like saying I have a driver's license which means I am Fitipaldi. And those who don't have a license cannot possibly know how car drives.

What is interesting, is the fact that people voted for an idea of a state being run as a business, it seems to me. It shows their worries about previous (clinical) management.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

I am proud to say that I got my degree at The FREE University of Hard Knocks. I'm working on my Doctorate at the moment

I don't think Trump sold them on this. The concept has been around for a long time.

There has been a subtle shift in the way government presents itself.

we hear talk of the government investing in education, investing in infrastructure, and people seem to be okay with that.

In the past the government provided schools, provided roads etc because that was what they were elected to do. There was no expectation of anything in return, except that citizens were expected to pay taxes.

And then at some point people said invest. If a government invests in education it hopes that that money will be recovered in the future. maybe it beleives a more edctaied populace will make more money, pay more taxes, and so that money can flow back to the government with interest. This is the image that word projects. If it is indeed such an investment, the next logical step woul be to stop financing this stuff with tax money but to ask the banks to loan the money. By not challenging that, we are accepting that the government does effectively see itself as a business more than as a service provider.

And if government is a business anyway wouldn't it be better to let an actual real life businessman run it?

In other words, we have fallen into our own trap.

According to the attached picture Trump got his Bachelor degree from the Wharton school of Finance and Commerce, there is no record that they offer courses in anthropology.

Some sources say he attended Wharton because it offered a real estate course.

Some newspapers claim he graduated with honours or top of his class but he is not so listed in the attached picture. Wharton school flatly refuse to say anything about Trump's time there, his qualifications or any other activities.

Attached Thumbnails

 

The trap of commercial society that people/voters created by their own demand. It is the same with media: if customers demand entertainment, why get hysterical when all of a sudden we are fed fake news that we wanted to satisfy the quest for emotional intensity with, entertainment and instant gratification.

Providing is not a bad idea, per se, if users do not kick back safely relying on entitlement and zero investments on their parts. If you train journalists to give you exaggeration because you got numb to anything else...don't blame the journalist. Or a business man that actually might be after his own investment returns. Business, commercial model means - you do not know if a business owner is genuinely after your wellbeing (hardly), or his own interests (almost always).

I still think that competition and merit is at the end better, than entitlement. It is up to customers to dictate the conditions of competition (they pay/vote), they will get it one of these days. Entitlement secures only dependance on handouts that we in no way define.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Do you have a crystal ball to know which will be the industries that will have the higher returns in 30 years? Trump's father was in construction, Trump followed the same path.

So what? Someone that got in and graduated from Wharton is at the "top 1%" of the brightest people:



https://media.giphy.com/media/z619OZp86JaBG/giphy.gif

Protests in several cities against rescinding DACA.

For those who are not aware, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an immigration policy started by Pres. Obama which allows/allowed eligible immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors, often following their parents and without much say/understanding, to receive (1) a renewable 2-year "grace period" from deportation and (2) eligibility to apply for a work permit. Not an automatic amnesty, but a path to legalization.

I've long been on the fence on the topic of illegal immigration, being a legal immigrant myself. DACA is a different matter though - I see no cons in offering a path to legalization to the hundreds of thousands of folks who are already here and meet the criteria for eligibility.

Thoughts? I think it must be crushing to grow up all your life in a place, be sure you are American, only to find out at 18 years old that you are illegal and could be deported at any moment to a random country to which you have no connection, you don't speak the language, etc. Such folks should not be punished for whatever their parents did when they came illegally - they had no say in the matter as minors.

I think it's absurd to stop DACA.

I think it is the first politically astute thing Trump has done. He has reversed a unilateral and contentious decision and placed it squarely in the laps of the lawmakers who should be the ones making these decisions to begin with. He may have launched the missile, but Congress will decide whether it gets armed or not. It is great to watch our representatives squirm. They all suck IMO.

Unfortunately, he is using the DACA kids as pawns. Would love to see a very liberal grandfather clause applied moving forward, but only after an individual review which provides an opportunity to deport those that have not taken advantage of the opportunity they were given. The "bad hombres" as it were.

No, but I do not claim to be a good businessman!
Anyway I did not follow the same path as my father

Do you have a source for your statement (excluding the MBA course which Trump did not follow?)?

President Donald Trump bucked his own party Wednesday and sided with Democrats to support a deal that would ensure passage of disaster relief funding as well as raising the debt ceiling and continuing to fund the government into December.

In a rebuke to Republican leaders, Trump backed Democrats' plan to support a deal that would fund Hurricane Harvey aid but only raise the debt ceiling for three months.
Those two items would also be tied to a measure to keep the government open through the end of December, setting up a hugely complicated year end crush of must-pass items.

Ignoring the advice of Republican congressional leadership and that of his own treasury secretary, Trump said he wanted a solution and supported the Democratic plan, according to a source briefed on a meeting that Trump held with congressional leaders Wednesday.

Source

Sounds like a good plan, of course Trump is not a "real" Republican!

Edit - worth reading here

I think it's very telling you don't object to the poster who actually raised that point.

Morally I'm all with you. Legally however I think it's indeed congress' job to rectify that kind of wrong.

I'm with VFR, it's a good thing he forces congress to act.

I get what you are saying - that this may be the first politically astute thing Trump has done. But i don't think that he is politically astute. He's a salesman (and a very good one because he can obviously still con/bullsh*t people (Trump university - i mean, come on folks!) so he'll avoid giving bad news at every turn.

but deep down i think he's a chicken.

so if you mean politically astute because he can blame Congress if they don't pass a bill to give protections to "dreamers" then i would agree with you. but he got sessions to deliver the bad news and Trump got to say how much he loves everybody.

i think he's operating in an ever-tightening circle: trying to appease and appeal to his base but in so doing has given dominant voice to the worst of his supporters: the haters. where does he have to go? he loves the adoring crowd and yet he is adored for saying hateful things. he's going to seem like a sell-out no matter what he does. and what do i say to that: you reap what you sow, buddy.

i betcha he regrets ever running for president.

i think the "many sides" gaffe was a salesman's attempt at not wanting to lose anybody! he doesn't know what to do/say when he's faced with hard decisions. if he had political acumen he would easily have played the "Americans are good" card at that time.

PS I am not a US citizen but i have been keenly watching US politics for past year.

What I like about the American Tertiary Education System is that they strictly do not allow Universities like Harvard, to allow say 12% or so of admissions to be discretionary, based on donations from the family rather than academic ability.

What's that...they do allow this? Hmm, I guess your point is invalid then. Odd, as you normally make such cogent arguments.