१२ डिसेंबर, २०१९
"They think people who agree with them are smarter than people who disagree with them."
An unnamed Yale faculty member, quoted in "Yale Prof Estimates Faculty Political Diversity At 0%/Pressure to join the 'herd groupthink' in New Haven" (WSJ)(reprinted in part at TaxProf Blog).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९० टिप्पण्या:
He's just mindreading. I'd say they have a strong sense of virtue attached to something idiotic, and they're very virtuous because it's really easy.
Wm. Kerrigan (I think), reviewing Sexual Personae, wondered not about the refreshing wind, but about how in the world it got published by Yale University Press. Long ago in the 90s. Harold Bloom was her advisor, is how.
Yale is full of rich white kids (and often rich black kids) who've figured out how to game the quota system.
Gaydom is the rich kid key to gaming the quota system.
Of course, rich white girls are also very adept at gaming the quota system with their "we're just like the n*ggers under Jim Crow" bit.
Liberal institutions are now full of rich white kids playing out these cons. The kids do believe they are smarter than everybody else, and they do because they've figured out how to avoid working and succeeding on merit. Gaming the system is their idea of smart.
Yeah, well, when you are right, you are right. Right?
But, really, this is so obvious it isn't even interesting.
If you're really smart, people who agree with you are smarter than people who don't, just a priori. If you're really stupid, it's the oppposite.
Young people are blind to side effects and distant consequences. They go for direct solutions to problems, usually problems which, since they're still around, respond perversely to direct action.
They would have been solved already if they responded well to direct action.
I don’t imagine Wisconsin is much different, even inside STEM departments.
"They think people who agree with them are smarter than people who disagree with them."
You don't have go to Yale to find a person who thinks this way -- practically everybody does.
You don't have go to Yale to find a person who thinks this way -- practically everybody does.
I had planned to right the exact same sentence. Totally agree.
That’s my rule. If you hear the word “genius” it almost always means somebody who says exactly what the utterer thinks, but says it better than he does.
"Young people are blind to side effects and distant consequences. “
It’s undisputed neuroscience that that part of the brain isn’t fully developed until the late twenties, which is why it’s remarkably easy to get 18 year olds to head off to war.
You don't have go to Yale to find a person who thinks this way -- practically everybody does.
Ditto.
Exactly! It's human nature.
You know yourself to be a smart, thinking, thoughtful person. You come to certain conclusions in life. You assume people who have not reached the same conclusions are just not as smart or as thoughtful as you. If they were, they would come to *your* conclusions.
@Skylark:
It’s undisputed neuroscience that that part of the brain isn’t fully developed until the late twenties, which is why it’s remarkably easy to get 18 year olds to head off to war.
Exactly right. Peter Hitchens made a similar point to Lord Heseltine on Question Time back in 2013: "The very reason why we send young men out as soldiers, often wrongly, is because they are young and unwise and prepared to kill and risk terrible danger in a way wise people wouldn't."
Brightness depends on how articulate and clean they are.
It looks like Yale has about the same level of political diversity as the Althouse blog’s commentariat.
In fact, since Althouse does semi-regular polling, we probably know more about her readership than we know about the Yale faculty from mere anecdotes.
You don't have go to Yale to find a person who thinks this way -- practically everybody does.
Yes of course, but Yale gets to say who's smart and people believe it, the U of Wisconsin not as much. It also gets to say who's smart on national TV and in the New York Times. If Barack Obama (quite a smart guy, hardly a transcendentally brilliant one) hadn't gone to HLS but say UCLA Law would he have been president?
It looks like Yale has about the same level of political diversity as the Althouse blog’s commentariat.
Very obvious Chuck hasn't been to an Ivy League school.
"It looks like Yale has about the same level of political diversity as the Althouse blog’s commentariat."
Althouse's commentariat and readership (and other commentariats) may be, to Yale and its entire category of institutions, be the "government in exile". My great-uncle, my grandmothers brother, was for a while a "minister" in the Basque government-in-exile in Biarritz. I know how this works.
Anything that moves the discussion of herd mentality/groupthink center stage, where it belongs (extending beyond the bumper for Tucker Carlson's TV show) is fine by me. It's late.
I mean, a really long time coming.
The same is true for the Althouse herd of Trumpists. Ideology poisons the mind.
They are the "peers" in "peer review." Thus no study showing otherwise gets in the academic journals.
(disclosure, Yale alumnus, PhD elsewhere, avoid academia because it was militantly leftist when i wasted 5 years on my PhD and has gotten worse since).
One peculiarity of academic government is the idea of "intelligence" as a sort of ethical value that justifies power.
Most ordinary power struggles do not. What matters, mainly, is belonging to the faction. The Basques did not think that the Spanish Nationalists were stupid, just that they were not Basque, and hostile. The Communists did not think their enemies were idiots, simply that they were unethical in exploiting the working class (and opposing communists).
Even more peculiar, given this consecration of intelligence, is the modern academic taboo against exploring the nature of intelligence. Perhaps it has become heretical to explore a sacred mystery.
I didn’t need to go to an Ivy. I am judging by about 3 years’ following of Althouse reader polls.
Let’s assume that Yale is about 90% Dem and (likely) 95% anti-Trump. (Judging by all of the Yale-trained conservative lawyers who now favor Trump’s impeachment.)
Althouse polling on various topics is generally 85% to 95% Pro Trump. Just look at the past results of her many polls relating to politically-charged things.
No matter what; isn’t this the oldest story in American conservative letters? It’s been ongoing since William F. Buckley published “God and Man at Yale.”
God and Man at Yale. They got rid of the source of wisdom. And now they have to prove they are smart by acts of PC insanity.
One who might particularly interest our host is E. Donald Elliott, a Washington attorney and adjunct professor at Yale Law, who is often published in The American Spectator and has also written op-eds for The Wall Street Journal. https://spectator.org/author/edonaldelliott/
Don was a high school friend of mine.
More quotable quote from Eire: "all that diversity means here is skin color"
The end.
"No matter what; isn’t this the oldest story in American conservative letters? It’s been ongoing since William F. Buckley published “God and Man at Yale.”
This is true, it has merely intensified as the mandarinate has become more powerful.
Power was once much more "organic" - the leaders of the people needed no imprimatur by some specific course through specific institutions, and they were filtered through the gates according to institutional rules.
Its interesting to consider how many of your great men, once, were self-educated, passed no official filters and gates.
You see this at every level btw, with the increasing bureaucratization of governance in every institution, public and private.
The Yale-trained conservative lawyers.
Like Brett Kavanaugh.
George Conway went to Yale Law. So did Hunter Biden.
Hunter Biden is better looking.
Elihu U
Bertrand Russell was no dummy. Back in the twenties, he was asked to name the three people of genius of his time. He named Einstein, Lenin and said there there was no third person. Lenin!...Smart people aren't all that smart. Napoleon had the support and admiration of Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, Lord Byron, and Heine. Napoleon was a jerk. At the end of the Napoleonic wars, 30% of French men between the ages of eighteen and forty-six were either dead or disabled. Fuck Napoleon and fuck the smart people who have been praising assholes ever since Homer went into the tank for Achilles.
W and Kerry went to Yale.
Skull & Bones douchebags
No Chuck, if we were like Yale, you would be effectively banned from posting here, rather than engaged with.
It's always been a problem for me when I hear someone else judging another person's intelligence ("I work with a lot of really smart people").
It seems to be a logical problem: A stupid person may presumably think *everyone* is smart--because others are, indeed, smarter than them; A stupid person also may not have the ability to see the intelligence in another person (because they're.... stupid). If a stupid person tells me that someone else is smart--I really shouldn't value their judgement on that issue at all--should I?
A *truly* smart person probably realizes that judging someone else's intelligence is more complicated that just a casual judgement--and probably is more critical of others' smarts. A (truly) smart person's assertion of "That person is smart" is probably more of a self-serving compliment ("I'm so smart that I can identify intelligence in others") than am accurate assessment of the other person.
And a *truly* smart person might realize that if they believe that someone else is smarter than them that they're really not qualified to judge that person's intelligence.
And I, myself, truly can't judge another person's intelligence (that makes me smart, see above)--so how can I determine whether the person making claims about another's intelligence is either smart or dumb? The logic becomes a bit circular.
One thing is pretty sure: Anyone who tells you how smart they, themselves, are--isn't.
There are many kinds of smart, but there's only one kind of stupid.
See, this is where I think we on the right have the critical-thinking advantage: whether or not we've attended an Ivy, we know what it takes to get into one (and of course it's usually not just connections or intersectionality - the Ivys can choose from so many thousands and thousands of applicants that even in a flawed field they can choose the "best and the brightest," as it's said) AND we know that we tend to disagree on philosophy and policy with almost everyone there. Because of our disagreements, many of us examine our own premises, trying to figure out WHY we have concluded what we've concluded, and if we end up still convinced of the correctness of our conclusions, we have a lot more ammo for that conviction than our interlocutors have for theirs.
I have lots of friends with whom I disagree about politics. I don't have any stupid friends (plenty of stupid acquaintances, but no stupid friends). Therefore smart people can disagree about politics. I confess I'm frequently puzzled by how my friends can hold the opinions they hold, but I don't doubt their intelligence - I think they just don't apply their intelligence to a question so much more satisfactorily handled by their feelings.
buwaya @ 8:00 am: “...Even more peculiar, given this consecration of intelligence, is the modern academic taboo against exploring the nature of intelligence. Perhaps it has become heretical to explore a sacred mystery.”
This. If I can mystify you, I displace your intelligence and whatever it may be trying to tell you about the situation. You are mine to lead where I will. So those (like the professoriate) who praise this thing called “intelligence” and encourage us to prize it, to submit ourselves and our precious offspring to the mysterious culling and sifting called “admissions,” very much want and need us not to examine it too closely. We remain prostrate in the antechamber before our offerings, while they, veiled and swathed in cloth of gold and incense, repair to the sanctuary whence, after an appropriate agonizing interval, they will return with a verdict and an edict.
Power. It’s how you do it.
65% of Americans are above average, so it might be true.
But the jokes on them because actually about 70% of Americans are smarter than the world average IQ of 90. (US avg=98, stddev=15).
The professor overstates the influence of conservatives at Yale and the rest of the Ivy League.
Even more peculiar, given this consecration of intelligence, is the modern academic taboo against exploring the nature of intelligence. Perhaps it has become heretical to explore a sacred mystery.
No, they know what they will find and that cannot be permitted. Colleges have been admitting unqualified people now for 25 years. To avoid the embarrassment of having most of them fail, the grade system has been destroyed and now the social networks of colleges must go. Segregation is the order of the day. Look at the videos of the violent demonstrations at colleges directed at conservative students. Half the demonstrators are black. The "Black Hebrews" that attacked that Jewish grocery store in New Jersey are being described as "white nationalists."
buwaya said...
"No matter what; isn’t this the oldest story in American conservative letters? It’s been ongoing since William F. Buckley published “God and Man at Yale.”
This is true, it has merely intensified as the mandarinate has become more powerful.
Power was once much more "organic" - the leaders of the people needed no imprimatur by some specific course through specific institutions, and they were filtered through the gates according to institutional rules.
...
I see some intensification as well. On nights that there is big news about one or another Trump scandals, or something outrageous put out by Trump on Twitter, we see media figures like Trucker Carlson running with the "college liberals" mini-stories. Tucker Carlson is all over this. Fox News generally. Rush too. And others in conservative talk radio.
A big part of the current intensification of this story is that essential element of Trumpism that I have mentioned previously; the Victimhood Element. Trumpists see themselves as victims in a way that traditional conservatives do not. Trumpists see themselves as discriminated against, put down by economic forces beyond their control. Subject to harassment by a main stream establishment. Just like women and minorities have for decades. Whether it is true or not. Trump himself plays a victim role. More and more and more, all the time, he's being treated unfairly. And he's not afraid to say so to his core supporters, who love him for it because they feel the same way.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal used to do a feature where he would post grandly eloquent quotes of past presidents, and then finish with some banal declaration of a current Democrat, often Barack Obama. And it was funny. Now, it is being done (certainly not by James Taranto or anyone at the Journal) with Trump quotes, and it is so stark in contrast that it is bizarrely disorienting. Can anyone imagine, what a Lincoln, an Eisenhower, a Reagan, a Bush would make of Trump?
As best as I can determine, they'd listen politely to one of Trump's addresses and then say, "That was some weird shit." We know that at least one of them did just that.
Fernandistein:
The average number of legs per person is less than two, but almost everyone has two legs.
Yeah, no Ivy for Cuck.
Don’t worry, Cuck, there is room for a few anti-Trump losercons like you, they will welcome the occasional Richard Painter. Strangely enough those were the people at Yale who ran the party for years, and were happy to be controlled opposition as long as they could pay for their bow ties and law degrees and houses in Arlington.
God and Man at Yale—OK Boomer, you don’t know the millionth of it.
Read what Henry and buwaya have to say. They don’t suffer from Cuck’s rectocranial inversion.
Ivy wannabes like Chuck have posters in their mom’s basement of traditional conservatives like George Conway.
If you're really smart, people who agree with you are smarter than people who don't, just a priori. If you're really stupid, it's the oppposite.
That's only true if you're considering people with the same motivations, the same or similar information and questions which have something like a 'correct' answer.
"What's your favorite color" doesn't count, but "what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" does.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "Trumpists see themselves as victims in a way that traditional conservatives do not. Trumpists see themselves as discriminated against, put down by economic forces beyond their control. Subject to harassment by a main stream establishment. Just like women and minorities have for decades."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
LLR-lefty Chuck literally complains about people being mean to him every single day.
Every. Single. Day.
And I mean every single day.
Brett Kavanaugh said he was the victim of left wing smears.
So some traditional conservatives do claim to be victims.
George Conway is Chuck’s hero. He’s also a Twitter whiner.
Chuck whines all the time here.
There are very few "traditional conservatives" by that distinction.
They are very, very odd ducks these days.
Not in the traditional (Russell Kirk say) chain of influence.
You do have a few media fellows and "think tank" characters who understand that they are hired pipers.
The idea that the conservatives have been cut out of the power structure is not new. As you note, this was part of Buckley's point. It is in Russell Kirk. It is in Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Ortega y Gassett. Jeez, its even in De Maistre. I doubt that any of them would see the modern world or modern US politics much differently than they saw their own, other than that the situation has devolved further. As several of them predicted, or would have.
Mccullough: "Chuck whines all the time here."
Continuous whining and crying and caterwauling and harassing Althouse by LLR-lefty Chuck were key elements in why he was banned.
That and his vicious attacks against minorities, women and children.
Very Prof Kaplan-like, which is why LLR-lefty Chuck passionately defended her attack on Barron Trump.
But then, LLR-lefty Chuck passionately defends ALL far left radicals.
But only ALL the time.
Colleges have convinced the Supreme Court, that it's A OKAY to discriminate in order for there to be: diversity. They claim, that they're Not doing it to help the poor ignorant darkies; but rather, so the the OTHER students can be exposed to people not like them
Right?
They let students in with lowered qualifications because of this (so OTHER students can see them)
If it's VITAL that students go to a school with substandard students, so that the student body can look down on those darkies, and despise their idiot ways....
Wouldn't it also be VITAL for students to have at least ONE crazy conservative Professor*?
Am I implying that there should be Quotas for conservative Professors?
Am I implying that there should be Lowered standards for conservative Professors?
THEY SEEM TO BE. Wouldn't it do our little children good, to listen to a different point of view? So that they could, at least, refute it???
ONE crazy conservative Professor*: You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
Then take the fucking wall apart brick by brick
and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever?
Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!
Chuck is more mechanism than man, but whatever.
It would help whatever there is of humanity in that entity to read some of the above, and not the daily tweet and its outrage.
Russell Kirk is a very good start.
"According to computer science professor David Gelernter..."
He's an anti-science religious nut.
"According to computer science professor David Gelernter..."
He's an anti-science religious nut.
The Worst and the Dullest.
If it helps, Yale responded to alumni:
https://news.yale.edu/2019/12/10/85-million-yale-intensifies-commitment-premier-diverse-faculty?
Granted that Russell Kirk was very much like one of those fellows who catches and pins up butterflies on boards, and tries to categorize them in some Linnean frenzy.
Conservatism does not work that way, to the degree it works at all. As Russell Kirk found. It is not a good subject for those afflicted with Aspergers syndrome.
Howard said...
The same is true for the Althouse herd of Trumpists. Ideology poisons the mind.
There is actually a lot of intellectual diversity in this commentariat. We disagree on many issues. Gay marriage. Drug legalization. Tariffs. Taxation come to mind. Every time these topics come up there is debate.
What you have done is lump together people who disagree with you into a single group that you can label and dismiss. Many here were tepid supporters of Trump at the start. Their support has strengthened because Trump is restoring the rule of law and rebuilding our economy.
You aren't smart enough to participate in these actual discussions.
If you had any critical thinking skills you wouldn't support open borders or a two tier system of laws or unending wars or infanticide.
So you focus on political associations from a tribal point of view because that is what unthinking tools do.
ever since Homer went into the tank for Achilles.
In what sense did Homer go into the tank for Achilles?
American public higher education enrollment would collapse without expensive and strenuous recruitment of women and minorities by way of athletic scholarships. One reason that sports have come to occupy the inordinately (to put it mildly) large place they take in campus time and attention is precisely that they attract the notice and approval of the citizenry, most of whom know little and care less about the actual work of scholarship, research, and teaching--and would be hostile to them if they did.
But the eggheads made their Faustian bargain to become the handmaidens of corporate sport and federal social engineering, and have to live with the consequences.
Narr
Doesn't say much for their intelligence, does it?
Isn't following herd mentality the ultimate sign of stupidity? It's the lesson from "The Emperor's New Clothes".
And it permeates the intellectual 'elites' that populate our University Campuses, and they pass this weak minded thinking to their students.
College is now the ultimate a rip off.
Achilles is an attractive character in the Iliad.
He is glorious, powerful, admired, and ultimately compassionate.
A man of magnificent qualities as well as magnificent defects.
All within the context of the (to most of us, probably) peculiar world of Homer.
In that world of course it would be odd to have Achilles be something else.
A modern would have made a sort of hero out of Thersites.
Nice comment Achilles, those new meds I recommended must be working.
As I told my son, the most important reason to go to Harvard or Yale or Stanford is that it allows you to criticize people who went to Harvard or Yale or Stanford without being accused of being jealous.
Even more peculiar, given this consecration of intelligence, is the modern academic taboo against exploring the nature of intelligence. Perhaps it has become heretical to explore a sacred mystery.
It's actually because to do so produces unpleasant demographic results that must not be acknowledged much less addressed. The science of intelligence is well researched and understood, which is precisely why it is suppressed.
Trumpists see themselves as discriminated against, put down by economic forces beyond their control ... Trump himself plays a victim role.
I see myself as increasingly financially successful due to wise investing and the Trump stock market boom. I suspect that many others have been won over to Trump thanks to their growing portfolios.
Nice try at projection. You play the victim, Chuckles, not Trump. All that whining about being treated unfairly here after you deliberately provoke derision.
Trump does not whine about the Fake Media. He pushes it back in their faces. Homey don't do passive whining, but Chuckles does.
Achilles was a tragic figure, one of world literature's first such.
All the major characters in the Iliad were tragic figures.
But Achilles more so than the rest, because he saw further and with more clarity than the rest.
Of all the characters in the Iliad, Achaean and Trojan alike, he had the deepest understanding of the tragic nature of life.
He was more intelligent than the others, more so even that Odysseus, who was wily and cunning but lacking in moral depth and insight; and he was more self-aware than the the rest, acutely so.
As noted by Lattimore: "Apollo, outraged at the treatment of his friend Hektor, practically describes Achilleus as a brute and a barbarian (24. 33-54). He is not. He is a man of culture and intelligence; he knows how to respect heralds, how to entertain estranged friends. He presides over the games with extraordinary courtesy and tact. He is not only a great fighter but a great gentleman, and if he lacks the chivalry of Roland, Lancelot, or Beowulf, that is because theirs is a chivalry coloured with Christian humility which has no certain place in the gallery of Homeric virtues. Above all, Achilleus is a real man, mortal and fallible, but noble enough to make his own tragedy a great one."
Homer's world is not at all peculiar to those in the circles I travel. Our world is Homer's world, except that it's noisier, and has online shopping.
Recently I received through my email a survey from some political scientists at Harvard. As a lark I replied to it and as they provided an opportunity at the end for comments I provided them with this screed the concluding paragraph of which I think applies to this post.
I am truly curious to know what you hope to learn from what I perceived to be a superficial survey. I live in flown over country and in a state that has flipped from Democrat to Republican in the past twenty years. We were accused of being racist for voting so strongly again Obama, but considering that he and his party vowed to shut down the coal industry and also expressed widespread opposition to all fossil fuel I would say we were just able to identify our enemies. I have seen this country pull apart in my seventy years of life due to identity politics. Pernicious Democrats and feckless Republicans. I don't like Donald Trump but I voted for him and will crawl over broken glass to vote for him again regardless of his opponent. You may think of me as deplorable and if so I welcome that label. My distaste for Trump's personal style does not any way cloud my judgment concerning his success as president. As Lincoln said of Grant, "I can't spare this man, he fights.
Furthermore, I would like to turn this survey on its head and query the two of you about the percentage of Democrat voters in your area, among your friends, neighbors, etc. I guarantee there is more diversity of thought and opinion in this backwater of West Virginia than there is among the faculty at Harvard. The only diversity that matters is diversity of opinion, and the definition of diversity that I have seen coming from the left in this country can best be expressed as a "a bunch of people of different melanin content marching in lockstep with the Democratic talking point of the day. That is not diversity that is simply a color palette useful for marketing ploys.
“The Trump stock market boom” began in about 2011.
It’s funny to me how the “Ivy League” prjejudices work in TrumpWorld. Trump is thought to be a great man, and, like, really smart, because he attended an Ivy for two years. George W. Bush had more of an Ivy education and he never did the kind of silly piggish bragging about it like Trump.
As others have noted, it's human nature to think that those that agree with you are smarter than others. The problem comes when you don't recognize that your biases are leading to this conclusion, or worse, that your biases make you believe that those that disagree with you are evil and should be silenced.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "Trump is thought to be a great man, and, like, really smart, because he attended an Ivy for two years."
Donald J Trump is the most effective conservative President in our lifetimes.
Period.
And that was clearly established in 2018.
"The Incredible Trump Agenda – What Most Americans Don’t Know About the War the President Has Waged" March 5, 2018 Heritage Foundation
No wonder LLR-lefty Chuck hates Trump so much. All leftists hate Trump because duh.
You can really tell that LLR-lefty Chuck, who boldly asserted President Trump would never be able to renegotiate NAFTA or reset our China trade relationship, is definitely not handling the announced USMCA signing very well at all.
I wonder if once the USMCA is signed LLR-lefty Chuck will simply crawl back into his bottle of gin and start tossing out more racist posts as he has done before.
Perhaps even the thought of this amazing deal (in conjunction with the renegotiated deals with South Korea and Japan) and its positive impacts on American workers is what upsets LLR-lefty Chuck the most.
LLR-lefty Chuck has spent a substantial amount of time on this blog in the past laughing about fellow American's in the Midwest losing their jobs. LLR-lefty Chuck seemed to get a great deal of enjoyment out of their predicament which was a direct result of the Uniparty in DC hollowing out our nation to gain lucrative contracts and lobbying deals.
Oh how LLR-lefty Chuck laughed and laughed about all that.
But now that America is set to benefit from these revamped deals LLR-lefty Chuck's sense of humor has disappeared.
So very very strange.............(actually, its not).
Remember from the post on doctors and lawyers in Pakistan that the left and right in this country are closer than we generally think. British Tories would scratch their heads over the health care debate within the Democratic Party.
readering: "Remember from the post on doctors and lawyers in Pakistan that the left and right in this country are closer than we generally think."
Wrong again.
As always.
That was true 30 years ago. It no longer is.
No one is buying your nonsense. The party that wants to do away with the electoral college, destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4th, hell, all the amendments, go with open borders and zero enforcement, free stuff for all illegals and fundamentally transform the rest of our society has ZERO in common with previous generation liberals and even less than zero in common with republicans.
But hey, I get it.
Now that Team Dem/LLR-lefty are getting their a**es handed to them in the polls over hoax impeachment (following hoax collusion/hoax dossier/hoax emoluments/hoax 25th amendment etc), you want to play nice and pretend everything is ok.
It's not, because you and your pals aren't....and you guys made the mistake of thinking you were good to go on all this stuff and let it all hang out.
Congrats.
I don't support a single position on your list, except impeachment of the crook in the WH.
readering: "I don't support a single position on your list, except impeachment of the crook in the WH."
LOL
Your betters and party standard bearers support every one of those positions. And they demonstrated it all on stage, in front of the world.
Good luck with your cognitive dissonance.
And interesting that you use the word "crook" to describe Trump given Trump has been under IRS audit for decades and intensive deep state assessment for at least 4 years on top of an entire global team of dem opposition researchers backed up by the full power and investigative might of US law enforcement and intelligence services in conjunction with foreign intelligence services and law enforcement personnel ON TOP OF over 3 years of Senate and House investigations with at least 1 full year of deep state House intel and judiciary investigation and......................wait for it........wait for it.......
....................they have found ZERO criminal activity.
LOL
The dems can't even identify a single actual crime in their hoax impeachment effort!!!!
Not. A. Single. One.
Do you know why? (Hint: Trump has committed no crimes)
The dems and their deep state allies across the globe COULDN'T EVEN MANUFACTURE A CRIME!!!!!
So, how do you explain that moron?
Wait! Let me get some popcorn before you start explaining that one!
Perhaps you should converse with LLR-lefty Chuck behind the scenes before you respond so all you lefties can get your stories straight!
readering said...
I don't support a single position on your list, except impeachment of the crook in the WH.
Yeah. Good thing Hillary cleaned out that White House travel office.
Yikes (re Drago, not Micheal K)
readering: "Yikes"
A low risk comment which does not explicitly expose your ignorance.
Well played.
PS With polls closed just over 10 minutes ago, BBC News projects 86 seat majority for Tories and Labour losing 71 seats.
They would have been solved already if they responded well to direct action.
Or, they would have been solved already (or admitted to be unsolvable by external intervention) if there wasn't so much money to be diverted and sluiced from them not being solved.
@readering: Could it be that all those auditors, intelligence people, and opposition researchers are incompetent goofs that are just feeding narratives to goofs? If the latter goofs are still committed to his blind stupidity, that could be the only explanation for failure of the former to catch him, or to half-convincingly frame him. I'll admit, it's refreshing to see so many held out to us as narrative missionaries such as Tribe, Sunstein, Krugman, et al. shown to be emotional boors and persuader wannabes even if media continue pushing string trying to maintain their prior hold on opinion.
So great minds think alike?
Poor ones do too.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा