I dub Trump the King of Mount Stupid after the latest insults he has hurled at the intelligence experts. The reality is that he knows almost nothing about the topics and yet he is certain he does.
It reminds me a lot of blogging and commenting. Which is one of the reasons I often ask for sources and rationale to support your beliefs and opinions. Thoughts?
It reminds me a lot of blogging and commenting. Which is one of the reasons I often ask for sources and rationale to support your beliefs and opinions. Thoughts?
12 comments:
Excuse me, but doesn't your blog hinge on YOUR opinion, informed /only/ by YOUR chosen source? (CNN in this case) And you insult anybody that dares disagree from their own knowledge and common sense? Pot, meet Kettle.
That is why I usually link to multiple sources. Unfortunately I was short on time this morning.
Here is the FOX coverage which is no more flattering of Trump. The Howard Kurtz discussion is fascinating.
These Intel guys are Trump's picks and he is acting against their expertise.
I have been telling you how stupid Trump is for the past three years.
Laurie,
I am not sure I ever disagreed with you... Though I did hope initially that he was at least smart enough to trust the "best people" that he hired...
Unfortunately during the last 2 years he has repeatedly proven that he can not even do that when his ego is involved.
It is like when I meet with customers and tell them something.
Then I discuss it further with the design engineers and they tell me I was incorrect.
I then have a choice to make:
1. swallow my pride, tell the customer that my initial answer was incorrect and give them the truth
2. dig in, yell at my engineers and tell them they are idiots...
It seems option 1. is beyond Trump's capability.
What timing. VOX DK Effect
And the sources you choose confirm YOUR initial opinion. And I must say you don't seem to read between the lines very well (though your sources do not, either, they pick one side of the story and run).
Your analogy has a lot of flaws, BTW.
Usually I am at the beginning of the slope of enlightenment... So my sources usually are picked somewhat at random...
Though there are a few things I am pretty confident in.
- An object or person at rest will often stay at rest unless something pulls or pushes them.
- Burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels in a closed sphere will have some impact and cause change for better or worse.
- Sex education and easily available quality birth can reduce the number of accidental pregnancies.
- Every child deserves an excellent parent or parents.
- Government should not control end of life choices of me, my spouse, my parents or my kids.
One by one:
--People react to incentives and disincentives. The question is, which are which?
--You need to get a sense of scale. I found this: "In one hour, Earth receives more energy from the sun than we use in an entire year! In terms of hydrogen burned, the sun burns about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second."
--you mean birth /control/, but IMHO you are "confident" in what you THINK should happen. But I found this: abstinence works
--but you cannot provide that ideal; nobody can.
--and yet you are OK with Obamacare's "death panels"?
- yes
- immaterial
- 600,000+ abortions and lord knows how many unwanted kids a year indicates that it does not work
- why not?
- different topic, I am thinking physician assisted death with dignity
"Obamacare's "death panels"?"
Which still, a decade later, don't exist. Proving, yet again, that nothing has longer half-life than conservative b.s.
Post a Comment