Agreed. Send me there seems to be growing fetishization of unwavering loyalty in the age of Mr. Trump. Given the choice, I’d rather have people around me that stand up for their beliefs and are unafraid to push back.
You could just as well be talking about Ms. DeVos.
If I had claimed that I had earned the right to have my point of view it might have been relevant. I just made a comment based on decades of experience in higher education. If someone wants to dismiss that experience that is their choice. If someone had a compelling reason to dismiss it, I actually would be interested in hearing their argument. Which makes the video even less relevant.
What injustice have the students endured because of her?
It isn’t a matter of punishment. It’s a matter of character.
I think “fetishization” and “unwavering loyalty” are overstatements, and show a measure of contempt for those who defend him in any manner.
Im happy to be corrected here, and I’m pleased to hear people around you are more open.
First, let’s be clear that I’ve never used either of those terms.
Yes, calling Trump a cheeto and even his marginal supporters nazis--------such a pro-Trump agenda on here.
There’s about 30 people posting on here consistently who don’t like Trump.
So please whining and maybe just stick to the issues.
I have sometimes wondered whether Dems are falling into a Trumpian trap. Sometimes people will defend someone only because the attack against that person is so excessive and wrong in itself. I think Hillary put her foot in a trap with that 'deplorables" and “irredeemables” business. I know people who absolutely didn’t like Trump, didn’t vote for him in the primary, but gradually became more accepting and voted for him in the general. I think a great number of people were solidified for Trump and motivated to get to the polls when they realized when Hillary talked about “deplorables” and “irredeemables”, she was talking about them or their family members or even their socioeconomic class.
That underscores the importance of messaging and the high potential impacts of disinformation campaigns. There was an effort, still being promoted by some apparently, to falsify what HRC said. All that is left is the buzzwords and the intentional distortion that she was talking about you!. But those words were not about socio-economics class. Far from it, and you know better.
Not sure what issue you are sticking to, but…
I heard her say it myself. I do realize the Dems have tried to explain it away since then, usually by saying she only meant “half” of Trump supporters. But she said it. Trump supporters knew who they were and they knew who other Trump supporters largely were, and it was just part of the tired old “guns and bibles” stuff the left likes to throw at the peasantry from time to time.
Wow, no sense of humor, Ridge? It really doesn’t tell anyone anything.
All that time spent with college students and, like Ridge, no sense of humor? Of course I don’t dismiss your viewpoint. Or your time as an educator, which I highly respect. It was shared as a joke (largely because outside of that film, I’ve never heard anyone speak in such terms). Some levity might be in order for both of you.
Your recollection of precisely what she said may be hazy (it wasn’t just yesterday), even if you have a great recollection of your impression of what she said. Or perhaps you recall what she said very well, but have written something different here.
Not to my knowledge, but this just may be something that , in light of the clear statements on the subject of Russian hacks by the IC, no one thinks is important to report.
You can couunt the exact number of CAF members who enthusiastically support the God Emperor by using the fingers on one hand and still have a few left over.That argument fails because this forum like most other forums are moderated.