I believe in higher education. I do not believe in the paper mill system our education system has become. There is a reason why sciences require you to have a degree. And its often not even the degree that is needed, but the state certification that is required to often get a job, which will require a formal education of some sort to gain this knowledge to pass the state exam. Liberal arts should be incorporated with a science degree. Our screwed up education system treats them completely different. While those with a science degree can get a job with their paper alone, a person with a liberal arts degree will always struggle to get a job, much less make a livable salary. Of course there are exceptions, however when kids are taking the easy path and are being told, 'do anything, just get a degree at any cost' is a very very bad idea. The reality is you can't 'teach' liberal arts and become a star in your field. If you're creative and ambitious, you do not need a degree as there are no state requirements or certifications to become an interior decorate, artist, musican,ect ... This is on par with paying a kid to goto a basketball camp for 8 years in hopes he will become an NBA player.
The Trump trolls all called in sick today so they could click click click. The great Trump charade continues.
Next one is the CNN/ABC one. I could see Trump skipping that one since CNN stands for Clinton News Network. The final is the FOX one, where he will be coddled and decidedly not fact checked. He could then come to his senses and return to the debates.
Predictably mediocre performance by Hillary. Predictably awful performance by that 65 year old orange haired idiot with early on set alzheimers. Whoever wins this election can go hangout with Bush Sr. and Carter in the "one termer" club.
Was it me or did Hillary's speeches on the economy go something like this: "Economy, jobs, growth, trade, taxes, <buzzword>, <buzzword>, <buzzword>, etc"? I thought she was supposed to be the nuanced candidate. I thought she was supposed to be the thoughtful candidate. I thought she was supposed to be the policy-knowledgeable candidate. I thought she was supposed to be the coherent candidate. No nuance. No thought. No policy-knowledge. No coherency.
Can't materially disagree. But Trump is solidly 70 years old. And his alzheimers isn't particularly early onset unless you're saying he's had it for a long time now. Concur with the one-termer prediction.
LOL, you are off the trumpster fire message book... you are supposed to criticize Clinton for being two fact-focused, two detailed. And you are supposed to praise trumpster for "connecting" better with the audience (at least the mouthbreathing fox news audience).
In the game of expectations: Trump won on the economy. He wasn't stellar but he was far more nuanced and less obtuse than Clinton. Clinton on the other hand was supposed to sign, seal, and deliver Trump's fate with a clear message about the economy. Was her Xanax-face routine supposed to appeal to suburban women? What a disgraceful thing to do - they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Though, I suppose like any other stereotype of suburban women, Clinton's best moment came when she mentioned her husband's accomplishments.
I think that Clinton decided that being a policy wonk in this debate would not play well with voters. Trump tried to goad Clinton with his statement "You have no plans!". Clinton was disciplined and resisted and told Trump to go read her book/website.
Really....? Aside from lowering taxes for the wealthy and repeatedly saying "we won't let the jobs leave"...... What was nuanced about his ramblings? Trump should have been smart enough to take a chill pill.... He looked extremely uncomfortable out there after the firsat 15 minutes... Honestly... hoe can you look at yourself in the mirror and believe what you say?
And cutting taxes for the rich, increasing military spending, and starting a trade war will reduce the deficit and create jobs! I mean, anyone who believes this has 0 credibility. I don't think many people in the middle class are accumulating $100k in student loans for a liberals arts degree unless they know they are going to do something that makes them a lot of money.
Nothing wrong with a liberal arts degree. What you learn in college is mostly how to learn, and liberal arts definitely teaches that. It can be harder to position yourself for various jobs, but even a lot of tech firms recruit liberal arts majors. (note: I have an engineering degree, not a liberal arts degree). My daughter just started college study political science at A&M. Interestingly, they have two different poli sci tracks: one is a BA, the other a BS. The BA is more about theory, the BS is more about applied science. It's hard to point to the BA and criticize it...it's just a different track. The curriculum and classes all look very good. My daughter likes the theory more, so she is taking the BA track. Does that make her unworthy to receive any funding? I don't think one can make a good argument for that.
