Democrats don't understand what it means to be educated

Paradoxical said:

Weaver2, I consider people like Buttigieg, Kamala, AOC and many other college educated people to be some of the dumbest people on this planet. They got to where they are through rampant DEI and giving preference and adulation not to their intelligence but to their sexual orientation and color of their skin. In many cases now for jobs people have to have that 4 year degree or at least 2 years but that does not mean they are any smarter than those in the trades, especially now with public schools and even colleges passing kids through because of their color.

Some people I believe are just innately smarter than some of the rest and for whatever reason have more logic and common sense than others and learn and study faster and by observations. It is a given that the more knowledge you get the better off and usually the smarter you are than those who just sit around. It also =depends on your field of study. I use "Women's history" derisively for a reason. Is someone who spent 4 years studying that or biology really any smarter than a mechanic? If so, in what? She certainly can't repair a car. What makes a person a smarter or better human that another? A college degree?

This notion that they are is a large part of why the Democrats lost. People don't like to be talked down to by a pseudo mommy and pulled by the ear and told they are toxic males and need to be more feminized like Walz. That is the crap the Democrats were trying to push onto society. Real men love women and strong women too. Not bitchy, nasally mommies who treat men like fools to show that women are "strong". I personally detest all females like Kamala. Be a woman. Don't try to be like a man.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the notion that Buttigieg, Harris, and AOC got where they are via DEI and preferential treatment by sexual orientation or skin color? Buttigieg was a mayor in Indiana, Harris a city prosecutor, state attorney general, and US Senator, and AOC a US Representative. Every one of those positions was elective, so every one of those people had to run in an election for every one of those positions. THe majority of voters wanted them, so they were elected. You don't know why they were voted for, you're just presuming people chose them for such characteristics, which is shallow and narrow-minded.

When I got a job as a mere secretary after undergrad school, the company had a requirement for the job that the person have a college degree. That was not for smarts, or for typing speed.

It was because the company believed that, if a woman had a college degree, she would dress and use make-up more tastefully, would have a larger vocabulary and middle class grammar and polite speech in more pleasant tones, make a more impressive hostess for visiting clients and be more capable of persuasive explanation of business practices, policies, and problems in writing and speaking.

That was certainly classist of the company, but college experience then was like postgrad trips to Europe - it was for developing a polite, well-mannered, open-minded, sociocultural and politicohistorical awareness, reasoning, polish, poise, and a little elegance. Hate it if you want, but men and women went to college to become gentlemen and gentlewomen and scholars.

When I went to college, it was unerringly clear that high school boys and college boys and young men wanted to have sex whenever they could get it and certainly didn't want the women they had sex with to get pregnant. If you had any self-respect, you learned how to say no often. The number of ways men would try to get you to agree to have sex, even though they didn't take any responsibility and were therefore disrespectful of the fact that women were taking risks with the men that the men would not take themselves, was astonishing. In those days, at least, men WERE toxic, because that's what such behavior IS.

Real men are politically pro-choice, care about women being able to follow careers, and etc. Harris's husband is a real man. Ruth Bader Ginsberg's husband is a real man. Trump,Vance, Mike Johnson, and numerous other RW types are at least somewhat toxic from the point of view of any woman with self-respect (something else you can develop in college).

choiceone said:

Trump has no mandate. He didn't even get 50% of the vote. He has a plurality and about 1.5% more votes than Harris. Moreover, the Republican majorities in the Senate and House are small and won by tiny percentages in a few states/districts. So please stop with the BS,

Click to expand...

Would you like to see the sea of red on the US map? Or would that be too distressing?

Paradoxical said:

Would you like to see the sea of red on the US map? Or would that be too distressing?

Click to expand...

Are you referring to all the land that has low population?

Paradoxical said:

Would you like to see the sea of red on the US map? Or would that be too distressing?

Click to expand...

Walz and Commyla's husband are what real men call soy boys....cry babies, effeminate. They marry women who are domineering. Pete is gay and that is why he got his job. Commyla checked the female of color box and that's why she got the job. Both dumb as a rock. College doesn't make someone getter. A degree in Woman's History doesn't make someone more refined and culktured. Where do you such irrational notions.

As for se, women who complain about men being after sex all the time do so because they aren't chasing them.

BirdinHand said:

From my understanding and experience in having friends at university that were from around the world, European education is more specialized than American.

From approximately middle school through college. (Including European bachelor programs sometimes being 3 years vs. the traditional 4 in the US due to not taking electives, etc)

They “specialize” earlier on and take fewer courses that are not focused on their path of study/a less diverse curriculum.

My roommates that attended an American university but had attended high school in Europe (these were well educated and affluent individuals originally from India/Zambia/Trinidad who attended private schools in Europe vs. their home countries) never took a fraction of the variety of classes that I had taken throughout high school and were somewhat put off by having to take classes in university that were not a part of their major. The concept of being required to take elective classes not associated with their intended field was foreign to them. Their entire lives, from our “middle school” level was focused on coursework designed to attain acceptance to American universities in particular majors and then a career in those fields after BS/MS/MBA level degrees.

It’s just a different approach to education - whether one of better than the other will vary on who you ask

Click to expand...

One of my anthropology profs in grad school indicated the same thing to me, focusing on England. He said that with an American university degree, you can typically read articles on scientific discoveries, new artistic accomplishments, etc.,in the news or some popular publications, regardless of major and understand it fairly well. But someone with an English university degree can't, as they are so specialized. For that reason, American universities also have an advantage in areas that are really interdisciplinary.

choiceone said:

One of my anthropology profs in grad school indicated the same thing to me, focusing on England. He said that with an American university degree, you can typically read articles on scientific discoveries, new artistic accomplishments, etc.,in the news or some popular publications, regardless of major and understand it fairly well. But someone with an English university degree can't, as they are so specialized. For that reason, American universities also have an advantage in areas that are really interdisciplinary.

Click to expand...

Since your field of study was anthropology which includes the study of ancient humans, did they teach you what methods were employed in ancient times to indoctrinate gullible humans and compared that to the methods employed today by MSM and the Democrats in power?

Lutherf said:

They totally understand. The more letters you have after your name the smarter you are!

Think about it, if you spend 20 years or more working on your various degrees, have a whole mess of peer reviewed academic papers with your name on them, etc. then you are highly educated and if all your theories fall flat when put to the real world that isn't your fault. It's OBVIOUSLY the fault of all the uneducated hicks that are just too stupid to comprehend your brilliance!

Click to expand...

Seems to me that what's uneducated here is a misunderstanding of science. When you do a scientific study, your hypotheses may succeed or fail, but the study will still contribute to science because, if failure is the result, we all learn the hypotheses are in some way wrong at least in how they are formulated, so they can't be included in a scientific theory. Science, you see, saves us such as we are, rather as Christ does.

And I don't know any serious scientist convinced of his/her own brilliance, either. Without humility, how can one do science? One has to cast one's hypotheses in testable form and be prepared for them to succeed or fail, and one has to care enough about truth to admit it when they don't work.

Science is even more humiliating than that, because it is designed to change over time, so if one makes a commitment to a certain research paradigm or theoretical perspective, it will eventually be passed by. If you want a discipline that teaches less humility, you may be better off with poetry, but there, of course, you have passing styles, as in fashion.

Paradoxical said:

Since your field of study was anthropology which includes the study of ancient humans, did they teach you what methods were employed in ancient times to indoctrinate gullible humans and compared that to the methods employed today by MSM and the Democrats in power?

Click to expand...

Undergrad archaeology was a requirement for my grad program, but in the latter, I didn't study archaeology, and in the US, the study of archaeology isn't the study of ancient history, but the study of archaeological science. The latter has to do with methods of excavating sites and testing and evaluating archaeogenetic material, artifacts and sites, historical linguistic reconstruction materials, etc. My understanding, though, is that, in most ancient civilizations as in other human societies, religion was the main means of indoctrination.

Lutherf said:

They totally understand. The more letters you have after your name the smarter you are!

Think about it, if you spend 20 years or more working on your various degrees, have a whole mess of peer reviewed academic papers with your name on them, etc. then you are highly educated and if all your theories fall flat when put to the real world that isn't your fault. It's OBVIOUSLY the fault of all the uneducated hicks that are just too stupid to comprehend your brilliance!

Click to expand...

Luther, we really escaped the carnage that Commyla would have wrought. She would not admit that she was a Communist and when she was thrust into the spotlight, she hid this fact as best she could. Her often-repeated words and phrases were equity, community and a holistic approach. Those words never have been part of the fabric of America and if implemented will result in complete disaster. It is a redistribution of wealth and the taking of the labor and intelligence and drive of the achievers and giving it to the non-achievers. She admitted that her belief was that everyone should have the same results. The idiots who interviewed never asked how that is achieved.

As you said, academic theories look good on paper where everyone has a Lamborghini and mansion given to them by a government who "just" taxes the rich a fair amount like 80% and their research can show that there is x amount of dollars in the United States and the "rich" have a lot of that and all we need do is just tax them more and then the people on the bottom have the ladders they need to be able to look at the ballgame.

edit; The little socialist munchkin former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich uses the ladder example and so does Kamala. That mentality posits that all the poor people need is a ladder because they start out "shorter" than other people and just need a boost.,

choiceone said:

Undergrad archaeology was a requirement for my grad program, but in the latter, I didn't study archaeology, and in the US, the study of archaeology isn't the study of ancient history, but the study of archaeological science. The latter has to do with methods of excavating sites and testing and evaluating archaeogenetic material, artifacts and sites, historical linguistic reconstruction materials, etc. My understanding, though, is that, in most ancient civilizations as in other human societies, religion was the main means of indoctrination.

Click to expand...

Having been raised in the Catholic cult, my main area of interest is indoctrination and certainly religions use all of the emotional hot buttons to get believers. Without religious beliefs to control humans, governments need ways to do the same. I know you will disagree, but I have seen the modern day left using every single tactic that Christianity used and does use to control the flock, so to speak.

Paradoxical said:

Would you like to see the sea of red on the US map? Or would that be too distressing?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, because such a map is only telling everyone what the majority or plurality of the votes is in certain locations. The location could be 49% red, 48.8% blue, and 2.2% other, and the map would show it as red, just as if the location were 70% red, 29% blue, and 1% other, or even 85% red and 15% blue.

So your map wouldn't even come close to telling us what America looks like, politically. It would overemphasize the majority or plurality as usual. FYI, it would be just as bad if Democrats had won the majority or plurality, and Republicans were underemphasized.

This nation is just about split down the middle when it comes to political perspectives. That is the truth.

Paradoxical said:

Walz and Commyla's husband are what real men call soy boys....cry babies, effeminate. They marry women who are domineering. Pete is gay and that is why he got his job. Commyla checked the female of color box and that's why she got the job. Both dumb as a rock. College doesn't make someone getter. A degree in Woman's History doesn't make someone more refined and culktured. Where do you such irrational notions.

As for se, women who complain about men being after sex all the time do so because they aren't chasing them.

Click to expand...

FYI, I voluntarily gave up sex when I went to grad school and never went back. At that time, I guess I was still good looking, though I wore no make up and didn't make any fashion attempt to attract anyone. If a guy asked me out, I said, no thank you, I don't date. Most guys were outraged. They would ask, are you married, engaged, living with someone, sleeping with someone, etc., and would finally ask even, are you gay? When the answer to all the questions was no, some would actually ask "Then why won't you go out with me?" in an angry, incredulous voice, even stomping their feet. They merely needed to note their own behavior. Why would any girl want one of these angry guys with a sense of entitlement?

I've never been sorry. The best men become wonderful friends. The worst men disappear.

choiceone said:

The point of having that arrangement is that a community benefits from educating its kids to a decent public standard, so if you're financially successful enough to own property in the community, you have to pony up for community stuff. If you're not so successful, the community isn't sufficiently benefiting you for you to do so.

Click to expand...

My point still holds. You are assuming that all property owners have a shitload of disposable income. Not all homeowners with kids live in high end HOA communities. Some are just barely making ends meet. Without vouchers many of them cannot afford school choice. Do you want to leave them stuck with sending their kids to a failing public school? Or do you wanrt the parents to have to work two or three jobs to afford private school... as mine did way back in the day long before vouchers? Is school choice only for the well to do?

Paradoxical said:

Having been raised in the Catholic cult, my main area of interest is indoctrination and certainly religions use all of the emotional hot buttons to get believers. Without religious beliefs to control humans, governments need ways to do the same. I know you will disagree, but I have seen the modern day left using every single tactic that Christianity used and does use to control the flock, so to speak.

Click to expand...

Of course, I thoroughly agree. The cults of Lenin, Mao, and Kim are famous. But there is a difference between the communist cults and "the left." In general, today, the right wing, with its belief in strong leaders and "great men," as authorities, is very much like the communist cults, as both are authoritarian. But the left wing doesn't share this sort of belief or authoritarian orientation, and it therefore shares with the center a healthy respect for critical thought, democracy, and transparency.

MAGAnificent said:

My point still holds. You are assuming that all property owners have a shitload of disposable income. Not all homeowners with kids live in high end HOA communities. Some are just barely making ends meet. Without vouchers many of them cannot afford school choice. Do you want to leave them stuck with sending their kids to a failing public school? Or do you wanrt the parents to have to work two or three jobs to afford private school... as mine did way back in the day long before vouchers? Is school choice only for the well to do?

Click to expand...

I believe in public schools and the necessity for the community to provide public education. No one needs a private education. If you can afford to send your kids to a private school, do it. If you can't, so what? We have an obligation to provide state universities. It you'd rather go to Harvard and spend a fortune on a private Ivy higher education, go ahead. I don't think a kid has any more :right" to go to a private school than he or she has to go to an Ivy League university. We shouldn't have to provide vouchers for either.

If you think your local public school is crappy, then get your community to improve the school. A public school only fails because the community lets it happen.

No vouchers for religious schools because part of the public money funds religious education.

choiceone said:

FYI, I voluntarily gave up sex when I went to grad school and never went back. At that time, I guess I was still good looking, though I wore no make up and didn't make any fashion attempt to attract anyone. If a guy asked me out, I said, no thank you, I don't date. Most guys were outraged. They would ask, are you married, engaged, living with someone, sleeping with someone, etc., and would finally ask even, are you gay? When the answer to all the questions was no, some would actually ask "Then why won't you go out with me?" in an angry, incredulous voice, even stomping their feet. They merely needed to note their own behavior. Why would any girl want one of these angry guys with a sense of entitlement?

I've never been sorry. The best men become wonderful friends. The worst men disappear.

Click to expand...

That seems pretty sad to me. Sex is a natural desire of both men and women and there has been birth control pills for decades as well as condoms. Not all men have a sense of entitlement. Sorry that seems to be the ones you encountered.

choiceone said:

Of course, I thoroughly agree. The cults of Lenin, Mao, and Kim are famous. But there is a difference between the communist cults and "the left." In general, today, the right wing, with its belief in strong leaders and "great men," as authorities, is very much like the communist cults, as both are authoritarian. But the left wing doesn't share this sort of belief or authoritarian orientation, and it therefore shares with the center a healthy respect for critical thought, democracy, and transparency.

Click to expand...

Why is then that the left used the FBI to frame Trump for Russian Collusion and then a ridiculous charge of withholding aide to Ukraine which is exactly what Biden did threaten and admitted it? Why is it that is is the left that used their media lackeys to demonize Trump and conservatives? Why is it that it was the left who controlled humanity with masks that have now been proven to be largely ineffective with no real =science behind them (except for coughs and sneezes)?> Why is it that it was the left who forced people to get vaccinated? Why is it that it was and is the left who is trying to control and curtail free speech by calling it disinformation? Why is it that it was the left who had the FBI with dozens of people inside the town square called Twitter with thousands of agents on the outside demanding that they suspend or cancel 95% of conservative postings about masks, Covid and global warming? Why is it that the left colluded with the White House to get Trump for false entries, allegedly overvaluing his house, a crazy 20-year-old groping that wasn't by a loon, and that he orchestrated 1-6?

Why is the left uses the tactic of fear to control humanity?

Airyaman said:

Typically when people use "educated" in the modern political arena, it means "college educated". What do you think it means OP? Graduated high school?

Click to expand...

Tons of COLLEGE degrees are worthless, thus leaving UNEDUCATED people with nothing more than debt.

---------- said:

The Liberal's world seems to be collapsing around itself. President Trump has broken them. It couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. (but... but... but... Trump is a Nazi, convicted felon, racist and rapist. And he steals children's allowances! )

Sonny Hostin may have unveiled the real reason why the Democrats lost the election, but she had it all wrong. She recently said on "The View," that "What we did not have is white women, who voted about 52% for Donald Trump – uneducated white women is my understanding."

One of the realities of why the Democrats lost this election in the landslide is thinking they have a monopoly on defining what being "educated" means in America today and here’s the reality of what this word means in America today. Let’s examine this.

click here to read... unless you are triggered by Fox News. If that's the case then here is your binky.

Click to expand...

The reason the orange one won is because of cultists, fear and ignorance. JMHO

Credence said:

The reason the orange one won is because of cultists, fear and ignorance. JMHO

Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with the Democrats doing things wrong?

Credence said:

View attachment 67544828

Click to expand...

Reading The Communist Manifesto a LOT makes one left wing. Not reading WaPo and the NY Times makes me proud of my ignorance of The Communist Manifesto.

American said:

Tons of COLLEGE degrees are worthless, thus leaving UNEDUCATED people with nothing more than debt.

Click to expand...

It was a few decades or so ago that young people were promised that is they just got a degree they would be set. Now, those degrees are worthless because commuters can do what those with degrees do, while electricians and plumbers are laughing.

weaver2 said:

Thinking everybody is stupid except you is alway good for a laugh.

Click to expand...

Cool. You working on an autobiography or something?