Perhaps because they’re all icons of the period of confident liberal-but-not-too-liberal American Consensus that started to unravel in the early '60s, when JFK was assassinated and Goldwater got the Republican nomination.
Why not in this case, then?
Really? I think of the Beach Boys similarly to the Beatles. Their early period is as you described, but it is vastly overshadowed by the later, druggy/trippy phase.
So are you of the opinion that starting a petition is not part of politics? Boy, you sure are dancing around hard to explain your utterly incompatible positions.
There’s also the uncomfortable fact that Trump has been attention whoring twenty years or more before he became a politician.
“I don’t know” is an expression of ignorance. A rather serious one in the cases cited. The President tends to have very low situational awareness, which arguably is a lot more important than science knowledge. Whether Trump has this awareness or not is something the media should be interested in finding out. What kind of things have gone on in his empire that aren’t so good, and how early did he find out about them and what did he do about them?
But journalists think like academics. Whether a Presidential candidate knows a fact is more important to them than whether he knows what he’s doing.
So you have no evidence that Obama says “I don’t know” about situations more often than any other Presidents, and are content with continuing the fantasy-based, evidence-free accusations.
My suspicion is confirmed.
If Trump supporters can start a petition in UK for visa ban for Hillary, that will be equally useless as well regardless of number of signs. Petitions are for better purposes.
Well, we now have a candidate who can’t fulfill either qualification.
Well why don’t you start a “ban Hillary” petition in whatever country you live in and see how it goes?
No, I’m simply pointing out that Obama is a hypocrite when it comes to the subject of ignorance. And I suspect he’s ignorant of his hypocrisy. If he read Trump’s tweet, he probably needs it explained to him, which will not increase his self-awareness one iota.
So anyone who ever says “I don’t know” about something while also criticizing ignorance is a hypocrite?
Or are you still just pulling things out of the aether to criticize Obama over? 'Cause that’s what this sounds like.
In case anyone still had any doubt, a new study shows that Trump’s base really is all about the bigotry.
Well, there you are: These wholesome clean-cut boys were seduced into the paths of un-American decadence by elucidator and the Wicked Hippies. Mission accomplished.
Okay, let’s break this down a bit.
First you equate knowledge of fixed facts with awareness of changing (and remote) situations. Do you need me to patiently explain why it’s not really possible to compare those two types of knowledge? Do you need me to explain the difference in knowing an established fact and knowing a newly-created fact? Do you need me to explain how your argument appears to be a very deliberate effort to obfuscate? I’ll be happy to devote a paragraph to each of those things if you are unable to see it for yourself; just ask.
Your claims of hypocrisy are stupid. They aren’t supported at all by your poorly-thought-out argument and you have failed to back them up with any cites to even show that the things you claim were done & said actually happened. Your entire argument rests on your perceptions and biases, and you even explicitly indicate this several time, such as when you wrote:
All of those bolded things are clearly you projecting your own thoughts and ascribing them to other people.
In other words, iiandyiiii is correct: this is obviously a fantasy you’ve concocted, not a notion based in reality.
Could you please explain why you felt the need to link to a Salon article that merely describes the study you just fucking linked to four words earlier? Goddamn.
Some study – did they find the 100 most bigoted Trump supporters to interview?
Can we do this without defining “patriotic Americans against illegal immigration” as “bigots” ?
That’s great stuff (the first link, that is; I don’t read Salon). Thanks.
the latter is more important. That’s why George McClellan was a shitty general. He had all kinds of academic knowledge but was extremely poor at actually running a war, because he was not able to react or show awareness of changing situations. That type of ability is far more important in a President than academic smarts. To cite global warming, what’s more important, to “know” that global warming is happening and that it’s caused by man, or to be able to respond to the ever changing political and diplomatic winds, as well as changing scientific information, and come up with plans that are flexible and respond to such new realities?
It’s the difference between “I know things”, and “I know what I’m doing.” The latter is a President. The former is a professor. There are many things about Trump that make him unqualified to be President. His knowledge compared to Obama and Clinton is not one of them. Trump has never had to say, “Oh wow, I had no idea that was going on in my organization.” because even if it was true it would be a stupid thing to say! No one takes a CEO seriously when they claim ignorance. Politicians get a pass, because politicians have some dedicated supporters who will accept excuses and make up some of their own to help out. Trump didn’t come up in that culture. Obama and Clinton did.
So you still have zero evidence that Obama claims he doesn’t know any more than any other presidents – you’re still only interested in exploring your fantasy world interpretation.