Activity


  • Dan Dredger wrote a new post, The Science of President Trump 4 years, 4 months ago

    Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikimedea
    By Natalie Jacewicz
    Just about every topic, from eminent domain to “hand” size, has scuttled onto the debate stage this election cycle. But the presidential candidates hav […]

    • Then again, even a scientific cretin like GWB did authorise the Mars exploration Programme. Proof that cretin or genius, once in the White House, you actually have very little control over anything.
      In the UK, I have arrived at the conclusion that the only difference between our two worst Prime Ministers of the last half century (Thatcher & Blair) is in the rhetoric. Blair was probably the more dangerous because he managed not to look and act demented all the time. He paid the electorate the courtesy of wiping the rabid foam from his mouth before appearing in public.

    • Who in their right mind believes in the predictions of economists?. There are better reasons than economics for not electing this neo-fascist megalomaniac. I’d rather lose a bit of loose change than my will to live. Modern politics is more about emotions than reason and I doubt I have the emotional strength to endure a Trump Presidency, even from the other side of the Atlantic.

    • President Hector something something Camacho!

    • “Once in the White House, you actually have very little control over anything”
      So the president has no influence in the administration of his country and it’s irrelevant who wins the elections? Is that what you’re saying?
      Well, you just showed the world how little you know about politics.

    • Lucio. Explain how there are so few “reforming” presidents, and so many that support the banks, oil, the military and whatever vested interest? Why do those we invest hope in invariably disappoint with a lack of positive achievements? Has any US President since FDR really positively changed anything? I would suggest that if you expect an elected representative to achieve anything in a mass democracy, then it is you who might benefit from a refresher in history and politics. Or just assume I’m a dull old cynic and enjoy the comforts of some sort of quasi-religious received wisdom.
      Sorry, I hope that didn’t seem too strident

    • @philoctetes #1

      GWB did authorise the Mars exploration Programme. Proof that cretin or genius, once in the White House, you actually have very little control over anything.

      And defunded a NASA spacecraft to monitor climate change, a move seen as political, it was Al Gore’s inconvenient satellite.

      Maybe not the President, but the Administration certainly has a lot of control over major things, like who to invade next. Or not.

    • Unless, of course, the entire Administration is a puppet show installed by the shadowy regime of lizard overlords who actually control everything from behind the scenes. Which, now I come to think about it, is one possible Explanation that fits the known facts…..

    • OHooligan,
      Yes, the Bush Mars initiative is a counter to my sweeping generalisation. Is this a case of a stupid man doing a wise thing. Even Hitler had one positive achievement: the Autobahen (though modern traffic problems even place that into a more ambiguous context).
      Another example of a President doing something worthy (in contradiction to my argument that no such thing happened since FDR) and of a “bad” man doing a “good” thing, is LBJ’s Civil Rights Legislation, who would have thought that of a man from the Deep South Democrat Caucus?