Tuesday, April 12, 2011

2012 Contender: Donald Trump

Continuing our march through the Republican contenders for 2012, today we stop at the clown tent. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump, and you can keep him. Strangely, some people are seriously claiming that Trump just might be the true conservative we’ve all been looking for, which just goes to show that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Who Trump Claims To Be. . .
Here’s who “the Donald” claims to be today:
● He’s an economic conservative.
● He’s pro-life.
● He opposes gun control.
● He wants to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
● He opposes foreign aid.
● He supports fair trade and wants to slap import tariffs on China to force them to rebalance their currency.
● He believes the US should leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ok, sounds somewhat conservative. But is any of this true or is he just telling people what they want to hear? For that, let’s look at his background.
Who Trump Really Is. . .
In 2001, Trump switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. While he was a Democrat, he considered running for President as a Republican in 2004 and running for governor of New York as a Republican in 2006. In 2009, he again became a Republican, but not before describing himself in 2007 thusly: “[I am] very much independent. . . I go for the person, not necessarily the party. I mean, I vote for Republicans and I vote for Democrats.” Ok, so let’s look at how his independence swings by looking at who he’s donated money to:
Harry Reid
Ted Kennedy
Charles Rangel
Charles Schumer
Rahm Emanuel
John Kerry
Tom Daschle
Joe Biden
That’s a rogues gallery of far leftism. He’s also praised Nancy Pelosi, penning her a congratulatory note after her election as speaker. Clearly, Trump is neither Republican nor loyal, as further evidenced by his statement today that he intends to run as an independent if he doesn't secure the nomination.
What Trump Really Believes. . .
Trump’s conservative views also appear to be new-found. For example:
● Trump claims to oppose ObamaCare, but in the 2000 election, when he jockeyed to run as a Reform Party candidate, he favored universal health care: “[I’m] conservative on most issues, but a liberal on this one.” Even during his CPAC speech he said he wanted to replace ObamaCare “with something that makes sense for people in business.” That’s Business-Roundtable speak for getting health care off corporate balance sheets and onto taxpayer backs. That puts TrumpCare to the left of ObamaCare.

● Trump claims to be pro-life, but admits he was pro-choice until recently. In December 1999, he said: “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.” His conversion is supposedly based on a friend telling him he was happier having had a child they originally intended to abort.

● In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump proposes a "one-time" 14.25% tax on personal estates and trusts over $10 million. Things like this are never one-time, and Trump certainly has shown no restraint to only do bad things once, as evidenced by his history of serial bankruptcies discussed below.

● In The America We Deserve, Trump said he “generally oppose[s] gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

● In 2000, Trump campaigned to limit campaign contributions and ban soft money. This is an idea pushed by liberals to silence their opponents.
None of that is conservative. At best, it’s solid RINO.
His Business Credentials Also Send Up A Red Flag
Trump’s business career also sends up a huge red flag because he’s a serial abuser of the bankruptcy system.
● In 1991, Trump filed bankruptcy, costing bondholders hundreds of millions of dollars. He ended up losing 50% of the ownership of his casinos to the bondholders.

● In November 1992, Trump’s Trump Plaza Hotel was forced into bankruptcy. Trump lost 49% of his ownership in the hotel and he lost his role in the day-to-day operations of the hotel.

● In 1993, Trump was forced to give up Trump Shuttle because he could not afford to pay his $900 million in personal debt and $3.5 billion in business debt. He was also forced to give up his then-latest Manhattan real estate project. His name was kept on the building so the new owners could charge a premium for the condos.

● In 1995, Trump combined his casino holdings into the publicly held Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, which was unable to meet even the interest payments on its $3 billion debt. In 2004, Trump Hotels filed for bankruptcy. Trump lost his CEO position and half his ownership interest -- down to 27%. The company re-emerged as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.

● In 2008, Trump again failed to pay his debts and was sued by his creditors.

● In February 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for bankruptcy, at which time Trump was forced to resign from the board.
There is nothing inherently un-conservative about filing bankruptcy. But Trump has shown a pattern of using the bankruptcy system as part of his business plan. This should call into question not only his business credentials as it shows a history of bad deal making and mismanagement, but also his respect for private property and how he is likely to respond to adversity, i.e. does he always look for the easy way out?
The Candidate
Finally, with all that said, I am enjoying Trump the candidate. Trump has been merciless in blasting Obama on all issues strange and ridiculous, e.g. the birther issue and the “Obama is a Muslim” issue. I like this because Trump has a big enough platform to make these attacks meaningful, and thereby force Obama to deal with them, but he also lacks credibility as a Republican representative and therefore we don’t get tarred by his buffoonery. But that comes with two huge caveats. First, this only remains true so long as Republicans don't lend him any credibility, or else we risk adopting the blame for his ridiculousness. Secondly, Trump is only entertaining as long as no Republicans actually consider supporting him. The clowns are funny, but no one would suggest letting them run the circus.

46 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Thanks, Andrew. We, of course, know that "the donald" is an ass hat. However, your timely article spells out exactly why. I don't think any of our folks were fooled by him, but this is a handy pocket reference! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome Jed. I didn't think anyone here would be fooled by The Donald, but I figured it was good to cover him fast because he's starting to get traction in the media. So hopefully, people will find this useful if a crazy cousin or something says "hey, that Trump guy sounds like the real deal."

JG said...

I said the same thing to a friend of mine. Nothing about Donald Trump makes me want him for President, but I am really enjoying this "campaign." Thanks for the breakdown.

AndrewPrice said...

JG, You're welcome. He's definitely not someone we would want representing the Republican Party, conservatism, or the country, but he is an entertaining guy to watch. So I say sit back and watch him fight with Obama, but don't let anyone think we take him seriously as a candidate!

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Great catalog. When he first suggested that he might run, I wondered how many people knew about his financial "success." He's rich all right, but he did massive damage to investors and bondholders. One bankruptcy is possible for the best financial wizards. Two, even. But Trump uses bankruptcy like pro-choicers use abortion. Clean up your mistakes at immense cost to others while you go on your merry way.

If I for one minute could consider him as a candidate, he squelched even that small possibility when he announced that if he didn't get the Republican nomination he would run as an independent. Ross Perot redux. And again, splitting the Republican vote will harm the entire nation by re-electing Obama while Trump happily retires to his villas and garish hotels.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Thanks! And I couldn't agree more. Even if he wasn't already a joke as a candidate, this announcement that he will run as an independent tells us that he is not someone we should ever trust. I don't know if he wants to keep Obama in office or if he's just ultra-egotistical, but either way he's bad news.

And yeah, people hear that he's such a tremendous success, but they never seem to realize that he used bankruptcy as a normal matter of doing business -- whenever he enters into a bad deal, he just waits a couple years and files. That's not a success. And can you imagine what someone who thinks like that would make of the White House? What a mess!

T_Rav said...

No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, Nooooo!!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Sorry to hear you're a Trump fan. ;-)

T-Rav said...

That is NOT funny, Andrew. In the first place, I don't even get the appeal of "The Apprentice," it's just a bunch of washed-up celebs trying to get back in the spotlight most of them should never have been in to begin with. Plus, I've heard plenty about Trump and his political positions from his own mouth the past few years, and for him to suddenly get out here and claim that he's so deeply conservative is just a blatant lie, and he knows it. And now he's saying he'll run as an independent if he doesn't get the GOP nomination (read: guarantee Barack Obama a second term)??? (pauses to calm self down) No, I would not describe myself as a fan of "the Donald."

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I'm glad you can calm yourself. :-)

I agree with each of your points. I've heard him spout off non-conservative views his entire life. And to suddenly claim that he's conservatives tells me he's a liar, he thinks conservatives are stupid, and he's trying to lie/manipulate his way into the nomination. And now he adds this business about running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination? Are you kidding me?! That's completely unacceptable and tells me that this is all about Trump and nobody else, and he doesn't care what damage he does.

Also, in terms of the Apprentice, I totally agree about the celebrities -- never-has-beens who are looking for an additional 15 minutes of infamy. That's actually right up Trump's alley. The White House isn't.

rlaWTX said...

I was in a discussion about Trump last weekend and your last paragraph was basically my whole POV. Yay me! Send in the clowns - but don't vote for them!


[BTW: Y'all need to start another thread that can get co-opted by the discussion of History education because I didn't get to get in on the end of the last one! :) ]

T_Rav said...

It's called threadjacking, rla! We do it all the time!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I wish more people got that, because too many fall for the clowns because they like the showmanship!


Feel free to talk about history education. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I've got nothing against thread jacking. So feel free to jack away... wait, that didn't sound right? LOL!


So what's this about history education? You mean the lousy state of history departments in colleges?

T_Rav said...

Andrew, don't be crude; I wasn't even thinking of that...ew...

Anyway, yes, we were discussing college history courses and how much they suck (hint: A Lot). Basically, the whole thing needs an overhaul.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, College is an interesting thing these days. In many of the departments, American colleges not only are world beaters by a wide margin, but are better than at any time in history. I would include things like science, engineering, math, economics, MBS programs and even law schools in that category. (Don't let the old guys fool you about law school. Modern law schools are much tougher these days and includes a much more rigorous program.)

But when it comes to the humanities, colleges fall apart. I think that's mainly the fault of three things (1) political correctness allowing the creation of fake classes (like gender studies), (2) schools catering to the desire of students to get high GPAs to get jobs, which means dumbing down classes and requirements, and (3) the total collapse of the high school system which means that the first year or two of college is spent teaching kids to get ready for college.

Also, as a caveat, having been at one of the best schools in the country and a middling state school (as well as two law schools -- advanced degree at the second one), I can also tell you that the quality varies WILDLY depending on where you go. Some schools really are miles ahead of others.

Ed said...

Trump. Yuck. Trump is only running to promote his latest book or raise his television ratings and it drives me crazy that people are falling for it. I'm glad you've cut him apart.

Ed said...

T-Rav, I knew people who got an English degree without reading a single classic. How messed up is that?

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, You're welcome. I don't take Trump seriously and I put no faith in the polls showing him doing well. I just hope that other people don't start to put faith in those polls and suddenly the guy gets taken seriously. Trump is a man who has easily disqualified himself from ever occupying a position of trust.

LL said...

Trump is speaking as though he "has a set", which is more than any of the current tepid Republicans is doing. Romney sounds mealy mouthed, Gingrich (yawn) is not credible as a president (IMHO), and Palin can't win in this cycle. Bolton (stretch and yawn) -- where was I, oh, yeah, Bolton. Pawlenty has potential but he's busy being tepid and politically sensitive.

Then there's The Donald, stirring the pot.

Christie and Pence aren't in the race, though they could trump Trump.

Maybe he'll encourage the other candidates to be a bit more assertive

T_Rav said...

Andrew, I agree that it's not just a college problem, it's a failure of liberal arts at all levels. I could write a VERY long post on the problems with the field (see my posts from last night if you're interested), but we're at the point where I don't think it matters if you go to a state school or "University of," you're not likely to get a much better introduction to Western Civ at one than at the other. I think this is due partly to the crappy curriculum in most colleges today and partly to some structural problems in the discipline. That's not to say they're all the same, but that there's no way you can correlate quality to prestigious title or anything like that. Here at Ole Miss, for example, we admit students with a 2.0 GPA and an ACT score of 18, students who should not be going to college but nonetheless are, making it inevitable that our courses get dumbed down in turn.

And Ed, when you can have seminars entitled "Masculinity and Rape Culture," it really doesn't surprise me that they're scrimping on Homer or Dante. You?

T_Rav said...

By the way, the CNN ticker has Pawlenty saying he's definitely in the race for President, if there were any lingering doubt. So chop chop on these candidate reviews, Andrew!

StanH said...

From your above resume’ I would say Trump would be the perfect politician, in fact he and Barry could have a longest nose contest. Opposition research was astounded to find that they had the same father, Geppetto. Your play on words with Barnum, is what I think of when I think Trump, a carnival barker. I will say if the choice is between these two clowns. God help us…I’ll vote Trump.

One Perot in a life time is enough, (I’m sorry) and I’m not comparing the character of the two men, but the political damage he could do would be the same. Diluting the Republican vote allowing Barry to slip in by a plurality, like Clinton. “Danger Will Robinson!”

AndrewPrice said...

LL, As I say, I am enjoying the show. And as you know, I haven't really been thrilled with the alternatives at this point. But there is a difference between enjoying the show and wanting Trump to win. He would be a disaster as a "conservative" President. But I do hope he at least inspires the others to grow a set.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I agree. If it came down to voting for Obama or a cold-sore, I would vote party-line cold-sore. But I really, really don't want this clown being our nominee. We would be throwing away a great chance to fix America.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, The school I started with really was a different world than you are talking about. The average SAT was in the 1500s and the level of education was ratcheted up to keep those people engaged. The literature and Western history classes were actually quite good. But the state school (U of Colorado) was dominated with political correctness and students who couldn't learn anything if their lives depended on it. But then I also have some experience with some state schools in Virginia and they were excellent, even with low SAT students.

I've found that generalizations in colleges just aren't useful because they really are that different -- both in terms of student quality, professor quality, and influence of political correctness.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I saw that Pawlenty admitted to being in the race, but then his staff tried to backtrack. To me, that's one of the stupidest parts of the primary game.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: The old guys????? I review the curricula from time to time at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Boalt Hall, and even my beloved Hastings. The law schools are teaching more rote learning and paralegal-level crap each year. The law has nearly disappeared to be replaced with social justice. In most schools, equity isn't even taught anymore. Instead, they teach "remedies," which is not much more than "how much money can you make?" Equity is at the very heart of justice. As a result of the de-emphasis of equity, injunctions and restraining orders are issued by ignorant judges who treat them as cheap candy to be handed out rather than "extraordinary remedies."

The Socratic method still exists in some of the better schools, but Socrates encouraged intellectual discussion of what is and what could be with sufficient knowledge, creativity and careful thinking. A heavy percentage of clerks who think they're lawyers spent their time in law school asking what the answer to a legal question was rather than knowing that there is no "answer," only a myriad of possible solutions. Many come out of law school ignorant of the fact that their view of a case is not the only view and prepare very poorly for what the other side might do. This old guy is a lot quicker on his feet than these smart-asses who never considered there might be another way of attacking a case. I learned that in college, but specifically in law school. The law is an art, but they've been told it's a science. Barack Obama and Eric Holder are fine examples of what the Ivies are turning out.

State bars nationwide have lowered passing scores, and increased multiple guess exams at the cost of analytic essay answers. Oral exams have disappeared entirely (unless U of Virginia still has them). This is one old guy who just plain does not agree with you on law schools. More is not necessarily better. Replacing law libraries with computers may make access to information easier, but it still doesn't teach students how to think like lawyers.

Though I do agree with you on the hard sciences at the colleges and universities.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, You are mistaking labels for substance. I took Remedies and it was everything you are claiming it wasn't. Also, both of the law schools I spent time at (JD at first, LLM at second) used the Socratic method -- as does every other school I've been in contact with. And very few people left law school without the skills you claim they don't have. And I don't recall anyone thinking that their view was the only possible view of the case. I'm not even sure how anyone could think that given that you are analyzing both sides of each case.

And what you are calling "paralegal" work is learning the art of legal research and legal writing, things which older lawyers do very poorly because they were never trained to do it.

Also, bars are not lowering their standards. Their passage rates are the same over time and they don't dumb down the bar exam. And if you have ever taken the multi-state exam (the multiple choice test) you will find that it is infinitely harder than any essay exams (which all states still require as well) where you can bluff your way through it.

I've heard this argument before from older lawyers, and it doesn't hold up -- it's total nostalgia combined with a misunderstanding of what is going on in modern law school. Law school today is so much more competitive than it was back then, it attracts better teachers and better students, it has much higher OBJECTIVE requirements, it teaches more subjects and in greater depth while still teaching people how to analyze cases. It is everything law school was back in the day when this was a pursuit of rich kids, plus so much more.

Ed said...

T_Rav, No, I'm not surprised. Fortunately, when I went to school about 10 years ago, those classes were only for people buried deep in the politically correct schools. We had to take a couple of basic indoctrination classes (sociology, communications) but most everything else either withing my major (Business Admin) or an elective so I could avoid it.

Maybe being a history major forces you into more of those classes?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Before I take my evening Alzheimer's medication, I'll just reply that we're never going to agree on this.

I rarely mistake "labels for substance," whatever that means. When I refer to paralegal-level work, I mean pulling everything that could possibly apply to a given case without sorting it out, boiling it down, and coming up with a cogent argument. Legal analysis and writing ("LAW") was very much a part of mandatory legal education then, but what I see in pleadings today looks more like word-processing Manglish than legal writing.

I took the Multistate the first year it became part of the bar exam in California. It was a genuine relief after three days of racehorse written essays. I could go on for paragraphs about bar exams, but percentage of people passing is not much of a measure of anything.

Still, I will mention the California Bar. When I took it, there were three days of intensive written essays analyzing the facts given by the examiners, including being able to identify which areas of law were involved. Cross-overs were common and complicated. The pass rate the year I took it was 36%. That is about half the percentage that pass it now. Instead of the three and a half days of essays, the bar exam now has half essays, half multiple guess, including a half-day of Multistate. We had to pass it all or nothing--just like courtrooms. Now, they have four sections: essay, multistate, multiple guess, and ethics multiple guess. You can pass any section. If you fail two or three, you still get the pass on the ones you were successful with and get to retake the others as often as necessary until you've passed all four. Attempts are unlimited.

We were allowed three tries and we were out. When the Bar announces the pass rate, it includes those who have have finally managed to pass all four sections, which skews the pass rate upwards.

And what are these objective requirements that we apparently didn't have? The major California universities have lowered the LSAT score requirement for admissions consideration by fifty points since I took it. Extracurricular activities have a much bigger place in admissions consideration today, including "community involvement."

In California we had the mandatory requirement of the "continuing education of the Bar" to keep us up with new areas of law. What subjects do they have now that we didn't have available as electives beyond the core requirements?

Oh, and as for the rich kids, I worked all the way through college, and was married and working in law school. Most of my classmates were far from rich. I didn't go to law school in 1920, contrary to what you imagine.

I have no nostalgia whatsoever for the murderously tough law school regimen and bar exam requirements that caused me many a sleepless night. There is an upside to this, however. The suicide rate after the bar exam has gone down drastically.

Cream will always rise to the top, and the materials are available in abundance to today's law school cream. That doesn't alter my opinion that today we have too many lawyers who can game the system without having learned the fundamentals of lawyerlike thinking.

But I still like you anyway. Can we just agree that you young whippersnappers see the world in a somewhat different way from us old coots?

AndrewPrice said...

“Mistaking labels for substance” is exactly what it sounds like. You are leveling criticisms based on course titles when you know nothing about the substance of the courses, just as you did with your Remedies example which you assumed did not discuss equity.

As for your statement on paralegal work, I am not aware of any law school that does what you claim.

If indeed legal writing and analysis was a mandatory part of the legal education back then, then there are a lot of people lying today when they explain that these are classes that have only been adopted by law schools in the past 2-3 decades per changes in ABA requirements.

You are entirely incorrect about the bar. The modern bar is one full day for the multi-state multiple choice portion and one full day for essays (that’s in all states except Washington State which has it’s own test). Many states, like California add a third day of essays. And with the exception of only a couple states, all parts need to be passed, not just one or the other. Moreover, the California bar passage rate depends on whether you take it in the winter or summer. California’s passage rate in the winter of 2009 was 33.5%.

And let me add that in the past, many states gave automatic admissions if you attended the state law school. That didn’t change until the 1970s in parts of the south.

Lowering the LSAT 50 points would be quite a trick since there is only a 60 point swing in scoring (120-180).

And extracurricular activities are indeed important because the level of competition is so high -- they have not replaced raw test scores and GPA’s. Indeed, the average LSAT scores for law schools has been steadily rising as the numbers and quality of students applying has increased dramatically.

Sorry buddy, but you’re dealing with pure nostalgia.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I know the substance as well as the titles of the courses in California law schools, and I can't imagine that they are that much different from most of the other states. My contacts with UCLA law and Hastings are very recent, and they weren't restricted to reading course titles.

My "remedies example" was not intended to state or imply that equity is not taught (however badly) as part of the remedies courses. What I meant to say was that equity has been eliminated as a distinct course, apart from the rest. That was a compositional error on my part, but I stand by my belief that equity should still be treated specially and apart from other remedies.

Odd that those truth-tellers telling you that the law schools in the 70s didn't require legal analysis and writing never visited California. Since I had to drop the course because of a scheduling conflict, I had to take it by itself because I couldn't graduate and be certified to the State Bar without it. I had to pay for a full semester for one single course because of that. I'd have preferred that you suggest I mis-remembered that fact than to suggest I made it up. California frequently adopts the ABA model rules ahead of the ABA itself. I wasn't too concerned whether the ABA required the course, only that my law school and the State Bar did.

You are correct about California having the third day. But the entire exam is weighted so that the essay exams account for only 39% of the total score. I took the winter exam by the way, and the pass rate was lower then as well. But the disparity was not as dramatic. I'm glad to hear that other states don't allow passing in pieces, but California does, and that was what I specifically addressed. The ABA sets the minimum standard, but any state bar is free to go beyond it. California has always been known as one of the toughest of all the states.

The California bar exam now has six hours out of eighteen for essays. Multistate gets another six. "Performance" tests get the remaining six, including the professional responsibility exam for a total of four tests if PRE is counted separately from performance.

We had 21 hours, since the PRE was added at the last minute and took up one extra morning session. We had twelve hours of essay and six hours of Multistate, plus three for the PRE. Now we can differ on which type of test is preferable, but it doesn't make me wrong.

I have no knowledge or experience with Southern schools other than the University of Virginia, so I have no dispute on that fact.

You are right about the LSAT, and the 5 I meant was quickly transformed into 50 by my aging fingers.

The rising LSAT scores could as easily be attributed to the quality of the exam as to the quality of the students. We could argue about that for days without reaching an agreement. On the other hand, I did not suggest that extracurricular activities had replaced scores and GPA's. I said they have become more important in admissions consideration. But I don't think that extracurricular activities fit into your "objective standards" very well, particularly given the liberal bent of the ABA and a large number of state bars and law schools.

You are mistaking nostalgia for a genuine difference of opinion.

DUQ said...

Trump is a joke and should not be taken seriously by anyone.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Let's move on.

DUQ, Trump is fun to watch, but should not be taken seriously.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Yeah. And how about that Trump guy, eh?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Trump? He's great, someone should make him President.... ;-)

Patti said...

andrew: i was just talking about this yesterday and said we really don't know all that much about him, to which my companion said, "i know he wanted to force an elderly woman out of her house for his gain, and that's all i need to know about him. no way would i vote for him."

he has a point...

Patti said...

also, i think what is most supported about the donald is his purported backbone and willingness to fight. americans are searching for LEADERSHIP, any hint of leadership, so when they hear his bravado, some mistakenly make the jump to t.d. is qualified to lead the country.

Patti said...

dangit, one more thang: i love how donald is getting under the administration's skin. i'm all in for that fight!

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, Agreed on all point. I think what attracts people to him right now is that he's the only one in the race who is willing to fight -- there's a real lack of leadership on our team.

BUT his willingness to fight doesn't make him a great representative for our side. And when you look at his record, there's little there to like and a lot to dislike.

I hadn't heard about him tossing someone out of their home, but it doesn't surprise me. What all I remember of his business practices bordered on unnecessarily nasty.

rlaWTX said...

I had a long post about history depts, but the computer ate it!!!!!!!


On another subject, someone brought up grade inflation... I have a French-Canadian prof who lost her way into WTX. The TX legislature is debating allowing folks with CCL/CHL (concealed carry/concealed handgun licenses) carry onto TX college campuses. My campus is filled with older "non-traditional" students, over the 21yo limit for CCL. My prof is HORRIFIED!!! She is positive that grades will jump because everyone will be scared of students shooting profs. And she'd rather just hide from the random shooter than depend on a gunowner to shoot the bad guy... It was a very bizarre discussion.
She also thinks that all Canadians are polite to a fault.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Sorry about the computer. That happens to me at times too, so I always try to break up my larger comments.

On the grades/guns issues, that ridiculous. First, if fear is the motivator, then it would already be in place because someone who is crazy enough to shoot a teacher of a grade isn't not going to be deterred by a law.

Secondly, there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and people carry them every day. Yet, random shootings are so rare that each once makes the news. If there was any truth to the idea that letting people carry guns would lead to more shootings, then we would be awash in bodies. We aren't.

The Canadians I've met have all be very polite, but they've all also fled Canada to the land of opportunity.

rlaWTX said...

yes, but somethings cannot be argued - even using rationality and logic!

(and it was such a lovely soliloquy)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Oh, that's true. Some people just don't care about facts, logic, historical experience, or even their own hypocrisy once they get into an issue about which they've made up their minds.

I can see the soliloquy now:

"To B or not to B,
That is the question,
Whether 'tis nobler to suffer a few rounds from a 45 mag,
than to give an inflated grade. . ."

rlaWTX said...

LOL!!!!!!!

Post a Comment