Public policy experts all…
Your place, as anachronistic, culturally embarrassing meat shows, is to be as unobtrusive as possible while feminists and people of taste figure out a nice, fair way to wipe you off the face of the United States. But until that happens, you have a duty not to be deliberately annoying, not to wave your ignorance like it is a bloody shirt, and also not to make the undeniably stupid people who watch you even dumber than they already are.
Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself..
Two nights ago, we were treated to the finals of the inexplicably still-televised Miss America beauty pageant, the grandmommy of them all. The traditionally risible interview portion of the competition, which has for as long as there were turnips on earth featured open-ended general questions conducive to virtue-signalling blather, usually features puzzlers like (from a list of such queries)
What do you think is true beauty?
What would you do differently if you could start your life over?
Who is your greatest role model or hero?
What does it mean to be a beauty queen?
If you could be granted one wish, what would it be?
What is the greatest challenge facing humanity?
What makes you happiest?
…and so on. The idea once was that anyone with a mouth is capable of answering these questions relatively competently, and they are not traps or invitations to attract criticism. Oh, once in a millennium a finalist might answer “What would you do differently if you could start your life over?” with, “Well, I would sure skip all those years I was a crack whore,” or “If you could be granted one wish, what would it be?” by saying, “I’d wish for boobs the size of El Capitan!,” but these are pretty easy questions to ace. They are also well within the intelligence levels and expertise of the pageant administrators, judges and the contestants, so employing them isn’t political, or divisive.
A beauty pageant should not be divisive or political, just like an NFL game shouldn’t be divisive or political. I shouldn’t even have to write that.
Miss America 2018 decided to ditch the tradition of one question per finalist in the final round of competition, and ask two questions of each. The final five questions to the last five finalists were all “serious,” we were told.
Here they are, with the answers they evoked, and my observations.
Question 1, from judge former “American Idol” victor Jordin Sparks:
“There are multiple investigations into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia on the election. Well, did they? You’re the jury: guilty or innocent? And please explain your verdict.”
Miss Missouri, Jennifer Davis:
“Right now, I would have to say innocent, because not enough information has been revealed. We are still investigating this and I think we should investigate it to its fullest extent. And if we do find the evidence that they have had collusion with Russia, then they should — the justice system should do their due diligence and they should be punished accordingly.”
Ethics Foul I. This is a pure Trump-hate question, inappropriate in this forum. The “Miss America” pageant should not be weaponized to attack America’s President. Ethics Foul II: Davis was being asked to form an opinion that she lacks the knowledge and background to have. What do you mean by collusion, Jennifer? What do you mean by collusion, Jordin? What evidence are you considering that justifies you to even ask this question? The question is an invitation to answer, “I think he’s guilty,” which only means, “I want him to be guilty.’
Davis’s answer wasn’t bad (though it got some jeers from those in the audience who were especially stupid). At least she showed us that she understands the presumption of innocence construct, at least a little. She should have said, however, “Jordin, I have seen nothing but innuendo and accusations regarding alleged collusion, and so have you. The better question is ‘Should we be investigating the President for collusion, which isn’t a legal term, in the absence of any apparent evidence, simply to harass our duly elected leader?’ I’ll answer that; it’s easy. NO.”
Miss Texas, Margana Wood, then was questioned by Jess Cagle, the new editor of that public affairs staple, “Entertainment Weekly.”
Question 2, from judge Jess Cagle:
“Last month, a demonstration of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK in Charlottesville, Va., turned violent and a counterprotester was killed. The president said there was shared blame with ‘very fine people’ on both sides. Were there? Tell me yes or no, and explain.”Cagle: Last month, a demonstration of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and KKK in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent and a counter protester was killed. The president said there was shared blame with quote very fine people on both sides. Were there? Tell me yes or no, and explain.”
Miss Texas answered:
“I think that the white supremacist issue, it was very obvious it was a terrorist attack. And I think that President Donald Trump should have made a statement earlier addressing the fact, and making sure all Americans feel safe in the country. That’s the number one issue right now!”
Before 2017, no beauty pageant contestant was asked to second guess the President of the United States, because beauty pageant contestants have no business whatsoever making such judgments. The question is leading with its bias: the demonstration didn’t “turn violent: an opposing demonstration with many violent members prompted it to become violent, hence the President’s correct statement that both groups were at fault. Now, if you are going to be President, Margana, you should be aware that when you say things like “I think that the white supremacist issue, it was very obvious it was a terrorist attack,” you will be justly attacked for speaking about complex issues inarticulately. If Donad Trump made that garbled a statement, he would have been justly mocked.
What was obviously a terrorist attack?” The march itself? WRONG. Do you mean the single participant who drove his car, perhaps spontaneously, into the crowd? That’s not obvious at all. Talk to Miss Missouri about the importance of investigation, evidence, and presumption of innocence.
The President “should have addressed” what “fact?” That people holding certain views should not have the same rights to demonstrate and protest? What do you mean by “safe”? Safe from what? Words you don’t like? Protests you don’t like? Opinions that disgust you?
You’re supposed to be a “Miss America” candidate: Do you support the Bill of Rights or not?
The term “Way over her head” comes to mind, and the Entertainment mag editor put her there. I read the latest edition of Jess’s magazine on my flight to Boston. After a summary of the next episode of cable’s horror show, “The Strain,” in which humans battle infectious vampires who shoot tentacles out of their mouths and are trying to enslave humanity, Entertainment commented, “But the vampires had permits! The anti-vampires don’t have permits!”
That tells me where Miss Texas’s question was coming from. You see, people who hold really unpopular political and social views are like vampires. They should be killed. They don’t deserve civil rights. Please, someone, tell me that this isn’t how people like Jess regard civic discourse.
Next, Maria Menounos, who is most notable because she was fired from “The View” for being too dim-witted—!!!!— gave the third “serious” question to Miss North Dakota, Cara Mund.
Question 3, from judge Maria Menounos:
“195 countries signed the Paris Agreement, in which each country sets non-binding goals to reduce man made climate change. The U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement citing negligible environmental effects and negative economic impact. Good decision, bad decision? Which is it, and why?”
Miss North Dakota said:
“I do believe it’s a bad decision, once we reject that we take ourselves out of the negotiation table. And that’s something we really need to keep in mind. There is evidence that climate change is existing so whether you believe it or not, we need to be at that table and I think it’s just a bad decision on behalf of the United States.”
Mund has no basis upon which to evaluate Trump’s decision, unless it’s just to ape typical progressive mantra. Does she know what the substantive results of the U.S. pulling out are? There aren’t any. Could she explain how current climate models inspire confidence, or not, in climate change projections? No. Does she understand principles of negotiation even slightly as well as the President, being that negotiation is one of the few areas he really does have special expertise in? Absolutely not. Does she know what, if anything, is being negotiated? No. In fact, she has no legitimate background, knowledge or expertise to answer this question at all.
And what is the ethical answer when you are asked a question you cannot possibly answer fairly, competently or intelligently, especially live on national TV?
“I don’t know.”
The last of the political questions was asked by ice-skater and wannabe actress Tara Lipinski, and was directed to Miss New Jersey, Kaitlyn Schoeffel.
Question 4, from judge Tara Lipinski:
“A recent poll found slightly over half of Americans favored leaving Confederate statues in place while others want them removed. Keep them or get rid of them? What’s your vote and why?”
Miss New Jersey’s reply:
“I don’t think the answer is to get rid of these statues. I think the answer is to relocate them into museums. Because we are truly defined by our country’s history, and I don’t think it’s something we need to forget. We need to always remember it and honor our history of America because it truly makes us who we are as Americans. But they should be moved to museums. Thank you.”
No quarrel here with either the question or the answer, which isn’t great, but I’m considering the forum.
Finally, a non-political “serious question” was asked Thomas Rhett, the country music singer-songwriter, of Miss D.C., Briana Kinsey.
Question 5, from judge Thomas Rhett:
“Given the evidence that concussions from playing football can cause brain damage, would you support legislation that outlaws full-contact football in elementary and high school? Yes or no, and why?”
Miss D.C., Briana Kinsey, answered:
“I do believe that I would. As someone who wants to go into the medical profession, I know how important it is to keep our kids safe so that they can have a quality education. And when they’re getting to high school and they’re playing these sports, they’re able to do so at the best of their ability and they’re not limited because they chose to play football at a young age.”
Again, this isn’t a terrible question, and the answer wasn’t terrible either.
Nevertheless, three of the five final questions were intended to evoke partisan criticism of the President, which is not the purpose of a beauty pageant, and also put contestants into the impossible position of having to choose between making a public pronouncement they were not sufficiently informed or qualified to make, passing on their opportunity to succeed in a portion of the competition, or reprimand the judges for unethical conduct, never a good strategy.
Ethics Alarms 
“A beauty pageant should not be divisive or political, just like an NFL game shouldn’t be divisive or political.”
Just a note that the contest has a broadcast contract with ABC, the corporate sibling of ESPN, both owned by Disney.
To say nothing of earning public and media scorn if a contestant answers the “wrong” way.
I find your constant assumptions that these women aren’t “qualified” to express their opinions on important political issues quite nasty and rather bigoted, Jack. It’s one thing to say that a beauty pageant isn’t the right venue for these types of questions (especially considering the biased way many of them were asked), but it’s another to act as if all of these women are so dumb and uninformed that they couldn’t *possibly* know what they’re talking about.
Spare me this absurd indignation. The idea that everyone’s opinion is valid and worth publicizing —this is national TV—just because some fool is willing to utter it does not justify the opinion. Question #1, on Russagate: she has no information on which to answer that question. Question #2, on Charlottesville: lacking sophistication or an understanding of the rights and issues involves, the answer is based on, and made possible by,lack of information and ignorance. #3: res ipsa loquitur.
I state that the woman are no qualified to opine on these issues because they aren’t. And I quote: what is the ethical answer when you are asked a question you cannot possibly answer fairly, competently or intelligently, especially live on national TV?
“I don’t know.”
Yes, going on TV and expounding on what you know nothing about is unethical, beauty queen or not.
The idea that everyone’s opinion is valid and worth publicizing —this is national TV—just because some fool is willing to utter it does not justify the opinion.
Beauty contestants have been asked political questions for as long as I can remember. Granted, they are usually softball ones such as “What can we do to help the environment?” but as far as I can remember no one has complained that such a question is unfair because the women in question aren’t scientists.
This is part of the “poise” category, is it not? Beauty contestants are judged on their ability to think on their feet and answer with a semi-informed opinion. No one expects them to be experts on any of these subjects, just to be able to form an opinion on a level slightly above that of an average citizen.
Question #1, on Russagate: she has no information on which to answer that question.
This is a ridiculous statement.
The Russiagate scandal has been widely covered for the past year. We all have plenty of information to have an opinion on it at this point. My answer would have been similar to hers; at this point, we don’t have enough information to declare him “guilty,” but there is a ton of smoke here, including the latest revelations that Trump lied about his attempts to build a Trump Tower in Russia during the campaign, and made several complimentary statements about Putin at the same time he needed approval from Putin in order for that deal to move forward.
That you find the issue so trivial that you haven’t even covered these new revelations (even though, had they been about Hillary Clinton, you would be screaming corruption at the top of your lungs) doesn’t mean that the question shouldn’t be asked (though it should have been asked in a less biased manner), nor does it mean a beauty queen shouldn’t express her opinion on it. In fact, on this particular issue, I’d say the beauty contestant’s position strikes me as more rational than your own.
No, Robert Mueller is not engaging in partisan harassment by investigating whether a campaign that attempted to get help from Russia to influence the election, that included operatives who were actively recruited by Russian spies, that proposed installing a secret back channel of communications with Russia, that openly called for Russia to release more hacked e-mails to damage their opposition, and consistently lied about all of these things actually committed any illegal behavior in its dealings with Russia during the election. That is the definition of due diligence. How you can look at all of those facts and conclude that they don’t matter and that an investigation isn’t necessary absolutely baffles me.
Beauty contestants are judged on their ability to think on their feet and answer with a semi-informed opinion.
“Semi-informed opinion”? Nah, they’re expected to offer a noncommittal, anodyne response that doesn’t really address the question, but doesn’t piss anyone off, either. That’s been the game all along: they field some softball questions with some equally soft answers, and then we all pretend that the contest is about “personality” and “poise”, and not almost exclusively about what these women look like.
It’s clear that those were the kind of answers the contestants tried to come up with, but in such an overheated, charged environment as we have today, those sorts of politically-loaded questions are almost impossible to answer in an across-the-board pleasant way. Too many people hear a question like that and just wait for any deviation at all from their party line, and then pounce. You can hear the eggshells crunching underneath each of those answers, as the women all have full knowledge that one wrong word means a mountain of grief from social media and MSNBC or Fox News.
“a semi-informed opinion” on a complex isuse is an uninformed opinion. Heck, I may make that quote the basis of an entire post.
Jack: I believe you meant to say there, “A semi-informed opinion on a complex issue is an *uninformed* opinion.” Opinion. Not decision.
I don’t really agree with your opinion about opinions on complex issues. First, who decides which issues are complex, and which are non-complex? Secondly, who decides what opinions are “semi-informed” versus “well-informed” vs. “uninformed?” I recoil in disgust at echo chambers of the self-presumed “sufficiently informed.” I have endured as far as my patience will allow, the smugness and arrogance of groups, all the members of which have deemed themselves SO superior to the “mere mortals” whose “quaint” views they scoff at – all the while, accomplishing nothing more than impressing each other while actually resolving nothing and getting nothing of value done. Sometimes, which of course is certainly a very, very few sometimes, an “ignorant” person’s input actually does, or can do, more good (or, less harm) in a matter than all the inputs of all the best informed.
1. Fixed. Thanks.
2. It’s not as if whether an issue is complex or not is a tough call. It’s usually pretty obvious, don’t you think? Climate change, combining technology, climate science, probabilities and public policy trade-offs along with energy policy and international cooperation i a complex issue. Anyone opining on it without even being aware of the complexity is just sending out useless and misleading opinions. What would you do if your were President is obviously a complex question, requiring at very least an understanding of Presidential power, limits to the power and history. The fact that ill-informed people give opinions as if they knew what they were talking about is one reason civic discourse is impossible. When you accept that you don’t know enough about something is when you’re willing to learn. I don’t know what the best tax rates are. I don’t know how to fix Obamacare, or how to lower health care costs. I don’t know what to do about North Korea, though I know what won’t work. I don’t know how to solve the unmarried mother problem in the black community, or how simultaneously end affirmative action and not create a permanent black underclass. I don’t know how to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of women to have control over their lives and destiny. These and other dilemmas become simple when whole chunks of what make them difficult are ignored or, as is more often the case, not even considered.
When you accept that you don’t know enough about something is when you’re willing to learn. I don’t know what the best tax rates are. I don’t know how to fix Obamacare, or how to lower health care costs. I don’t know what to do about North Korea, though I know what won’t work. I don’t know how to solve the unmarried mother problem in the black community, or how simultaneously end affirmative action and not create a permanent black underclass. I don’t know how to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of women to have control over their lives and destiny.
And yet you have expressed opinions on many of these topics. You have argued that Obamacare should be repealed. You’ve said that affirmative action is racist and should end. You’ve criticized pro-choicers often. The fact that there are limits to your knowledge on each of these complex issues doesn’t stop you from having semi-informed opinions on each of them, nor should it.
Jennifer Davis admitted that there were limits to her knowledge, too, then gave the best answer she could to a difficult question. That was an ethical thing for her to do, even if the question she was asked was unethical.
I don’t blame any of the contestants for doing the best they could, really. They should not have been placed in that position.
Today we had this: https://www.mediaite.com/online/new-survey-only-a-quarter-of-americans-can-name-all-three-branches-of-government/
Now, I really don’t care what any American thinks about any aspect of our government if he doesn’t know how it is constructed. I care that the ignorance is so widespread, I care that the public schools are failing, but if you can’t name the branches of government, your opinion is worse than useless. Shut up. Read a book.
Lobbyists
Media
Activist Judges
Right?
See, you got an education!
Good observations, Jeff, and well stated. I doubt they’re worried much about grief from Fox news though. The questions were fully loaded and all the judges are entertainers. The girls aim to please and they want to win. You really think a contestant wearing a “Make America Great” sash or skirt would stand a chance in hell of winning?
Ironically, I think beauty pageants are trying their damnedest to be politically correct to compensate for the fact they are an absolute abomination. Look at the photo. Where are the people of color? Where are the lesbians and trans gendered contestants? Where are the gay guys? Native Americans? Women in burkas? Not a single down syndrome woman. No one’s physically challenged. No plus sizes. What’s up with that? This is an intersectional vortex of massive proportions. Aren’t you worried about your progressive and feminist bona fides? I’m a dinosaur and I think beauty pageants are awful. You think they’re a valid forum for intelligent discussion? Better check your privilege. You might even be a bigot and a racist, come to thin of it. You can look at that picture without it making your blood boil. You must be a white supremacist. I bet you even used to own the Miss USA pageant.
The foregoing is address to Chris.
addressed
Got it.
I wasn’t defending beauty pageants. I was saying that Jack’s insistence that beauty contestants aren’t “qualified” to form an opinion about an important political issue is bigoted, condescending and flat-out wrong, and I demonstrated that by showing why this particular contestant’s answer on the Russia question is better than his own.
Actually, all you did was regurgitate lefty pablum. Jack thinks. You don’t.
If you’d like to explain why Robert Mueller should not investigate the Trump campaign’s trail of lies and corruption regarding Russia in tandem with the investigation into Russia’s meddling in our election, feel free to do so. But as of now this naive dismissal doesn’t much look like thinking. It looks like anti-anti-Trump bias.
Geez, Chris… it is like you never participated in discussions here in the past.
The Russians DID NOT hack the election. Not a vote was changed. No one in power says this, anywhere: just the leftist media and the useful idiots.
We are not even sure Russians released the accurate emails that showed America how Hillary and the DNC really thought of them, and rigged an election in her favor. There is corruption for you.
Love ya like a brother: you should really see a doctor about that knee jerk thing.
slickwilly,
Point of fact: “meddling in our election” does not equate to “hack the election”, this part of your argument is incorrect.
I stand corrected, Z.
In my defense, given OUR history of doing the same, I tend to look past the ‘business as usual’ nature of such. All countries do this all the time.
The hypocrisy of the Left saying this was a crime (when they do it all the time… what is the CIA for?) is brazen political hackery.
As Z correctly pointed out, I said “meddled,” not hacked. You are also under-informed on the extent of Russia’s meddling; while there have been recent claims that the email hacking was committed by other forces (claims I find unconvincing), the fake news propaganda campaign Russia waged on social media remains undisputed.
Point me to similar stories of the US meddling in other countries’ elections to the same extent and I’ll condemn those too. That doesn’t make it less criminal.
But the larger issue is Trump’s encouragement of the hacking, his campaign’s embrace of Russian assistance, and his stanning for Russia at the same time he needed Putin’s approval to build a Trump Tower there. That last one is the most recent revelation, and the clearest indication yet that his stance on Russia has been motivated by his own personal gain rather than what he feels is best for the country. Absent any kind of direct deal or quid pro quo–which may yet be discovered–these new revaluations prove that Trump’s actions regarding Russia are at the very least as corrupt as any of Clinton’s pay-to-play allegations.
And yet what have I heard about them from the conservatives on this blog? Silence.
Chris wrote, “But the larger issue is Trump’s encouragement of the hacking…”
This false anti-Trump mantra has been discussed on this website.
Jack wrote on July 28, 2016, “Moreover, Trump asked for the e-mails Hillary has already destroyed. He couldn’t possibly call on Russia to hack her e-mails now; either they were already hacked without any encouragement from him, or they can’t be hacked at all.”
Thanks, Z
I remember that post, Zoltar. Here’s what Jack wrote right under the part you quoted:
6. What he was doing, if his statement was serious and there was any chance that it would be taken seriously by Putin, is calling on a possible hacker to release already stolen e-mails to the press, which would dutifully publish them, thus arguably helping Trump’s candidacy. That is encouraging a foreign power to interfere in our sovereign elections, and that is stupid, reckless, irresponsible creates an appearance of impropriety and many other things, but it’s probably not illegal. He didn’t offer any quid for that quo. He didn’t make his desires known to Russia in secret. No, this was just one more example of what an untrustworthy jerk this man is, and why making him President is like handing nuclear weapon codes to a 10-year old.
I agree that it was “probably not illegal.” It was still corrupt. Even if he was being sarcastic, the underlying meaning was clear: I don’t care who helps me; as long as you’re on my side and against my enemy, I’ll be happy. That is the stance Trump has always taken with everyone, and it is very clear that is the stance he has taken with Russia.
And, of course, whether a quid was explicitly offered remains something we won’t know until after the investigation is over. But the implicit message has never been subtle. “You help me, I help you” doesn’t need to be explicitly said for both sender and receiver to get the message; it DOES have to be explicitly said in order to violate the law. Trump has, all along, been trading favors with Russia. Of this I no longer have any doubt. The only question is whether he’s done so in a manner that is illegal.
…I would like to point out all of the favors Hillary has traded with Russia over the years… and Obama. They were for the Russians before they were against them.
Don’t make it right, but does expose the total bullshit from the left these days.
Then point them out. I remember the hype over Uranium One, a deal that had to be approved by multiple people in multiple agencies, and the false claims that Hillary Clinton only approved it because of donations to her charity. Anyone who touted such claims while ignoring Trump’s Putin-fluffing while trying to get the Trump Tower deal is a massive hypocrite.
Thank for making my point. Everyone deals with the Russians.
Chris wrote, “the implicit message has never been subtle. “You help me, I help you” doesn’t need to be explicitly said for both sender and receiver to get the message”
That’s an interesting interruption of Trump words which were actually, “Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”, “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Your interruption of that statement seems to be that Trump is encouraging the Russians to hack our election and in return he (Trump) will the Russians.
Is my understanding of your comments correct or incorrect? If it’s incorrect, then explain how it’s incorrect.
Oops, I left out a word.
“…and in return he (Trump) will help the Russians.”
slickwilly:
Thank for making my point. Everyone deals with the Russians.
You did not understand the point. “Dealing with Russia” is not the issue. The issue is lying and covering up corrupt dealings with the Russians. The issue is why those lies were told. The issue is whether Trump promised favorable treatment of Russia in exchange for the country helping him win the election.
Zoltar:
Your interruption of that statement seems to be that Trump is encouraging the Russians to hack our election and in return he (Trump) will [help] the Russians.
Yes, that is my interpretation of that statement. What makes it a good interpretation is that it fits with all available known facts about Trump’s treatment of Russia during the campaign and his presidency, and vice versa.
Chris wrote, “Yes, that is my interpretation of that statement.”
This is typical from Chris. At no time in the statement did Trump encourage the Russians to hack our election (that’s already been discussed right here and you are ignoring it) and there is absolutely no way that anyone that’s not an imbecile could honestly interrupt “rewarded mightily by our press” or anything else in that statement as meaning he (Trump) will help Russia? You’re just full of crap Chris.
Chris wrote, “What makes it a good interpretation is that it fits with all available known facts about Trump’s treatment of Russia during the campaign and his presidency, and vice versa.”
So it doesn’t matter one bit what someone actually says, you’re going to try to interrupt the statement based on other stuff? You’re being intellectually dishonest.
Why do you keep writing interruption when you mean interpretation?
To literally show how petty you are even when you know without a shadow of a doubt what the sentence is saying. You rarely fail to bite on bait especially.
To be honest Chris, the first one was an auto spell error on my iphone that I didn’t catch and then I was just having fun at your expense. I’ll not intentionally do that again, it was kinda lame; sorry.
Chris wrote, “I find your constant assumptions that these women aren’t “qualified” to express their opinions on important political issues quite nasty and rather bigoted, Jack.”
How is Jack’s opinion about this “bigoted”? Explain it or apologize for the smear.
Chris, You seem to think that just because someone has an opinion that that opinion “qualifies” them to present it in any forum. How do you define “qualified”?
Was Trump “qualified” to be President of the United States when elected?
Was Obama “qualified” to be the President of the United States when elected in 2008?
Was George Washington “qualified” to be the President of the United States?
Question: Are the people in the following video “qualified” to answer the questions posed?
How is Jack’s opinion about this “bigoted”? Explain it or apologize for the smear.
It’s bigoted to assume a beauty pageant contestant can’t be knowledgeable about an important public issue.
Chris, You seem to think that just because someone has an opinion that that opinion “qualifies” them to present it in any forum. How do you define “qualified”?
No, I think that someone who knows they are going to be asked questions about important public issues–which beauty contestants do know–is expected to be able to express a moderately articulate opinion in that forum.
Was Trump “qualified” to be President of the United States when elected?
Was Obama “qualified” to be the President of the United States when elected in 2008?
Was George Washington “qualified” to be the President of the United States?
No, yes, and yes.
I’ll have to watch the video later.
Chris said, “It’s bigoted to assume a beauty pageant contestant can’t be knowledgeable about an important public issue.”
It’s interesting that a self-proclaimed English teacher thinks that’s what bigoted means when in fact that’s much more inline with what prejudice means.
Moving on…
So Trump wasn’t qualified; where are the qualifications to be President listed and what specific part of those qualifications did Trump not measure up to?
So Obama was qualified; where are the qualifications to be President listed?
So George Washington was qualified; where are the qualifications to be President listed?
I wrote about this issue so much in the 2008 election, in reference to the media’s treatment of Sarah Palin, that I got sick of it. Nobody is qualified to be POTUS, and anyone might be. You are qualified if you can do the job. Lincoln had almost no qualifications, except that he was brilliant, and a natural leader.
Jack wrote, “Nobody is qualified to be POTUS”
One exception to that should be an incumbent President running for a second term, since they have actually done the job; therefore, they are “qualified” by virtue of job experience – no other candidates can make that claim.
Bigotry and prejudice are often used as synonyms, though “bigotry” has stronger connotations. But the point was clear, and it stands.
I’m aware of Jack’s theory of qualifications. I don’t agree with it. Lincoln was in the House of Representatives for eight years and became a leader of the Republican party prior to running for president. The comparison to Trump, who is our first president with no political or military experience, is ludicrous. The idea that a person should have some political experience before becoming the most important politician in the world should not be controversial.
Chris wrote, i”Bigotry and prejudice are often used as synonyms”
I don’t give a damn that you ignorantly “think” they are used a synonyms, you’re supposed to be an English teacher and you have shown more than once that you don’t know the differences. Plus the point is that your original point using “bigoted” doesn’t make sense because of your vocabulary problems.
Find someone else to engage with your petty little temper tantrums today, Zoltar. I’m not interested.
Chris,
It’s not petty and I’m not angry.
If I didn’t see the same vocabulary and comprehension problems from you over and over again you wouldn’t be reading these accurate critical evaluations if your problem laden comments.
Unusual choices for questions, to be sure.
When my more liberal friends are presented with facts that mainstream media is slanted leftward – facts so obvious that even they are hard pressed to spin – the next dodge ion the list is invariably that media simply exists to make a profit. Those money-grubbing producers will do anything to make a buck, and most the spending audience is liberal.
I find it odd here, then, that the obviously liberal “journalists” ask liberally slanted questions in a forum most politically correct, goodthinkminded citizens wouldn’t dream of watching. Where’s the money in ticking off your audience? Unless the progressive cant is simply that much more important to advance than making money, it doesn’t make sense. It would be like advertising teslas during WWE, or selling carbon credits at a monster truck rally.
Jack, I have to admit that my eyes and attention just jumped from the title of your post, to the photo of the contestants…to this comment block…and back to the photo of the contestants…and now, back to this comment block. I can’t comment on any ethics issue, when there are so many beautiful pairs of women’s LEGS to look at!
Back to the photo…[momentary adjustment of drool pan]…back to log in…
WHY do I think so dirty?! Beauty, THOU art a BEAST!
We’ve passed the Trump Event Horizon. All things, everywhere, are about Trump, all of the time. Even a bunch of women parading around in bikinis has to be about Trump, for crying out loud.
Rob, what you say there somewhat aligns with my sentiments. I wish it weren’t so, but that is how things are now. It’s the new normal. Jack said, “A beauty pageant should not be divisive or political, just like an NFL game shouldn’t be divisive or political.” The problem in what Jack is saying there is that the “should-ers” have already decided differently, and have decided by all evidence that the Miss America Beauty Pageant shall be divisive and political. There aren’t enough counter-should-ers like Jack (plus you and me) to make things at all different (differently?).
So, we are stuck with propagandistic, narrative-controllers’ narratives amidst (even) “meat shows.” I did not watch the pageant. But if I had, I would have just blown off the propagandistic narrative and slant, except perhaps to laugh pityingly at it and its purveyors, and just moved on with enjoying my eyeing of the meat.
But where’s the beef? These girls don’t have enough meat on their bones to make a poor man a bowl of soup! Their legs look like chop sticks.
Ladies in these contests (in the was-U.S. – I wouldn’t know about other countries) typically are in the skinny percentiles from head to toe. So, yeah, we aren’t likely to see a “beefy” line-up – just a flock of eager…”birds.” Tastes in what looks good, or best, are of course highly individualistic. I most enjoy looking at long legs with a high “L over D” ratio – with a steady and graceful taper from hip to ankle – so Other Bill, if you and I were judging the same flock, I probably would rate the thinner thighs higher than you.
The Miss America pageant is being used as another pawn in the anti-Trump propaganda arsenal! This is just one more reason for all women across the United States to boycott this parade of absolute absurdity.
…but think of the children! Many contestants get scholarship money for college from this system.
🙂
Well since somehow no one has posted this yet, I guess it’ll be me.
That’s the kind of brain farting frontier gibberish that can happen when someone is not properly prepared to be solo in the spotlight.
Thanks for the laugh!