So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[bacchi]

Offhand, perhaps the part that believes That government is best which governs least?  E.g., Trump Exceeds One-In, Two-Out Goals On Cutting Regulations, But It May Be Getting Tougher.

Per the article, it looks like Obama was doing the same or better than Trump in that regard.

[MDM]

Offhand, perhaps the part that believes That government is best which governs least?  E.g., Trump Exceeds One-In, Two-Out Goals On Cutting Regulations, But It May Be Getting Tougher.

Per the article, it looks like Obama was doing the same or better than Trump in that regard.

Per the article, "Trump's achievements on the regulatory liberalization front, and those of his oversight body at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, still appear to have no equal among recent presidential administrations."

Yes, "Trump’s total flow now exceeds Obama’s exit total."  But "An important difference, however, is items classified “Deregulatory,” a major innovation in rule reporting under Trump. A deregulatory measure also counts as a “rule,”..."

[bacchi]

Offhand, perhaps the part that believes That government is best which governs least?  E.g., Trump Exceeds One-In, Two-Out Goals On Cutting Regulations, But It May Be Getting Tougher.

Per the article, it looks like Obama was doing the same or better than Trump in that regard.

Per the article, an opinion piece written by a former CEI/Cato contributor, "Trump's achievements on the regulatory liberalization front, and those of his oversight body at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, still appear to have no equal among recent presidential administrations."

FTFY. By the numbers, however...

Yes, "Trump’s total flow now exceeds Obama’s exit total."  But "An important difference, however, is items classified “Deregulatory,” a major innovation in rule reporting under Trump. A deregulatory measure also counts as a “rule,”..."

You'll forgive me if I don't trust a "major innovation in rule reporting" by the WH. After all, this is the same administration that won with the most electoral votes since Reagan and had "the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe."

One can indeed see what one wants to see.

[MDM]

You'll forgive me if I don't trust a "major innovation in rule reporting" by the WH.

On that we agree. :)

I also chuckled at "major innovation" - didn't quite seem to rank up there with a polio vaccine, transistors, etc.

By the numbers - when one notes that a new rule abolishing or minimizing or "streamlining" an older rule is a reduction, not an increase - the article's conclusion seems valid.

[bacchi]

You'll forgive me if I don't trust a "major innovation in rule reporting" by the WH.

On that we agree. :)

I also chuckled at "major innovation" - didn't quite seem to rank up there with a polio vaccine, transistors, etc.

By the numbers - when one notes that a new rule abolishing or minimizing or "streamlining" an older rule is a reduction, not an increase - the article's conclusion seems valid.

Fair enough. If one trusts the report, and the major innovation, then the article's conclusion is valid.

I'd like to see some of these "deregulatory" actions, particularly the "streamlining" rules. We'd also need to know why previous administrations didn't have a separate category. Did they never do any rule abolishing or streamlining? That's a bold claim.

[JLee]

You'll forgive me if I don't trust a "major innovation in rule reporting" by the WH.

On that we agree. :)

I also chuckled at "major innovation" - didn't quite seem to rank up there with a polio vaccine, transistors, etc.

By the numbers - when one notes that a new rule abolishing or minimizing or "streamlining" an older rule is a reduction, not an increase - the article's conclusion seems valid.

Fair enough. If one trusts the report, and the major innovation, then the article's conclusion is valid.

I'd like to see some of these "deregulatory" actions, particularly the "streamlining" rules. We'd also need to know why previous administrations didn't have a separate category. Did they never do any rule abolishing or streamlining? That's a bold claim.

This also doesn't impact voters all that much -- I have doubts that a crowd chanting MAGA is envisioning corporate and environmental deregulation as their end goal.

But what do I know...

[Just Joe]

The more I study history there is a surprising LACK of greatness in our country. Some people/powers feed us all this patriotic tripe but our nation has made some very poor choices along the way. I suppose if I were only to consider the white male perspective I would be able to find some greatness. Everyone else has had top endure periods of real misery.

[sol]

General Motors said Monday that it will cut 15% of its salaried workforce, and that it will idle factories in Michigan, Ohio, Maryland and Canada.

Didn't GM just get a giant tax cut?  Wasn't the whole point of the republicans pushing the corporate tax cut so that major US corporations could "create jobs" and "invest in their workforce"?

What's that you say?  GM just finished spending 13.9 billion dollars on stock buybacks instead?

Hmmm, it's almost like the GOP's economic policies don't work...


On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.  Counting up all of the votes in the country, approximately 9 million more people voted democrat instead of republican in the midterms and that's the largest midterm voter gap in American history, by either party.  If you want to know how bad the gerrymandering in America is after the last GOP-controlled redistricting, this year 9 million surplus votes picked up 39 seats for democrats but in 2010 republican's 7 million votes picked up 63 seats.  My quick math suggests the democratic majority should have picked up closer to 80 seats if everything were equal.

In effect, Trump has helped turn the country against a phenomenally well-defended political map, somehow managing to suffer a catastrophic loss in what was supposed to be an impenetrable multi-generational republican lock on congress.  Unless something dramatic happens in the next two years, I think this trend suggests that Trump is going to lose in 2020 by a double digit point spread in the popular vote, which should be juuuust enough for him to eke out a loss in the electoral college too. 

I'm having a hard time envisioning what could possibly happen to turn the country in his favor in the next two years.

[talltexan]

Even his campaign slogan (MAGA!) lacks any clear vision or focus - being 'great' is whatever the supporter wants it to be.

Probably true of most if not all Presidential Campaign Slogans.

Except for the "again" part -- pretty clear dog whistle to old white people (especially men) who liked it when no one questioned who was on top in this country.

Or whatever the detractor wants it be?  One can indeed see what one wants to see.

What part of America was great, is no longer great, and would allegedly be made great again by Trump?

Manufacturing wages.

[sol]

What part of America was great, is no longer great, and would allegedly be made great again by Trump?

Manufacturing wages.

Shhhh, don't tell that to 15,000 GM factory workers.

Not only did Trump fail to fulfill his promises to reopen all of those midwestern auto plants, his economic policies and trade wars have directly contributed to shutting down new ones and now he's attacking GM by threatening to cut US auto subsidies.  What a tool. 

[nereo]

Even his campaign slogan (MAGA!) lacks any clear vision or focus - being 'great' is whatever the supporter wants it to be.

Probably true of most if not all Presidential Campaign Slogans.

Except for the "again" part -- pretty clear dog whistle to old white people (especially men) who liked it when no one questioned who was on top in this country.

Or whatever the detractor wants it be?  One can indeed see what one wants to see.

What part of America was great, is no longer great, and would allegedly be made great again by Trump?

Manufacturing wages.

War.

[sherr]

On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.

Side note: maybe 40 actually. The California 21st was originally called for the R incumbent but as counting has continued the D challenger has actually pulled ahead. Several news outlets have "un-called it" and are waiting to see what happens.

[rocketpj]

[q]

I'm having a hard time envisioning what could possibly happen to turn the country in his favor in the next two years.
[/quote]

So is he, I'm sure.  Which means he will follow the path of most moronic 'statesment' and try to start a 'short victorious war'.  It might work - Americans have a Pavlovian response to flag waving bomb dropping shenanigans. 

Note: It might work electorally.  I'm sure whatever war he starts will turn out to be a disaster for whoever is involved on both/all sides.  But it could give him the juice to squeak through the next election.  Alternatively he could use the 'state of emergency' to attempt to end the practice (if not the appearance) of democracy.

[Poundwise]

There are going to be thousands of young adults with mental health issues over the next generation as a sole result of the bad management at the border.

"US waived FBI checks on staff at growing teen migrant camp"
https://apnews.com/0c62b088c27147b0a6055d1e8394a3af?fbclid=IwAR3swpkcITwytzei4w55tlm8XvVPZRUwhOScfY9pJ0o651XSYqeVT2BUssQ

[NorthernBlitz]

I'm having a hard time envisioning what could possibly happen to turn the country in his favor in the next two years.

I think he wins again if:
1) the economy stays strong (particularly re: unemployment) and / or
2) the dems put up another horrible candidate

Trump is a bad president so I think it's easy for him to lose when the question is "how is the president doing" like it is in midterms (it seems like most administrations lose on this question).

But, that isn't going to be the question in 2020. Instead, it will be "would you rather have Trump or X and president". When X = Hillary Clinton, Trump won. I hope that the Dems can find a candidate that is smart, likable, and interested more in bringing the country together than tearing it apart.

I think the US is in desperate need of a great president, which is something I don't think it's had in at least my life time (born 1979). Sadly, I think that the process weeds out the kind of people that would actually be good for the country.

[nereo]

2) the dems put up another horrible candidate

Who do you consider to be a 'horrible candidate'?

[PathtoFIRE]

Who do you consider to be a 'horrible candidate'?

It's really not worth engaging here, you know what the answer is likely to be; someone who avoids offending the biases and prejudices of a minority (and getting smaller!) segment of the population.

Clinton lost because

a) political party affiliation has become more and more intertwined with personal identify in the last few decades, so each of the two major parties has a large built in base and therefore a floor on how poorly their candidate can do, in the popular vote at least
b) manufactured scandals surrounding Clinton by partisans, aided by the media, along with a general downplaying of Trump's actual scandals, plus the grossly inappropriate conduct of Comey and the FBI right before the election
c) Clinton's political strategy overestimating the campaign's success in certain states like Michigan and Wisconsin

[nereo]

Who do you consider to be a 'horrible candidate'?

It's really not worth engaging here, you know what the answer is likely to be; someone who avoids offending the biases and prejudices of a minority (and getting smaller!) segment of the population.

Clinton lost because

a) political party affiliation has become more and more intertwined with personal identify in the last few decades, so each of the two major parties has a large built in base and therefore a floor on how poorly their candidate can do, in the popular vote at least
b) manufactured scandals surrounding Clinton by partisans, aided by the media, along with a general downplaying of Trump's actual scandals, plus the grossly inappropriate conduct of Comey and the FBI right before the election
c) Clinton's political strategy overestimating the campaign's success in certain states like Michigan and Wisconsin

I actually wasn't alluding to HRC, as I think the chance she will run and win her party's nomination are slim (but hey, I could be wrong).
I was curious who among the 2020 contenders NorthernBlitz (and other members) would consider a 'horrible candidate' - and why.

[partgypsy]

On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.

Side note: maybe 40 actually. The California 21st was originally called for the R incumbent but as counting has continued the D challenger has actually pulled ahead. Several news outlets have "un-called it" and are waiting to see what happens.

Also a county's votes have not been confirmed, due to "irregularities" in the mail in ballots. This could get interesting.
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/11/29/absentee-ballot-fraud-allegations-roil-north-carolina-u-s-house-race/
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sworn-affidavits-allege-us-house-district-9-election-was-mishandled/880454598

[By the River]

On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.  Counting up all of the votes in the country, approximately 9 million more people voted democrat instead of republican in the midterms and that's the largest midterm voter gap in American history, by either party.  If you want to know how bad the gerrymandering in America is after the last GOP-controlled redistricting, this year 9 million surplus votes picked up 39 seats for democrats but in 2010 republican's 7 million votes picked up 63 seats.  My quick math suggests the democratic majority should have picked up closer to 80 seats if everything were equal.

39>63?    I've seen that a few times in this thread where 39 is described as a historic loss of seats.  Another way of looking at the math, is that Democrats received 53.3% of the national vote which corresponds to 232 seats (435*0.533) but hold 235.   Same math in 2010 had Republicans with 51.7% of votes corresponding to 225 seats but they held 242.  2010 seems to be the outlier. 

I believe many know that country-wide popular vote totals for president and congressional parties mean nothing but are fun to do whatifs.   

[sol]

I've seen that a few times in this thread where 39 is described as a historic loss of seats.

Unprecedented for their party.  Not so much for democrats, who apparently build long slow majorities over time and then lose them all at once. 

Consider the % democrats in Congress to be akin to the SP500; long periods of slow and steady rising, interspersed with rapid and catastrophic losses.

[marty998]

Has anyone seen the Fatboy Slim "Weapon of Choice" clip with Robert Mueller's face pasted over the dancing Christopher Walken?

Brilliant, haha.

[former player]

Donald Trump is being completely sidelined at the G20.

First time ever the problem has been the elephant that's not in the room.

[talltexan]

Frankly, I heard about Trump's dinner and handshake agreement with Xi. It didn't sound like that much substance to me, but the futures markets are popping.

[GuitarStv]

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe opened his conversation with the American president on the first day of the G20: "I want to congratulate you on your historic victory in the midterm election in the United States."

- https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/02/opinions/trump-g20-american-exceptionalism-andelman/index.html


Bahahahahaha!  That's some high level piss taking right there.

[nereo]

Frankly, I heard about Trump's dinner and handshake agreement with Xi. It didn't sound like that much substance to me, but the futures markets are popping.

The markets love that the 25% tariffs have temporarily been put on hold.
Basically the hand-shake agreement was to spend 90 days trying to reach a 'real' agreement, and in the meantime both sides will not ramp up the trade war. Every barrier that was in place last week remains. In effect, the US has backed down for a verbal promise from China to change things sometime in the future.

According to the US, China has said they will address 'intellectual property theft' - but its worth nothing that this has been promised before to several other administrations (going back to Nixon) with very little change on their part. It's also worth noting that China state media has not mentioned this in their reporting, and since everything is a handshake agreement and behind closed doors there's nothing binding here.

The true test will be in March when we see whether either side really enacts meaningful change.

[talltexan]

I honestly feel like Xi would have the upper hand against any US President at the moment because he won't have to face voters...ever. He can wait two (or ten) years for the US President to be replaced and simply negotiate with the new one.

[nereo]

I honestly feel like Xi would have the upper hand against any US President at the moment because he won't have to face voters...ever. He can wait two (or ten) years for the US President to be replaced and simply negotiate with the new one.

My read is that both leaders are overconfident in their hand, which is a really bad combination to have.  as you said Xi can (and largely has) play the long game here, never needing to face the voters.  They can inflict a lot more pain targeted at red-state industries.  But China needs our grain in the immediate future, and its economy is still uncomfortably reliant on US corporations and innovations.  They'd be in a real pickle if the US actually worked with Japan, Korea and the EU (but of course DJT axed the TPP and is making enemies of allies everywhere he goes).

[Roadrunner53]

Trudeau vs. Trump

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-justin-trudeau_us_5c05220ae4b0a173c024fb0f

[NorthernBlitz]

2) the dems put up another horrible candidate

Who do you consider to be a 'horrible candidate'?

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- more centrist / pragmatic than driven by dogma
- someone that half the country doesn't hate
- someone that doesn't obviously hate half the people in the country
- someone that's interested in winning by bringing people together instead of wedging them apart for political gain
- not too tainted by corruption (I'd like to put not corrupt, but I don't think that's possible)
- younger than the US's previous mandatory retirement age (65)

Basically someone that voters outside the base could be proud to vote for. I think the Dems had this with Obama (who checked at least most of the boxes above in 2008).

I don't think either candidate checked (m)any of these boxes in 2016. I would have grudgingly voted for Hillary in 2016 if I was able to vote (I have a green card). But like many people, I would have been trying to weigh which candidate was least terrible.

Re: nereo.  It may be because I can't vote, but I don't really follow enough to know what a "non-terrible candidate" looks like this far away from the elections. I've heard long form interviews I liked with Tulsi Gabbard (on Joe Rogan) and Cory Booker (on Tim Ferriss). Based only on those interviews (without knowing a lot about their backgrounds) they seem like they could be non-terrible candidates.

Candidates I think would be horrible include mostly re-treads (Hillary, Bernie) or people that are too polarizing (Warren).

[GuitarStv]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

[NorthernBlitz]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

[JLee]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

[NorthernBlitz]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

[shenlong55]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Bolded is true enough, but really the more important question is "can you be intelligent without being labeled elitist by the right-wing media?"

[GuitarStv]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Bolded is true enough, but really the more important question is "can you be intelligent without being labeled elitist by the right-wing media?"

I think you can, but you have to carefully hide evidence of your intelligence.

[Roadrunner53]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

I do not agree that people want a non intelligent President. Every so often I hear speech's from some of our former Presidents and it is like music to my ears hearing a person who can talk intelligently, eloquently and not grunting like an angry pig in half sentences, half thoughts making major decisions for a country that are based on 'gut feelings' and not that of experts who have years of experience.

[sol]

Bolded is true enough, but really the more important question is "can you be intelligent without being labeled elitist by the right-wing media?"

This is the same problem as with "someone half the country doesn't hate."

Hillary Clinton was a pretty centrist candidate.  She was familiar, predictable, reliable and proven to be competent, and none of that mattered as soon as right wing media spun up the hate machine.  They vilified a grandma as evil and corrupt, and sickly and treasonous and mentally handicapped and a pedopohile.  It doesn't really matter what kind of candidate you are, they will convince people to hate you once you are on the radar screen.

Maybe what the democrats really need is like four or five equally competent candidates.  Right wing media can't get their flock to hate everyone equally, so they need a sacrificial Hillary or two to soak up all of the hatred, then a politically equivalent figure to actually get the votes.

[ysette9]

On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.

Side note: maybe 40 actually. The California 21st was originally called for the R incumbent but as counting has continued the D challenger has actually pulled ahead. Several news outlets have "un-called it" and are waiting to see what happens.

Also a county's votes have not been confirmed, due to "irregularities" in the mail in ballots. This could get interesting.
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/11/29/absentee-ballot-fraud-allegations-roil-north-carolina-u-s-house-race/
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sworn-affidavits-allege-us-house-district-9-election-was-mishandled/880454598

Is this finally the voter fraud that the republicans have been so concerned about for so long?

[thd7t]

On the bright side, it looks like they lost a historic 39 House seats in this last election, after everything was tallied, despite their best efforts at gerrymandering.

Side note: maybe 40 actually. The California 21st was originally called for the R incumbent but as counting has continued the D challenger has actually pulled ahead. Several news outlets have "un-called it" and are waiting to see what happens.

Also a county's votes have not been confirmed, due to "irregularities" in the mail in ballots. This could get interesting.
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/11/29/absentee-ballot-fraud-allegations-roil-north-carolina-u-s-house-race/
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/sworn-affidavits-allege-us-house-district-9-election-was-mishandled/880454598

Is this finally the voter fraud that the republicans have been so concerned about for so long?

It's not.  This is election fraud and none of the impediments to voting that the Republicans have put in place would do anything to stop it.

[nereo]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

Well I'll just point out here that your very question shows some strong bias against people who get a liberal arts degree instead of a more 'practical' (your word) STEM field.  By defining those fields a 'practical' you are implicating non-fields as impractical.
Perhaps you meant "[directly] applied fields"?

[JLee]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

I put quotes around "liberal education" because any secular education institution (i.e. anything that is not a Christian college) is viewed as "liberal."

To answer your question, no. Anti-vaxxers, anyone?

[Unique User]

This delights the adolescent in me.  Giuliani tweeted the below a couple days ago and forgot a space, so someone bought the domain. 

"Mueller filed an indictment just as the President left for http://G-20.In  July he indicted the Russians who will never come here just before he left for Helsinki.Either could have been done earlier or later. Out of control!Supervision please?"

[NorthernBlitz]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

Well I'll just point out here that your very question shows some strong bias against people who get a liberal arts degree instead of a more 'practical' (your word) STEM field.  By defining those fields a 'practical' you are implicating non-fields as impractical.
Perhaps you meant "[directly] applied fields"?

I think the quotes in your post should be around "more practical" and not just "practical" (I changed the bolding and underlining from your quote of my post).

According to Google, the word practical means: "of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas"

I think it's pretty clear that engineering and medicine (which are about the implementation of our understanding of physical and biological sciences, respectively) are by definition "more practical" than the humanities. But, I'm open to listening to arguments to the contrary.

For what it's worth, I specifically chose engineering and medicine because I think they are also more practical than other physical sciences like theoretical physics and biochemistry (which I think are more about understanding "theory and ideas").

It also seems that your post suggests you believe that "not as practical" means "not as good". I didn't say that, but maybe that's your "strong bias" :). My thought was that people who may be anti-education probably appreciate it when people are designing them better tools and treating their ailments.

[NorthernBlitz]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

I put quotes around "liberal education" because any secular education institution (i.e. anything that is not a Christian college) is viewed as "liberal."

To answer your question, no. Anti-vaxxers, anyone?

That's interesting. I've lived in blue collar places before, and I found that doctors and engineers were usually fairly well respected. But I've never lived in a super-religious community.

[nereo]

I'd like to have candidates for president that are:
- intelligent
- someone that half the country doesn't hate

You're going to have trouble with this one.  There's significant anti-intellectualism that exists in the US.  If you put forth an intelligent candidate, a sizable chunk of the populace will immediately be turned off.

1) I don't think selecting a president should be easy.
2) I think it's more anti-elitism and that you can be intelligent without being elitist.

Based on what I saw when I was raised in a strongly religious / right-wing environment, I disagree. "Liberal education" was viewed with disdain.

That's interesting.
Did you find that people would differentiate between education in "liberal arts" and more practical fields like engineering and medicine?

Well I'll just point out here that your very question shows some strong bias against people who get a liberal arts degree instead of a more 'practical' (your word) STEM field.  By defining those fields a 'practical' you are implicating non-fields as impractical.
Perhaps you meant "[directly] applied fields"?

I think the quotes in your post should be around "more practical" and not just "practical" (I changed the bolding and underlining from your quote of my post).

According to Google, the word practical means: "of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas"

I think it's pretty clear that engineering and medicine (which are about the implementation of our understanding of physical and biological sciences, respectively) are by definition "more practical" than the humanities. But, I'm open to listening to arguments to the contrary.

For what it's worth, I specifically chose engineering and medicine because I think they are also more practical than other physical sciences like theoretical physics and biochemistry (which I think are more about understanding "theory and ideas").

It also seems that your post suggests you believe that "not as practical" means "not as good". I didn't say that, but maybe that's your "strong bias" :). My thought was that people who may be anti-education probably appreciate it when people are designing them better tools and treating their ailments.

I think you missed my point.  Your clear implication is that engineering or medicine are more practical than a degree in liberal arts. My point is that many liberal arts degrees can be practical, and some liberal arts degrees may be more practical than other engineering or medicine degrees.

[aaahhrealmarcus]

There is a certain voting bloc to which almost any degree that isn't law, medicine, or "computers" = "Underwater Basket Weaving" and is dismissed out of hand

[GuitarStv]

I think you missed my point.  Your clear implication is that engineering or medicine are more practical than a degree in liberal arts. My point is that many liberal arts degrees can be practical, and some liberal arts degrees may be more practical than other engineering or medicine degrees.

Which ones?  Don't get me wrong, I believe that there's tremendous value to society in the liberal arts . . . but they tend to be beneficial in indirect and more roundabout ways (as a synthesis of a bunch of theory) than the more technical fields which tend to be more direct in teaching an approach to a problem.  I honestly can't think of any liberal arts that I'd say were more practical than a medical or engineering degree.  That's not a slight on the arts, just an observation.

[partgypsy]

Music I think is part of the liberal arts, and for me music has had a profound effect on me. But it's not as quantifiable as say making the oil field produce more barrels of oil, or that kind of measurement. That is true for many other aspects of culture including literature, the arts, dance, etc. Basically, it is what makes us human. 

[FIPurpose]

I think you missed my point.  Your clear implication is that engineering or medicine are more practical than a degree in liberal arts. My point is that many liberal arts degrees can be practical, and some liberal arts degrees may be more practical than other engineering or medicine degrees.

Which ones?  Don't get me wrong, I believe that there's tremendous value to society in the liberal arts . . . but they tend to be beneficial in indirect and more roundabout ways (as a synthesis of a bunch of theory) than the more technical fields which tend to be more direct in teaching an approach to a problem.  I honestly can't think of any liberal arts that I'd say were more practical than a medical or engineering degree.  That's not a slight on the arts, just an observation.

Yeah I have a CS degree but I know that there is huge value in liberal art degrees. I've known plenty of people I work with who can't analyze a paragraph to save their life. There are studies out there that show that  a lot of people literally can't make a distinction between statements of fact and opinion.

I know a lot of people from the deep South who feel this way though. College is like an evil you have to pass through to gain market skills. Beware the liberal teachers and come out unscathed with only easily marketable skills on the other end. A lot of political myths about college out there.

I liked my CS classes, but the humanities were the memorable ones to me.