President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

What? How does that follow? And why are they the relevant questions?

 

I think you're wrong in assuming that the Bible-clutching tight asses want "exactly" that (it to be shut down); shutting it down is not enabling a heckler's veto.

 

But we aren't starting from ground zero. They do exist, in part at least due to public funding. That can cut either way, but it's the relevant question as opposed to the alternate history you want to engage in.
Same is true for the AMA, or the New Deal for that matter.

 

I would, of course, lean toward the latter, but I would note that we aren't talking about a whole lot of money (relatively speaking). I mean, if we could get those things for $1, it's true that we'd be crowding out investment, but I'd be surprised if anybody thought we were making a bad bargain.

As re: No. 1 there ... An economist once was talking about the difference between what people said they preferred and what they actually preferred. He told the story of an art museum, the board of which was making plans for exhibits for the coming season and was reading suggestions made by frequent patrons. During a break, one of the board members struck up a conversation with a member of the custodial staff. The board member talked about what a hard time the board was having making sense of what the patrons said they really wanted. The custodian crooked his finger and quietly said, "Come this way, please." They walked through the exhibits, the custodian noting how nicely the carpet was holding up. Then they came to the one place in the museum where the carpet was way the hell worn out.

Right in front of the nudes.

 

Because conservatives got upset when Obama breathed. Every breath for eight years. How many bills to overturn Obamacare? How many investigations of emails! Benghazi! And Justice Garland says hi. And, at least according to leadership now, that never happened and we're all supposed to get along and go along?

 

Who are you fighting against?

 

He's going to have to privately fund all the statues and potraits of himself he'll want inevitably. Maybe find another charity to pillage?

 

And I'm saying that the parentheses make a big difference. My guess is that they wouldn't have but now that they did, would choose to keep them going. If they want to make the argument that the history of public support of the Arts was the head start that the fine arts needed to get started, but now is mature enough to thrive on its own without the artificial boost, like an endowment designed to spend down and expire after X number of years, I think that's an argument that is more easy to entertain than "I hate opera" or "NPR is liberal," both of which are true but not so relevant.

 

Just answering your question.

 

If anyone else had posted that tweet, I would read it as sarcasm and a shot at Trump.