Marxist ßastard

Have you been listening to a word I said? If Trump had invested his inherited fortune in a neutral investment like an index fund, he'd have more money. He has underperformed the market. He is, by definition, a below-average businessman, and all his “deals” have been simple exchanges of money for entertainment and to feed his ego. You forgot the Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group.

The fact is that Trump would be worth more today had he simply put his inherited fortune in a totally neutral investment like an index fund. So yes, he has just been playing around with what he inherited, at a net loss. You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that Trump is a successful businessman. He's not. He's a loser, has been for decades. His entire life has just been him burning through the same stack of cash he got from daddy.

Okay, and what do you mean by “where he is today?” His position of 100% inherited wealth, or his being the President-Elect? Because the latter certainly is due to his rapid-fire lying capability, as I've already been over.

You know very well that there is a difference between Clinton and an absolute pathological liar like Trump.

The problem is that slightly less than half of the country has a very closed-off belief system that shuns critical thought, and “without built-in protective functions like critical analysis… bad information in a closed-off system ends up doing massive damage in short period of time.” Trump won because he targeted those people and shouted at them one lie after another, at such a rate that their rudimentary critical thinking skills simply couldn't keep up. Then, thanks to one of our flawed electoral system's many quirks, those people's votes counted more than the actual majority who voted for Clinton.

If I were given the chance? Our presidential primary system has got to be rebuilt from scratch: Instead of each state and each party conducting primaries its own way (including undemocratic caucuses) and on its own schedule, things would be fixed at the federal level.The schedule of primaries would not favor any state unfairly – it would be randomized each election cycle, or all states would vote at once.Primaries would include all candidates from all parties, plus independents.Unlike existing first-past-the-post ”jungle primaries,” there would be an alternative vote system.The two candidates with the most votes (after elimination) would go on to the general, which would function as a final runoff election.No candidate besides those two would be allowed votes in the general election.Primaries would happen at most eight weeks before the general election.What does this mean?No more silly, undemocratic Iowa caucuses setting the tone of the entire election.No more year-long election seasons. The serious campaigning happens in the eight weeks between the primaries and general.No more elaborate party conventions wrapped in pageantry and obscure rules about delegates. The parties vote on their platform, and candidates decide whether to run on that platform. That's it.No more voting based on how you predict everyone else will vote. In the primaries, you simply say who your personal first choice as president would be (even if they're a fringe candidate), then your second choice, and so on. The alternative vote system automatically takes care of all the mental calculus of ”okay, but this candidate can actually win,” by its elimination system. In the general, spoiler candidates just aren't allowed.People who think this is all too complicated can just skip the primaries and vote in the general instead, where they can engage in their familiar A-or-B, lesser-of-two-evils voting pattern. Their choice.You can use most of this system in gubernatorial, congressional, senatorial, etc. races as well, all the way down to county dogcatcher #7. It's a far better primary system then what we've got, and still maintains the familiar first-past-the-post mechanics for the general.

Well gee whiz kvnchrist, I'm very sorry to have brought facts to your feelings fight.

Could you possibly learn to read beyond the first sentence of anything I link? It says right on page 160 (of that volume of Journal of College Student Development):

Can you even read?

Sigh... Learn to Internet. I found the original source inside of two minutes. As for the rest of you, I've given proof. I've requested contrary evidence from any of you, and you've failed to provide it. Instead, you're just restating the same false assumption over and over again, and giving each other high-fives after each iteration.

And I've given proof that a college environment you would call "sheltered" led to graduates who were actually better at handling sexism. It's time for you to provide proof too, not just repeat the same false assumption over and over again. Put up or shut up.

My argument is that they are far more successful in male-dominated fields than women who went to co-ed schools. That brief respite from sexism gave them better ability to deal with it.

Yeah, but you said that the comparison to women's colleges is invalid because it's "talking about graduates and adults who have already left school and have had the benefit of the school of hard knocks." You haven't said anything to support that the two cases are actually different.

I've only seen safe spaces talked about in the context of college and specific meeting places for minorities. What universe are you in where people are proposing cradle-to-grave safe spaces?

With that logic, you'd think that graduates of women's colleges, for instance, would be coddled delicates who can't combat sexism as they haven't experienced it as much. But you'd be dead wrong: women's college graduates are hugely over-represented in Congress and high-ranking corporate positions. Giving oppressed people a respite from the constant harassment aimed at them lets them thrive, develop a self-image as a worthy person, and go on to challenge the systems of oppression they face later on.