How about this article re-titles itself 'the politics of innovation in the United States'
The article first sets out to tell you that out of the entire population the innovators are those that they have chosen, which amounts to 3%, of 1% of 1% of the total. 900 Innovators in the entire US. If they changed that number to say 1 in 100 people were innovators (probably closer to the actual), then cut out children you end up with about 1 or 2 million innovators and the demographics of that set begin to look a lot different.
// most ppl believe anything that comes from a 'study'...
That's a little unfair to the authors. Quoting the article:
>In total, 6,418 innovators were contacted for this report, and 923 provided viable responses. This diverse, yet focused sampling approach enables a broad, yet nuanced examination of individuals driving innovation in the United States.
You can read the report for further elaboration, but basically, they counted the ones they could and acknowledged possible sample biases.
Biased sample? Possibly. Can we blame the authors for not holding a gun to the ~6000's heads? Probably not.
"I’m changing. We need highly skilled people in this country. If we can't do it, we will get them in. And we do need in Silicon Valley we absolutely have to have, so we do need highly skilled. One of the biggest problems we have is people will go to the best colleges, they will go to Harvard, to Stanford, to Wharton, as soon as they are finished they get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately. They are not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country"
“Trump” was a name chosen because it refers to a card belonging to a suit of higher rank than the other suits, i.e. which beats the other suits in a card game, originally a modification of the word “Triumph”. Used more generically, to “trump” someone means to defeat them. It’s like renaming yourself “Winner”, except not quite so transparently cheesy. (Of course, Donald Trump doesn’t exactly mind being transparently cheesy. Here’s the beginning of the bio on his personal website: “Donald J. Trump is the very definition of the American success story,...”)
Using his family’s original name instead isn’t inherently racist or xenophobic, but it is intended to be an underhanded attack on Trump’s ego. It certainly is petty, a schoolyard insult instead of a policy discussion. As you say, it is similar to the way prominent Republican party officials and conservative pundits sometimes talk about the “Democrat party”. A subtle little jab every time, like “I’m not going to even dignify you enough to say your name correctly.”
Overall, I’d recommend against stooping to that level. Trump is the master of childish slap-fights and dick measuring contests. To quote George Bernard Shaw, “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
> “Trump” was a name chosen because it refers to a card belonging to a suit of higher rank than the other suits
Absolute speculation.
More likely, it's because "Drumpf" was too Germanic and the family was trying to avoid this exact kind of ribbing.
And let's be honest - it's implicit here that the word "Drumpf" itself is funny. Why? Because it sounds funny to the Anglo ear. It even looks funny. It's like laughing at the surname "Wang."
> Overall, I’d recommend against stooping to that level. Trump is the master of childish slap-fights and dick measuring contests.
You're not like, arguing with Trump.
You probably really trying to convince your fellow citizens not to vote for him. I haven't made a decision, and will probably sit this election out unless I hear something compelling, but I just immediately tune out anyone saying "Drumpf," "repug," or "Obummer." ymmv.
The article first sets out to tell you that out of the entire population the innovators are those that they have chosen, which amounts to 3%, of 1% of 1% of the total. 900 Innovators in the entire US. If they changed that number to say 1 in 100 people were innovators (probably closer to the actual), then cut out children you end up with about 1 or 2 million innovators and the demographics of that set begin to look a lot different.
// most ppl believe anything that comes from a 'study'...