Photo Caption Contest - If you could read minds, Thoughts as Putin Arrives
This one ought ot be good
You know the drill by now.
If you like, just add your own captions for the following photo;
My first entry is;
Melania - "Oh Geez, here's Don's real love. There goes my Paris shopping plans"
Angela Merkel; "I'd like to machine gun him down right now"
Emmanuel Macron: "Oh God No ! What a despicable creature. I would like to spit ontop of his head"
Donald Trump; "Oh goodness, I've waited so long to see you, my love, my financier" .
Here's the photo;
Comments (21)
With her eyes partly closed:"Melania says to Putin it's all your doing you twitmouse".
Angela Merkel - "That murderous dicatator"
Emmanual Macron - I hope the Eiffel Tower finally tips over & crushes him"
Donald Trump - "Woo Hoo, finally my reason for being here !"
angela: rolls eyes and says "we all know that's the only way you could ever be elected don't we don.....
Trump: Good thing that fool Macron does not know that I know what he is thinking...
Merkel - "Late, as usual. Probably just finished offing another journalist."
Melania - "I will close my eyes and make believe he isn't here. Oh, what's the use.
He & Don are going to discuss ways to hide money from the government all night."
D. Trump - "There's my bankroll provider. If that isn't love, I don't know what is."
Melaina" Trump honey you must act more like a President.
It's perhaps inherently biased by the sample group (who replies and why) and recency memory/emotional response effects, but it's still clear that Trump is not highly revered.
I thought the polarising results most interesting. Obama, the first black president of a country plagued by a history of racial polarisation, was considered less polarising, or perhaps divisive, than Trump.
They are the most educated and respected presidential historians in the country.
They each individually scored EVERY US president according to official presidential criteria. The results are the average of the tally of 170 prestigious top presidential historians.
The group includes both conservative and liberal historians.
They do this every 4 years as an official study.
They are THE experts on this topic.
They know far more about US presidential history than anyone.
I was simply acknowledging the problems with this type of survey, including the impact of recency.
I was being fair, even though I suspect Trump will always remain fairly low on the list, whatever the circumstances.
So, if 150 were invited and 149 gave usable responses, that would be more significant
than 170 usable responses ? I think not !
The more usable responses, the better, and considering those who were invited,
20 would be significant. 170 is more than enough.
That doesn't mean it's not informative, but it's important to bear that in mind.
If I remember correctly, there were more subjects who identified at the liberal/democrat end of the scale than the conservative/Republican end. It would be interesting to understand why there was that skew.
Of the 46.something% of the people invited who didn't participate, or return a usable questionnaire, how many identified as liberal/democrat, independent, or conservative/republican? Was there a skew in political leaning with respect to participants and non-participants? Was the questionnaire more appealing in some way to the liberal/democrat end of the scale, or did the distribution of the participants reflect the political leanings of the invited subjects as a whole?
I could put forward a hypothesis that having a political leaning affects objectivity, in which case the results may be skewed if the sample is.
Also, there was mention of incomplete and unusable returned questionnaires. That's usually indicative of subjects disagreeing in some way with certain questions. Very often that can be because the creators don't understand as much about the subject matter as the participants, especially when dealing with experts in the field.
With this methodology, the non-participants, or partial non-participants can be as important, if not more so than the participants. Unfortunately, non-participation doesn't provide that information.
If every US citizen completed the questionnaire and Trump still came out ranked as the worst president ever, it wouldn't surprise me in the least and I'd be as pleased as punch, but my own opinion doesn't stop me from questioning what non-participation might reveal. Such is the nature of a social scientist.
Face it, he's horrible. You knew that without the experts.
By definition conservative implies a tendency to hold onto the past, rather than embrace change and the future.
Highly educated people are more problem solvers, open to new; research, methods and ideas.
The vast majority of the responders identified themselves as moderate.
Here's another one - the non-participants skewed towards the republican end of the scale and couldn't face telling the truth.
As is those, who are embarrassed to have Trump as the head of their party.
In other words telling the truth might not itself have been the embarrassment,
but the truth itself may have been.
I'm embarrassed that this country actually voted him in.
I'm embarrassed every time he Tweets and proves what an idiot he is.
And I didn't even vote for him.
And yet, it's quite important and relevant information to any rating of embarrassment I might report.