Trump is the most smart American.

[Raider5678]

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Nicknames are paramount among gangsters. 

 

I must be a gangster.

I use nicknames with pretty much everyone I know if I've known them longer then a year.

 

[iNow]

45 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I must be a gangster.

I use nicknames with pretty much everyone I know if I've known them longer then a year.

 

What about people you don’t know, and are you intentionally attempting to disparage and dehumanize when you do? I doubt that. 

[cheetaman]

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

Look, he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards. His willingness to learn, his ability to articulate, his oratory skills etc. that are open to display are certainly unimpressive. Yet, he was able to convince folks to elect him to a position of immense power despite all this failings. That clearly is indication of two things. A) the value of the American people in traditional views of "smart" and b) that he is smart enough to rally those people around certain topics.

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

Edited April 6, 2018 by cheetaman

[pzkpfw]

4 minutes ago, cheetaman said:

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

Trump started by being given a large sum of money by his Father.

By some estimates, his current wealth is no greater than if he had simply stuck that money in a bank account.

The idea that he's a great businessman is a myth.

One thing he is good at, is self promotion.

Edited April 6, 2018 by pzkpfw
grammar

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, cheetaman said:

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

Isn't that, at least partly, the point of being a professor?

6 minutes ago, cheetaman said:

They are only able to read book

At least they have read a book. There is some doubt about Trump's reading ability. 

And why is reading a book a bad thing? But I guess if you are a Trump supporter, education is not considered a good thing.

7 minutes ago, cheetaman said:

Trump made a lot of money,

He started with a lot of money. He has been bankrupt six times. It is not clear that he is a good businessman, despite his claims.

[DrP]

1 hour ago, cheetaman said:

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

A man's bank balance is not a measure of his IQ.

Does being born rich make one intelligent in your mind? 

 

Although I agree...  he is slightly smarter than about just over half your population imo.  And he dresses smartly in his suits, maybe you meant he looks/dresses smart  -  again this is money related though, not intelligence related. 

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by DrP

[dimreepr]

Given the number of people he's fired, I think he's confusing real life with reality TV, or maybe he thinks bankrupting a casino wasn't funny enough.

[koti]

26 minutes ago, DrP said:

 

...he dresses smartly in his suits, maybe you meant he looks/dresses smart  -  again this is money related though, not intelligence related. 

 

I see a baggy suit, his tie is too long, his pants are often wrinkled up, his shirt cuffs are uneven and his hair is ridiculous. Most of the time he dresses horrible - I've seen excentric homeless people  dress better than Trump. 

[Ten oz]

Trump has failed at endeavors throughout his life. The real estate stuff was inherited. His old man built that empire. All the things Trump has attempted to branch out and do on his own (steaks, schools, football, casinos, etc) have failed. Trump brags about what a branding expert he is yet it was banks that chose that for him after his bankruptcies. Trump is an ultimate example of the inequality in the country. An example of how rich white men from wealthy families can only fail upward. 

The Republican party likes leaders who don't have a breadth of knowledge to understand the impact of policy. George W Bush was an idiot. Like Trump he was the son of a wealthy family who kicked around failing at most things until being embraced by the conservative right. Bush was pro deregulation and believed in the omnipotence old money. Bush provided tax cuts and private contractors all the deals they wanted. When it all came crumbling down Bush never saw it coming because he was never educated enough to understand it. Likewise Ronald Reagan was just a performer who read teleprompters. His mental faculties were diminished while he was on office. When interviewed for Iran Contra  a year out of office Reagan could not recall who his own Sec of Sate had been for pete's sake. That is how conservatives like their leaders, inept. They want people in office who unwittingly let the wolves loose in the hen house. Just look back at the 2016 GOP primary. Trump and Ted Cruz received 70% of the vote, smh. Ted Cruz being the second biggest idiot. Out of 50 states Kasich only won a single state, his own. conservatives seek out stupid. They do not want smart thoughtful informed people in office. 

[koti]

I found this graph some time ago, I wonder what everyone thinks:

 

 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, cheetaman said:

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

You have no idea how much money Trump has made. Trump won't release his taxes. It isn't even clear which companies he owns vs just has branding deals with. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

You have no idea how much money Trump has made. Trump won't release his taxes. It isn't even clear which companies he owns vs just has branding deals with. 

It's generally unsuccessful trying to use reason and facts to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, cheetaman said:

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

!

Moderator Note

Still waiting for a contribution from you that can't be seen as trolling.

 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, koti said:

I found this graph some time ago, I wonder what everyone thinks:

 

 

I think that Liberal is not a subset of Conservative (since they have pretty nearly opposite meanings).

Essentially, I can't see what the diagram is trying to say.

7 hours ago, cheetaman said:

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

Famously, Trump started with " a small loan of a million dollars" from his father.
I'm not sure when, but lets assume it was his 21st birthday about 1967.

If he had invested it in the stock market then by 1990 he would have had roughly 2 million.

(based on this)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

If he had invested in real estate he'd have had about 7 million
(based on this data)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ynrQyoAUzgM/UKvzBPEFGMI/AAAAAAAABg4/yLQ6jXe0q3w/s1600/U.S.+Housing+Price+Index+Since+1900.jpg

Instead, he was so "smart" he had converted it into nothing- he was bankrupt.

Let's hope he does better with the US economy.

 

[Airbrush]

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

...... Two years ago I never could have imagined the public tolerating what is now common place. Did Trump create this or was already there and someone was always going to be it's Oz.? 

Interesting conversation!  I'm not clear on what you mean by "Did Trump create this or was already there and someone was always going to be it's Oz?"  Could you expound on this idea?

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Trump didn't think he'd win. It was a stunt. It is conservatives who conned Trump, in a sense, by voting for him and not vice versa.  All success isn't deliberate.

Yes it was basically a publicity stunt for Trump to run for president.  Trump wanted to be his idea of president, but also doubted that he would win the election.  But that's ok since winning the election didn't matter since he would win either way.  If he lost the election he gained the publicity he craved. 

Good point about conservatives conning Trump.  Trump never knew what he was getting into, and he admitted to that.  At some point may he decide to resign because he's not having as much fun as he thought he would?

Edited April 6, 2018 by Airbrush

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Essentially, I can't see what the diagram is trying to say

Phew. Not just me then. 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, cheetaman said:

What a joke,  "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol

Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching  Economics .

They are only able to read book.

Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.

That is such a broken chain of reasoning! You link to a jobsite for jobs in economics, and claim SOME teachers of economics make a living teaching, and you think that, plus Trump's income means he's smarter than the teachers. Your argument tries fallaciously to equate the achievements of "some" with "all", and your extreme reach to this conclusion is invalid.

I've been far more successful in terms of money than many of the teachers in my life, but I would NEVER claim to be smarter than they are/were. What an absurd idea! And why would you come to a science discussion site and disrespect people who read?! Book worms are using their time more wisely than you, sir! 

[koti]

57 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think that Liberal is not a subset of Conservative (since they have pretty nearly opposite meanings).

Essentially, I can't see what the diagram is trying to say.

 

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Phew. Not just me then. 

I’m trying to find in that graph what Im wanting to find in it, that is: That the best aproach in politics would be to find a ballance between the best from both liberal and conservative worlds but I can’t. Liberal is not a subset of conservative and the community/autonomy division is ambiguous to say the least. Oh well.

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, koti said:

That the best aproach in politics would be to find a ballance between the best from both liberal and conservative worlds but I can’t.

I think the reason is that "balance" sounds reasonable, but can be loosely applied where it shouldn't. Trying to come to a middle ground between liberal and conservative on a specific issue isn't automatically going to give the best results. Sometimes, to be truly effective, a liberal decision doesn't need to be held back by too much conservative concern.

The NASA projects are easy examples. You take every precaution you can, but in the end you're going to make some wild, unprecedented, extremely progressive decisions to do something no other Earth creature could do. It's not going to be a 50/50 mix, or a balance. For those projects, we needed fiscal and social liberalism to vastly overshadow efforts to "cut back", "be realistic", or "stop wasting taxpayer dollars on science fiction". 

I think it's a mistake to look at any problem with a jaundiced eye going in. We do that in the US when we automatically assume spending less on welfare is better/more conservative, when spending more might save us much more money on the justice system. Every problem is different, and needs to be addressed on its own merits. Not everything should be about profit, not everything should be about spending less. 

Trump is not "most smart", but he's wealthy enough that he will never need a museum, or a public park or swimming pool, or universal healthcare, or a retirement fund. He's also one of the extremely wealthy that thinks you shouldn't have access to any of these things if you can't personally afford them, so he doesn't want to pay taxes towards them. It's/he's really that simple.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Interesting conversation!  I'm not clear on what you mean by "Did Trump create this or was already there and someone was always going to be it's Oz?"  Could you expound on this idea?

Wizard of OZ, the great and powerful, was a facade. It was really the man behind the curtain. People are offended by Trump and describe him with words like racist and sexist when discussing the need to defeat him. Who really needs to be defeated though? It is the conservative base that elected him. Same group that elected George W Bush. Same group that gave us Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. After Bush left office it was unimaginable anyone worse could come along but then ta-da, Trump. We can discuss how terrible Trump is till the cows come home but politicians akin to Trump are inevitable so long as the conservative base exists. They are behind the curtain. 

1 hour ago, koti said:

 

I’m trying to find in that graph what Im wanting to find in it, that is: That the best aproach in politics would be to find a ballance between the best from both liberal and conservative worlds but I can’t. Liberal is not a subset of conservative and the community/autonomy division is ambiguous to say the least. Oh well.

This has been repeated tried. Obama and Bill Clinton were both essentially Republicans if we were to use a pre - 1980 description for what Republicans are. Under Both Obama and Clinton unemployment shrunk year after year, Stock Market grew consistently, federal deficits shrank, and all the stuff Republicans claim to care about. Clinton cut welfare programs, Obama used a Republican designed healthcare plan, and etc. Republicans hate Obama and Clinton. Republicans worked tirelessly to undermine everything they could at every turn.  There is simply no middle ground. It is scorched earth. Their base fundamentally believes compromise is a bad thing. It is why Bush said "I'm the decider" and Trump calls everything "fake news". Refusal to concede anything is viewed as strength among the right. It is better to sink in flames fighting than stay afloat with compromises. To an extent such stubbornness exists on the left. There are those Bernie or bust folks who refused to vote for Hilary Clinton which help Trump get into office. 

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Wizard of OZ, the great and powerful, was a facade. It was really the man behind the curtain. People are offended by Trump and describe him with words like racist and sexist when discussing the need to defeat him. Who really needs to be defeated though? It is the conservative base that elected him. Same group that elected George W Bush. Same group that gave us Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. After Bush left office it was unimaginable anyone worse could come along but then ta-da, Trump. We can discuss how terrible Trump is till the cows come home but politicians akin to Trump are inevitable so long as the conservative base exists. They are behind the curtain. 

And the real fact is that the majority of conservatives would be more prosperous if many of the liberal agendas were realized, like universal healthcare, consumer protection, more effective public schooling, alternative energies, less corporate welfare, and so on. It's only those who are wealthy enough to afford what the rest of us need to pool our resources to own who profit from today's conservatism. We tell them we can get $3 loaves of bread for $1 each if we invest in 10 of them, and they tell us we're spending too much on bread, so they buy a $3 loaf, spend $3 on border security, and give the baker $4 for being a job provider.

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think the reason is that "balance" sounds reasonable, but can be loosely applied where it shouldn't. Trying to come to a middle ground between liberal and conservative on a specific issue isn't automatically going to give the best results. Sometimes, to be truly effective, a liberal decision doesn't need to be held back by too much conservative concern.

 

What I believe Koti's opinion probably is, is that we have to have a balance politically.

Some liberal & some conservative opinions on some things, and a mix of both on other things.

This way, if the best solution is liberal, the balanced legislative is willing to lean liberal, and vice versa, and if the best solution is balanced in the middle, they're willing to do that as well.

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Who really needs to be defeated though? It is the conservative base that elected him. 

 

Good luck with that. 

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We can discuss how terrible Trump is till the cows come home but politicians akin to Trump are inevitable so long as the conservative base exists.

Yes. And conservatives are saying the exact same thing, but replace Trump with Hillary, and conservative with liberal.

[Ten oz]

Just now, Phi for All said:

And the real fact is that the majority of conservatives would be more prosperous if many of the liberal agendas were realized, like universal healthcare, consumer protection, more effective public schooling, alternative energies, less corporate welfare, and so on. It's only those who are wealthy enough to afford what the rest of us need to pool our resources to own who profit from today's conservatism. We tell them we can get $3 loaves of bread for $1 each if we invest in 10 of them, and they tell us we're spending too much on bread, so they buy a $3 loaf, spend $3 on border security, and give the baker $4 for being a job provider.

In my opinion Conservatives are simply too bigoted/angry to appreciate prosperity if it includes groups they don't feel deserve it. They rather see entire programs that benefit millions ended than a single bad guy get over on the system. They are content to work harder for less provided everyone else suffers as well. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What I believe Koti's opinion probably is, is that we have to have a balance politically.

Some liberal & some conservative opinions on some things, and a mix of both on other things.

This way, if the best solution is liberal, the balanced legislative is willing to lean liberal, and vice versa, and if the best solution is balanced in the middle, they're willing to do that as well.

I still feel there's a big problem with these labels the way you use them:

"In my conservative opinion, we should have smaller government, and I want to vote to outsource some work done by government employees to a private firm. This will shrink the government."

"In my liberal opinion, the government employees are more focused on the work they do and less on making a profit. Also, a private firm charges more, so while using them shrinks the size of the government, we actually end up spending more money."

People shouldn't start out with an opinion about a project or problem. 

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion Conservatives are simply too bigoted/angry to appreciate prosperity if it includes groups they don't feel deserve it. They rather see entire programs that benefit millions ended than a single bad guy get over on the system. They are content to work harder for less provided everyone else suffers as well. 

If they can't get over this idea that some don't "deserve" to be here, we can't move forward as a society, imo.

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Trump is not "most smart", but he's wealthy enough that he will never need a museum, or a public park or swimming pool, or universal healthcare, or a retirement fund. He's also one of the extremely wealthy that thinks you shouldn't have access to any of these things if you can't personally afford them, so he doesn't want to pay taxes towards them. It's/he's really that simple.

The longer this goes on the more I believe Trump has no convictions about anything that applies to politics. His own insatiable appetite for fame is his everything. Trump watches cable news excessively and attempts to have an inactive experience with it. Trump would shoot himself in the face on national TV tomorrow if he could be assured that it would go down as the single highest rated television event of all time and that the record would stand for all time. 

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If they can't get over this idea that some don't "deserve" to be here, we can't move forward as a society, imo.

Have you ever been to the South.