Trump is just TOO STUPID!

[Moonbox]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

At least I don't puke all over the forum...

Umm…

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

While there’s truth to that, but saying most politicians are like Trump is a bit of a laugh. 

Most are in fact - trump just takes the blinders off and takes it to the extreme. But you look at pelosi, she's not much better. Biden is far worse corruption wise and lets not even get into BOTH clintons. Trump just puts it all on the stage.

Reminds me of that line from Megamind -

Oh you're a villian all right, but you'll never be a SUPER villian

Whats the difference?

PRESENTATION!!!!! (tadaaa!)

[impartialobserver]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

While there’s truth to that, but saying most politicians are like Trump is a bit of a laugh. 

only difference between Trump and garden variety politician is his lack of a filter and volume of content. To cut you off.. spare me all of the rhetoric about Jan. 6, his indictments, and such. 

[Moonbox]

15 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

only difference between Trump and garden variety politician is his lack of a filter and volume of content. 

Sure, but that lack of filter manifests in every aspect of his behaviour.  It’s not just his verbal diarrhea.  

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Sure, but that lack of filter manifests in every aspect of his behaviour.  It’s not just his verbal diarrhea.  

his verbal diarrhea is why I do not respect him. His policies have not been all bad.. but character does matter. Running your mouth and buying into unproven conspiracy theories is not something I respect. 

[Moonbox]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Reminds me of that line from Megamind -

Oh you're a villian all right, but you'll never be a SUPER villian

Whats the difference?

PRESENTATION!!!!! (tadaaa!)

Yes there’s some truth to that, and I like the reference, but Trump’s presentation is more of an exaltation of base instincts and low cunning that any sort of deliberately intelligent public image management.   
 

It reminds me of the brainlet-midwit-genius memes that float around the internet, where the dumbest folk out there sometimes succeed using similar mentality to the geniuses, but where the geniuses know exactly what they’re doing and manipulating their circumstances, the brainless are just plotting forward with their heads down.  

[impartialobserver]

smartest person that I ever met was a drug addict in high school. He bragged about being able to read a book once and having it committed to memory. I called him out on it two years later. I opened a spanish textbook to page 476 and he recited it to me word for word and told where the page was torn. Another aspect to him was that he could not answer a question in binary fashion.. (yes/no, wrong/right). He was taking too many things into account to simply boil it down to one answer in a few seconds. Politicians artificially boil down an issue to simple right vs. wrong, bad vs. good... because they do not have the intellect to take all or most of the details/factors into account. 

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

smartest person that I ever met was a drug addict in high school. He bragged about being able to read a book once and having it committed to memory. I called him out on it two years later. I opened a spanish textbook to page 476 and he recited it to me word for word and told where the page was torn. Another aspect to him was that he could not answer a question in binary fashion.. (yes/no, wrong/right). He was taking too many things into account to simply boil it down to one answer in a few seconds. Politicians artificially boil down an issue to simple right vs. wrong, bad vs. good... because they do not have the intellect to take all or most of the details/factors into account. 

Pols deal with hundreds of issues at any one time. Virtually no one could take most of the details into account off the top of their head for all of them.

That's why and what for which they have a staff of aids to handle. 

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes there’s some truth to that, and I like the reference, but Trump’s presentation is more of an exaltation of base instincts and low cunning that any sort of deliberately intelligent public image management.  

Oh for sure - but at least he's consistent.

Quote

It reminds me of the brainlet-midwit-genius memes that float around the internet, where the dumbest folk out there sometimes succeed using similar mentality to the geniuses, but where the geniuses know exactly what they’re doing and manipulating their circumstances, the brainless are just plotting forward with their heads down.  

LOL - ahhh yes - the "Zapp Brannigan" effect.    He just plods along failing upwards while Kif cleans up after him  

 

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Pols deal with hundreds of issues at any one time. Virtually no one could take most of the details into account off the top of their head for all of them.

That's why and what for which they have a staff of aids to handle. 

when asked about the unemployment rate, the politicians that I have worked with directly, have no idea that it is an estimate or really anything about it other than as the number gets bigger that's a bad thing. This shows a lack of knowledge especially because they come to the office, ask us questions, and then conveniently forget. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

when asked about the unemployment rate, the politicians that I have worked with directly, have no idea that it is an estimate or really anything about it other than as the number gets bigger that's a bad thing. This shows a lack of knowledge especially because they come to the office, ask us questions, and then conveniently forget. 

What shocked me was in an interview with a canadian senator they asked him why he voted for the bill in question given it was contrary to his beliefs and he said (not kidding)  "we don't have time to actually READ the bills we vote on!"

Yikes.  So much for the 'house of sober second thought".

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

What shocked me was in an interview with a canadian senator they asked him why he voted for the bill in question given it was contrary to his beliefs and he said (not kidding)  "we don't have time to actually READ the bills we vote on!"

Yikes.  So much for the 'house of sober second thought".

There is that part as well as the constituents/media wanting something done now (or at least in the near future). No time for actually doing any research or pondering the issue for a minute. Also, at least in the US they are not elected based on their critical thinking skills. They win because they are impassioned, confident, and play the mud-slinging game better than the other. 

[Moonbox]

Yes, and as someone said they cannot be an expert on most of the things for which they push policy.  

The most intelligent politicians we're therefore likely to get are the ones with some humility (to defer to experts like economists, doctors, generals etc) on the best course of action while being able to judge the who's giving the better advice.  

 

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, and as someone said they cannot be an expert on most of the things for which they push policy.  

The most intelligent politicians we're therefore likely to get are the ones with some humility (to defer to experts like economists, doctors, generals etc) on the best course of action while being able to judge the who's giving the better advice.  

 

If they're deferring - they're not doing their jobs.

Their job is to identify issues, obtain recommendations and opinions from appropriate experts on how to address those issues, evaluate and choose a course of action and then identify the group of people or company or action that will achieve the planned result.

They are NOT to defer their responsibilities to someone else. They are to ask questions, seek differential recommendations if necessary, look at the 'side effects' of the recommended solutions that may not occur to the experts.

They are not expected to be experts in law for example but they're expected to be expert enough to ask intelligent questions and raise concerns that the experts may have missed.

For example - "hey, if we pass this law recommended by the lawyers that lets criminals out on bail even if they're violent - won't more people get hurt" ?

 

[Legato]

4 hours ago, NYLefty said:

How so. Interested 

Eyes wide shut.

 

[Moonbox]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If they're deferring - they're not doing their jobs.

No, it means they're recognizing where they have gaps in knowledge and expertise.  

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Their job is to identify issues, obtain recommendations and opinions from appropriate experts on how to address those issues, evaluate and choose a course of action and then identify the group of people or company or action that will achieve the planned result.

Yes, that's what I was talking about.  That's why I said:

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The most intelligent politicians we're therefore likely to get are the ones with some humility (to defer to experts like economists, doctors, generals etc) on the best course of action while being able to judge the who's giving the better advice.  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, it means they're recognizing where they have gaps in knowledge and expertise. 

No it doesn't.  That's not how it works.

Experts are often wrong. Experts often fail to take into consideration factors and effects that may be applicable outside of their area of expertise.  And of course - experts can and do lie or misinform for various agendas, political and otherwise.

That is why it is the job of the gov't to NOT simply defer automatically to an "expert", but rather to include the expert's opinion in their consideration. And more than one expert often enough.  And experts in other areas often. And then they come to a determination.

IT's really that simple.  You can't be an expert on everythning but you can be educated on ONE issue by the experts and you can consider what they say and then make a decision.

If they're just going to defer, what's the point of having the gov' t in the first place.

[August1991]

I agree with Ann Coulter. Trump will not get re-elected in 2024.

===

As a Canadian, Trump reminds me of Diefenbaker. 

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No it doesn't.  That's not how it works.

You're arguing with yourself again here.  Not interested.  

 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're arguing with yourself again here.  Not interested.  

 

Why do you do this everytime you turn out to be wrong?  You run off with your tail between your legs and somehow it's my fault.

There's no argument here. That's the job. that's why they're responsible if something goes wrong.  Sorry if that's inconvenient for you but your frustration over your lack of knowledge shouldn't' be taken out on me . Yeash.

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why do you do this everytime you turn out to be wrong?  You run off with your tail between your legs and somehow it's my fault.

Because your bozo interpretation of what I wrote isn't the same thing as...what I actually wrote.  

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Because your bozo interpretation of what I wrote isn't the same thing as...what I actually wrote.  

Sounds more like you just regret what you wrote.

And i didn't really interpret what you wrote. What you wrote was clear - i responded to it without interpretation. You were just wrong, and i explained why.

And even if that were true that you felt i'd misrepresented what you said you'd write a clarification, not claim someone was 'arguing with themselves and run away.

So lets get real.  What you wrote was incorrect. I wrote what IS correct. This has once again upset you and you're trying to claim its my "fault" that you weren't correct. AND even tho my correction did not rely on your original text, like AT ALL, you pretend it's an 'interpretation."

Yeash. Sometimes you're such a child

[Moonbox]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:25 AM, CdnFox said:

And even if that were true that you felt i'd misrepresented what you said you'd write a clarification, not claim someone was 'arguing with themselves and run away.

I did clarify.  ?

Scroll up.  I even bolded part of it, agreeing that what you were saying was correct.  I never argued otherwise, but you're so programmed for belligerent posturing that you couldn't help but yap truisms in opposition to an argument that nobody was making.  Congratulations:

 

 

 

[Deluge]

On 6/23/2023 at 4:35 AM, NYLefty said:

This guy has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's simply too stupid to be president. The train wreck Brett Bear interview was the corker. You can longer use the old "well all politicians are crooks" defense for this guy. He's a blithering idi0t wait till he reads, or should I say someone reads and explains today's disclosures dumped on him?

The great thing about Trump is that no matter how stupid or inept he may appear, you know that every f*cking democrat with any kind of power or influence is dumber and more corrupt than he is. That's why he has my vote in '24.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I did clarify.  ?
 

You really didn't. The post i was responding to which i quoted  had zero clarifications in it whatsoever.  It just said i was arguing with myself.

Soooo once again - gotta lie to try to make your point.  Why bother?