<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

A lot of what you're listing sounds subjective. What leads you to say he didn't understand nuclear fallout? What says he didn't know the uses of uranium? How do you assess his attention span?

Quotes by his administration are my sources for all of them. He had to ask why Nuclear warfare was bad. He tried to explain Uranium on television, after reportedly needing to ask what it was used for, and he failed to describe it other than the way he did, which was "Uranium is used for many things, including some bad things." And I think his aides and cabinet would know via trial and error what works best on his attention span.

I'd say the fact Trump won just proves how misinformed people are rather than how informed he is, but then again he lost the popular vote.

I don't think he's a complete idiot bu- Ok I was going to give a concession for the sake of discussion, but I do think he's a complete idiot.

Good thing our country doesn't run by popular vote i.e. being ruled by California or New York liberal democratic bastions. He won the most states, he won the electoral count, this is how a Republic works and that system is far superior than pure popular vote which I consider mob rule.

And if Hillary had won the election, I could say that her victory would have proved how misinformed people are rather than how informed she is. This is circular logic, it goes nowhere because of its birth within our natural prejudices.

Whether Trump is or is not an idiot is irrelevant because it's practically impossible to prove one way or the other as subjective debates are prone to proceed upon this route.

Trump ran on economic improvement via preventative measures for illegal immigration, and lowering taxes. These things appealed to the middle class especially in middle America. Their shifting vote from Obama to Trump appears to be proof of this standpoint.

Sixty-plus million people voted for Trump, are you more informed and more intelligent than all of them?

Your answer will tell me spades about your mentality.

While I did vote for Hillary, I don't like her, and I am not a supporter of hers. I voted for her because I was against a corrupt television personality with a penchant for sexual offense being given executive power. Hillary is definitely shady, but I still trusted her with nuclear launch codes.

In essence, just because I am anti-Trump doesn't mean I am arguing for Hillary Clinton. I felt like this was a particularly weak election.

Sixty-plus million people voted for Trump, are you more informed and more intelligent than all of them?

Your answer will tell me spades about your mentality.

Well, seeing as 260 million didn't, I'd say the 60 million who did can easily be misinformed. Though a lot of people vote simply for the party which is pretty much the definition of bias and misinformed. Same with democratic voters.

Hell, I'd say my fellow independents did pretty bad this election.

Well...he didn't initially understand the ramifications of nuclear fallout without needing to be told in no uncertain terms

What do you mean?

he's given away key information to foreign diplomats in order to brag which has put lives in danger (the agent in question possibly died)

I heard about that but I didn't get a lot of details. What information was given to Russia, specifically? Who specifically was put into danger? And most importantly what is the source for what is known to us?

he didn't know the uses of uranium

Can you give me an example?

he didn't know that he wasn't the largest republican lead in a race since Reagan

That is true, he was wrong about that. But does a failure to recall the margin of victory of every GOP victor for 36 years make you an idiot or even imply anything negative about your intelligence? I certainly don't think someone is stupid because they couldn't win Jeopardy.

he's bankrupted a casino

I've filed chapter 13. It's part of the game. Boxers and MMA fighters aren't wimps because they get knocked out, soldiers aren't cowards because they become prisoners of war, doctors aren't terrible because a patient dies and business people aren't stupid because a business goes bankrupt. Sometimes the worst happens. It sucks but that's just how it is.

he thinks coal power is clean

Example please.

he needs 1 page paper reports with his name mentioned often in order for him to continue to pay attention

Requiring your subordinates to be economical with your time is a good thing, not a bad one.

and these are all without me needing to look up things I might have forgotten

Are you familiar with catastrophization? It is a common cognitive distortion that is also known as minimization and maximization. Catastrophizating is when you give maximum possible weight to any information that could be construed as a negative. If you look at your examples of Trump's 'idiocy' you may find that you are giving negative interpretations far more weight than the actual evidence calls for.

But you are also minimizing. When you look at Trumps accomplishments, evidence that he is intelligent, you give undo weight to any interpretation that confirms what you already believe.

Evidence that confirms your viewpoint is maximized, evidence that refutes it is minimized.

While I did vote for Hillary, I don't like her, and I am not a supporter of hers. I voted for her because I was against a corrupt television personality with a penchant for sexual offense being given executive power. Hillary is definitely shady, but I still trusted her with nuclear launch codes.

In essence, just because I am anti-Trump doesn't mean I am arguing for Hillary Clinton. I felt like this was a particularly weak election.

Corrupt is the operative word here, and in essence, once again, a subjective descriptor for Trump.

Some people think Trump corrupt, others do not. Some people think Hillary corrupt, others do not.

I'm against any candidate who calls close to half of the country 'deplorable'. I'm against any candidate who has a strong inclination toward gun control. Universal healthcare appears to me, on paper, reckless and economically irresponsible even if it 'sounds' nice. My home state is a good example of this: Romney's health care reform has gone out of control with spending, and I see the same trends in other countries who have adopted this policy. The Hillary emails, the DNC emails, they all suggest strong leanings toward corruption. A lot of this was poorly planned, right down to the slogan. "I'm with her." vs "Make America Great Again." It shouldn't be too difficult to recognize the superior slogan. One is about Hillary, and one is about America. Hillary's slogan suggests that she should be president because she's a woman. Women should vote for Hillary because they're women. Didn't she just say recently that she believed women who voted for Trump are 'publicly disrespecting themselves'? It's hard to fathom (for me) that amount of arrogance, condescension, and point blank repugnantly sexist behavior. Women are not monoliths. Women have agency and individual minds just like everyone else.

But again, this argument comes down to, in perhaps too much simplicity: is Trump corrupt or is Hillary corrupt? Is Trump good or is Hillary good? Or, even, the lesser evil debate. We're obviously of two different minds on this, and our perspectives are subjective although we try to provide our positions with the strength of attempted objective analysis.

<Snipped quote by Dark Wind>
Well, seeing as 260 million didn't, I'd say the 60 million who did can easily be misinformed. Though a lot of people vote simply for the party which is pretty much the definition of bias and misinformed. Same with democratic voters.

Hell, I'd say my fellow independents did pretty bad this election.

Mmhm, voting by party line is a two-way street as you said. How many actually vote simply by party line is up for debate because we have no conclusive number, so trying to discuss this with any sense of accuracy is, I'd say, impossible.

And, hey, I personally know college-educated women who voted for Trump. I know people that I consider extremely intelligent who voted for Trump. They're not the people I would call 'misinformed'. Inevitably, in that sixty plus million group of people, there's most likely a large number of intelligent people who are informed about their country and the political situation of their country. Also, I'd like to note that a college education probably does not make you 'smarter' than another person.

I'm pleased by the result of this election because, to me, it told me that our population is not compliant with what government leaders appear to want us to believe, nor with what the media wants us to believe. It's not their job to speculate and declare opinions for the people, it's their job to state the news in the most vanilla terms and then let us decide for ourselves what to believe. Republic democracy is alive and well.

Since everything I have said has been publicly reported and common knowledge unless you listen to nothing but conservative daily news, and I already stated I knew this previously without needing to look up something specifically for this discussion, I'll at least give you the info for this.

I heard about that but I didn't get a lot of details. What information was given to Russia, specifically? Who specifically was put into danger?

Because I believe it is very pertinent to know the details of it.

It was an agent of the Isreali intelligence service who was working with the CIA to infiltrate ISIS. Donald Trump was bragging to Sergey Kislyak about the quality of intel he gets. It made public (to the Russians and the press) the information of the man's identity and/or workings. The CIA had to immediately call the Israelis to get that man out of there because he could very well have been exposed while within the inner workings of ISIS.

Not only did this take them back in infiltration and put the man's life in danger, but it changes how the government now operates because usually the president is trusted with info like this.

Also to add to that

Requiring your subordinates to be economical with your time is a good thing, not a bad one.

It was about him paying attention, not being economic with his time. If he goes to Maralago for policy making and half his presidency is vacation, he's not pressed for time.

@Dark Wind Like I said, I wasn't for Hillary.

Just remember everyone, after this election everyone should vote for a third party candidate. Drive out the 2 party system! No good candidates from the major parties? Get someone else in there!

Anyway, the whole thing about smarts is subjective to be sure. Is Trump smart? Of course he is, but are those smarts the kind that can be used well as the President?...well certainly quite a bit of debate there. Hillary Clinton no doubt had a lot more experience in the political sphere but when you look at her track record and the carnage left behind in her wake...eh kinda rather have the person who at least seems sincere in his attempt to Make America Great Again. Course that still didn't do enough to make me vote for him since I went third party.

Funny how Hillary keeps trying to stay relevant while the Democratic party keep trying to make her go away after she screwed up any chance she had to win the election with her horribly run campaign.

Part of the reason Hillary lost was identity politics coupled with the Obumber effect. Lot of people thought Obama was a nice guy, seemed decent, was the first black president, but after 8 years what was his legacy? Obamacare, and that was pretty much the biggest thing. A failed attempt at providing better healthcare which made everyone have to pay a lot more than before, expect for maybe some of the poorest of people. People looked back at that, looked at Hillary who seemed to be running mostly as a woman, and they were like, heck NO! We are not having another 4-8 years of this crap again and we are not going to let identity politics pull the wool over our eyes again!

And so people grew angry and annoyed at the campaign with little substance behind it expect for make a woman president for the first time. Seeing almost nothing they wanted in the campaign, at least maybe a billionaire business man could get the economy back in shape or something...yes he is not very 'presidential' but he at least appeared to resonate a lot with the common man while Hillary was off her in own little bubble.

Oh right, and while Trump 'became' a Republican he really was more like an independent candidate overall who just had to use the Republican ticket to pave the way to the White House so there is that as well.

Since everything I have said has been publicly reported and common knowledge unless you listen to nothing but conservative daily news, and I already stated I knew this previously without needing to look up something specifically for this discussion,

Or perhaps because when the source of those complaints is looked at in context it won't match your catastrophic interpretation?

It was an agent of the Isreali intelligence service who was working with the CIA to infiltrate ISIS. Donald Trump was bragging to Sergey Kislyak about the quality of intel he gets. It made public (to the Russians and the press) the information of the man's identity and/or workings. The CIA had to immediately call the Israelis to get that man out of there because he could very well have been exposed while within the inner workings of ISIS.

I did a bit of googling and find the story interesting but I'm having trouble finding confirmation it was an Israeli agent and not a Jordanian agent. I'm also having trouble finding what the source that confirms Trump burned any agent at all; a quick google search shows that Trump denied ever mentioning the world Israel.

I remember the story of course. It's just that these details are important and for whatever reason seem difficult to substantiate.

But for the sake of argument let's say it is all true. Let us say that Trump fucked up bad. If that's the case does that prove that he is unintelligent? Obviously not; history is plentiful with brilliant leaders who screwed up bigtime. But I don't see you arguing that 90% of the historical leadership of western civilization was actually stupid. It feels like a double standard; anything Trump does that could be interpreted as foolish is given maximum weight while the foibles and foolish decisions of other leaders are interpreted with a much more objective eye.

It was about him paying attention, not being economic with his time. If he goes to Maralago for policy making and half his presidency is vacation, he's not pressed for time.

So because he requires reports to be condensed to a certain length he isn't paying attention and because he isn't paying attention he isn't intelligent? You see to be saying he is dumb but arguing that he is lazy. But those claims don't mesh with the reality of the situation. Trump prevailed over John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton. Several of those names are powerhouses in the world of politics and Trump beat them all. If he is stupid, how did he manage that? And if he is lazy, as you perhaps inadvertently argue, why did he hold so many campaign rallies?
List of said rallies:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies…

.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

Or perhaps because when the source of those complaints is looked at in context it won't match your catastrophic interpretation?

<Snipped quote>

I did a bit of googling and find the story interesting but I'm having trouble finding confirmation it was an Israeli agent and not a Jordanian agent. I'm also having trouble finding what the source that confirms Trump burned any agent at all; a quick google search shows that Trump denied ever mentioning the world Israel.

I remember the story of course. It's just that these details are important and for whatever reason seem difficult to substantiate.

But for the sake of argument let's say it is all true. Let us say that Trump fucked up bad. If that's the case does that prove that he is unintelligent? Obviously not; history is plentiful with brilliant leaders who screwed up bigtime. But I don't see you arguing that 90% of the historical leadership of western civilization was actually stupid. It feels like a double standard; anything Trump does that could be interpreted as foolish is given maximum weight while the foibles and foolish decisions of other leaders are interpreted with a much more objective eye.

<Snipped quote>

So because he requires reports to be condensed to a certain length he isn't paying attention and because he isn't paying attention he isn't intelligent? You see to be saying he is dumb but arguing that he is lazy. But those claims don't mesh with the reality of the situation. Trump prevailed over John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton. Several of those names are powerhouses in the world of politics and Trump beat them all. If he is stupid, how did he manage that? And if he is lazy, as you perhaps inadvertently argue, why did he hold so many campaign rallies?
List of said rallies:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies…

1. It was Isreali.

2. Yes, when other presidents can understand basic politics and info briefings and Trump cannot care or understand enough without big pictures and his name being mentioned often means he's less intelligent (perhaps with a learning disability) and more arrogant than other presidents.

3.Beating these people does not equal intelligence, and I don't know how you can make that connection.

I'd say the fact Trump won just proves how misinformed people are rather than how informed he is, but then again he lost the popular vote.

You do realize with the amount of fraudulent votes being found out for the Clinton campaign that President Trump might have also won the popular vote, correct? If we did a recount today, a state would already have swung - New Hampshire - due to voting fraud, as well as out of state voting, and entire counties in California would need be given a review due to the staggering number of false votes. These are just what have been made public and available from that investigation, of which it still ongoing and still tallying voter fraud.

This is not a viable argument or approach; the United States of America and its people knew exactly who they were voting for. You can still see it with the base of support that has rallied behind the President. Just today the Vice President left a professional sporting event because they disgraced themselves in front of everyone by kneeling like spoiled children.

They knew exactly what they wanted in an administration.

The fraudulent voting claim has never had a good source from what I have seen, and has been very baseless. Trump was simply a sore winner, as odd as that sounds. At least with the numbers he was claiming.

I will take it then that the "Judicial Watch" and "Politico" sources are no longer good enough, neither is a commission dedicated to rooting out the voting fraud of the last Presidential election. This to me just appears to be denial, as the difference of approximately one-point-five million American voters is very close for a popularity contest, especially for one where a career politician with tremendous power like Hillary Clinton is taking on the would-be underdog and "every label you can throw at him" Donald Trump. The argument of "many misinformed people" falls apart very quickly when you break that down into even basic statistics and throw out the likelihood, evidence, and fact there was voting fraud.

As for sore about anything, there's this, which has not and never will age well. As an addition, here's this moment, which will live in infamy. For voters, this was not an issue of being "uninformed".

I never said that single source was wrong. But 3 million votes is.

Though now that you mention it, I went to look and see if Judicialwatch was a good source, and I found politifacts info on voter fraud allegations, and another article on judicialwatch's claims.

@POOHEAD189

I wouldn't consider Politifact that accurate especially not with the chart to be considered. Lets also ignore that Judicial Watch performed a heel-turn, not to mention there is plenty of evidence with a bit of searching, then of course there is this, this, and this evidence to top off the need to be deeply suspicious of California's voting registry. Of course, as always, more evidence finds itself elsewhere to support that not just California has unusual qualities at hand, other places such as Virginia do too.

This could go on and on truly, but the matter is that there stands a reasonable challenge that Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote. The popular vote is of course little more than a trophy when we consider that the United States is a constitution republic with an electoral college and not subject to the whims of a mob-mentality, purely democratic vote. There was an intent behind the design, which we know well.

Ultimately, my point is there is no real doubt that the people knew what they wanted and were asking for. The electoral landslide alone is near definitive proof about that; this too is ignoring the massive number of faithless electors.

2. Yes, when other presidents can understand basic politics and info briefings and Trump cannot care or understand enough without big pictures and his name being mentioned often means he's less intelligent (perhaps with a learning disability) and more arrogant than other presidents.

snopes bending over backwards to try and bear you out

Presidents talk about themselves. They have to -- they're accountable to us, and we expect to hear what they're up to. That's not indicative of arrogance or low intelligence (or a learning disability lol my god dude). Worth noting, if Trump didn't talk about his accomplishments, you'd never hear about them.