Donald Trump is America's greatest President, a physical beast and a total genius. Albert Einstein, Francis Crik and R Buckminster Fuller - fake geniuses.
Trump Scores 30/30 on Montreal Cognitive Test
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
He can play decently, for an obese, old guy. I'd peg him as a low double digit handicap player (on a good day). But he cheats.
Don't give up hope. Maybe he'll be caught cheating in golf (improving his lie, etc.)? That will surely set off the impeachment proceedings!
In politics, you don't have to be smarter than everyone, just smarter than your opponents. Fortunately for Trump last election, all that opposition consisted of was Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, almost the entire mainstream media, numerous SJW groups, and all of Hollywood. Maybe he won't be so lucky next time.
Indeed, as the OP and others showed, when "In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact". And so they touted the President's predictable success at the most basic cognitive assessment as the rout of an entire political position, and all but indisputable proof of his genius and enduring sanity.
------------
PS: I added the link to yr. post; it's where the quote came from
It also helps if you're better at working the rigged electoral system more effectively than your opponent. And lest we forget, his was the loudest voice calling it rigged'. No surprise a man who calls using bankruptcy laws for profit "smart" would be good at working rigged systems.
You can call it lucky if you want, if he pulls a repeat it will be equally unearned and undeserved, based on his record thus far.
Lucky in the sense he could have easily faced more competent political opposition. There's plenty out there. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will allow such opposition to run.
As to earning re-election, a vote is a relative, not qualitative decision.
And again in 2020, a Trump win would actually be due to the Democrat's losing, if he runs on his record. Nothing to his credit.
Though I've tried to argue as you do above, that the votes 'wasted' on the Green and Libertarian candidate were relative decisions to spurn Trump (and Clinton) I don't really believe it. Many voters actually try to pick the best person and platform, and if anything the fringe voters are more likely to support quality candidates without hope than direct their vote where it will win.
I'd even bet some Trump voters admired and voted for him as the quality candidate.
Lefties and their silly conspiracy theories. Their latest is the 'Girther Movement.'
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-girther-movement-trump-weight-2018-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-girther-movement-trump-weight-2018-1
A win by one party's candidate is a loss by the other party's candidate by definition.
As to to why people voted for Trump, it makes intuitive sense that: a) some voted for him because he embodied everything they would want in a president, b) some voted for him because they evaluated him and/or his policy positions as preferable to Clinton, irrespective of his perceived shortcomings, and c) some had no rational reason whatsoever for the vote they cast (wouldn't vote for a woman, liked Trump's TV show, voted how they were told to vote by someone else, marked their ballot in error, etc.). If approval polling is to be believed at all, there appear to have been plenty of category b) voters.
Or as in 2016, a clear win by one candidate can be nullified by a 'win' for the other in the College. As you and others have pointed out, that unearned win was due to campaign failings by Clinton and her Party that cost Electoral votes and thus made Trump President in spite of losing the election to her. Nothing he or his Party did, since a loss by one candidate makes a win for the other by definition.
As for your category b) voters, I read where you defined them disapproving of Clinton, and indeed some may also have been soft a) types who sorta admired Trump, but so what?
Whatever the reasons, he fell far short of her count.
I suspect you don't really need this clarification, but category b) voters might well have qualitatively "disapproved" of both Trump and Clinton, but disapproved of Clinton relatively more, and therefore cast their vote for Trump hoping for the lesser of evils.
It certainly did take errors on the part of Clinton, her party, the media, Hollywood, as well as other Clinton supporters for her to lose, but it always does in every election. The question is whether anyone in the Democratic party or among its allies are prepared to admit their errors. Not so far. The media is continuing the same tact that ultimately worked in Trump's favour. Further, it certainly was a critical error if the Clinton campaign didn't really understand that the election would not be decided on the basis of the national popular vote, since there are no other kinds of wins in US presidential elections apart from Electoral College wins.
p.s. I can actually agree that it's sad that no one better than Trump was standing for election as President. However, I think it would have been even sadder if Clinton had won.
Gerrymandering won Trump the election.
However, Trump's fate could be worse than losing an election...can he smell what Robert Muller is cookin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZMDyadtTik
However, Trump's fate could be worse than losing an election...can he smell what Robert Muller is cookin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZMDyadtTik
Many people (perhaps including most Trump supporters) agree with this, but even this logic puts you in the camp of "Trumpanzee" to the people that supported the loser candidate.
Really, fake news ! I'll bet he couldn't finish without help unless they simplified it to 5 minutes and it included crayons. It is well documented that Trump doesn't read, has a very short attention span and the white house has sent out guidelines to departments that a presidential briefing are in bullet form and short because Trump (like a 5 year old) loses his concentration.
To a baboon, a 5 year old operating a flashlight is a genius. So if it's obvious Trump is ignorant buffoon easily played by those around him ... keep in mind there are those who really think he is smart purely from their own perspective. It's not that they are lying - sadly - for them - Trump seems that much smarter.
http://washingtonpress.com/wp-content/uploads/MoCAScreenshot-1-794x1024.jpg
This is the test that the president scored "perfect" on. It's pretty clear that the test is designed for people with advanced alzheimer's who have difficulty making it through the day without assistance.
A spoiled man-child narcissist on the other hand would do perfectly well on the test. (If it was me taking the test, I would draw a dick on the camel btw.)
This is the test that the president scored "perfect" on. It's pretty clear that the test is designed for people with advanced alzheimer's who have difficulty making it through the day without assistance.
A spoiled man-child narcissist on the other hand would do perfectly well on the test. (If it was me taking the test, I would draw a dick on the camel btw.)
