Our luscious President's devotion to principled governance continues to enthrall and inspire:
Gone are the confrontational talk of a government shutdown and the brinkmanship over the debt limit. Instead, both Mr. Trump and his putative allies in Congress — many of them professed fiscal hawks — are promising an outpouring of federal aid to begin a recovery and rebuilding effort that will last for years and require tens of billions of dollars, if not substantially more, from Washington.
The storm has utterly transformed the federal fiscal picture.
[...]
And it may make it more difficult for Mr. Trump to follow through on his promises of a broad crackdown on illegal immigration.
Sure is a good thing that nasty Hillary didn't pull the wool over everyone's eyes!
Mainstream media something-something! Blah! Winning!
Crid
at August 31, 2017 10:36 PM
I got your Mother Fuckinng Media right here:
That the Sandy relief bill was a pork-laden monstrosity is a difficult-to-reject proposition, containing as it did some $150 million for Alaska fisheries; $41 million for military bases; $5.2 million for the DOJ; $4 million for Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.5 million for Homeland Security; and, $2 million for Smithsonian Institution in D.C. Those expenditures, among others, were supposedly connected to Sandy emergency relief because they involved effects from natural disasters. But by 2014, some 74 percent of the money in the Disaster Relief Act of 2013 remained unspent and 64 percent was still unspent by 2015, which alone weakens the argument that the bill needed $50 billion as an emergency relief matter. None of that stopped the Amazon Post’s Glenn Kessler, the Democrat propagandist masquerading as the paper’s “fact checker,” from assigning “three Pinocchios” to Cruz’ argument that the Sandy bill was wasteful.
It’s easy to imagine a perfect system, one in which all are taken care of, where our cars run on recycled emissions, and where everyone can afford healthcare, but we too easily fall into “unicorn traps” with this sort of thinking. Professor Michael Munger of Duke University explains:
Duke University shares its name with David Duke and is therefore as racist as him and therefore anything said by any of its employees can be dismissed as racist without even having to look at it
- Your average liberal today
Let's face it, most politicians are not as brilliant as Huxley.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at September 2, 2017 11:32 AM
It is an interesting thing Gog that high IQ presidents don't seem to work out well for the rest of us. My guess is that smart presidents think they can actually figure everything out on their own and don't delegate effectively. No one is capable of being an expert in everything all the time. There just aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with everything.
Ben
at September 3, 2017 9:44 AM
It is an interesting thing Gog that high IQ presidents don't seem to work out well for the rest of us. ~ Ben at September 3, 2017 9:44 AM
IQ is not closely correlated with ability to work with others to implement an agenda; nor with leadership or ability to persuade, or empathize with, others. Qualities a president needs.
Nor is IQ necessarily correlated with ambition or work ethic. The smartest guy in the room is not always the hardest working. I've met plenty of charismatic lazy people who knew how to take credit, but not how to do the work.
I've been a member of Mensa for years and in the few events I've attended, I've met under-appreciated geniuses (usually under-employed as bus drivers, waiters, clerks, etc.), UFO believers, people who spend their entire day playing video games, people who will argue the Star Trek universe with you as if it were real, and other folks lost in their own little worlds and not fully grounded in reality.
I've also met some very smart and driven people. But folks like that usually fill their social calendars with people from work or work-related groups, hobbyist groups, their neighborhood, parents of their children's friends, from the sources that "normal" people generally use to acquire friends and contacts.
IQ tests measure potential and theoretical intelligence, not applied intelligence. One of the smartest people I ever met was a high school dropout who worked as a stand-up comedian. He was quick with a snappy comeback and a joke, but did not spend his time navel-gazing or discussing the socio-economic ramifications of political policy. He didn't give a damn about Star Trek either. Most importantly, he was happy with his life.
As for high IQ presidents, the most-mentioned ones have been Clinton and Obama. Clinton spent his mental energy getting nookie and avoiding getting caught at it while Obama's intelligence was probably over-rated (the 57 states and other gaffes). Clinton got by on charm and Obama by people mistaking his studied disinterest for intelligence. Both had a tendency to get lost in details and ignore information that ran counter to what they "knew" to be true.
Obama felt he was more qualified for the jobs of his underlings than the underlings were ("I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters."). He never had the experts present his daily intelligence briefings, preferring to read them himself and draw his own conclusions without running anything by those experts.
I think, in the case of both Clinton and Obama, but especially Obama too many people told them how smart they were from childhood on, leaving them no concept of not being the smartest person in the room or that anyone might know more about something than they did.
These days, voters tend to look for that one magical quality desired at that moment in a presidential candidate ("it's time for a woman" or "he's rich and ran his own company") and at least an illusion of intelligence (e.g., Ivy League degree).
Instead of perceived IQ, executive experience (e.g., governor or a CEO of a public company) can be a good indicator of a candidate's abilities to conceptualize and drive an agenda, occupy a leadership position, receive and evaluate information and act on it, work with a deliberative body (legislature, board of directors, etc.), and present a position to an audience, the very job description of a president - no matter the candidate's intelligence or education.
Conan the Grammarian
at September 3, 2017 11:15 AM
Our luscious President's devotion to principled governance continues to enthrall and inspire:
Sure is a good thing that nasty Hillary didn't pull the wool over everyone's eyes!
Mainstream media something-something! Blah! Winning!
Crid at August 31, 2017 10:36 PM
I got your Mother Fuckinng Media right here:
https://spectator.org/porkers-revenge/
If that money is unspent, it can be moved over. Problem solved.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 1, 2017 5:58 AM
The Klantifascist
http://birdjaguar.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-klantifascist.html
Stinky the Clown at September 1, 2017 6:34 AM
It’s easy to imagine a perfect system, one in which all are taken care of, where our cars run on recycled emissions, and where everyone can afford healthcare, but we too easily fall into “unicorn traps” with this sort of thinking. Professor Michael Munger of Duke University explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mSvsSLPtLo
Stinky the Clown at September 1, 2017 6:55 AM
Duke University shares its name with David Duke and is therefore as racist as him and therefore anything said by any of its employees can be dismissed as racist without even having to look at it
- Your average liberal today
lujlp at September 1, 2017 7:33 AM
Stunning picture
https://twitter.com/TheScaryNature/status/903439307590873088
Sixclaws at September 1, 2017 8:39 AM
Run Mom!
Conan the Grammarian at September 1, 2017 8:51 AM
Wherein Munger convinces me, within about 80 seconds, to support UBI... a 180° turnaround.
Never doubt the power of a man with a clear head.
Crid at September 1, 2017 9:50 AM
> If that money is unspent
Wutsthe Mother Fuckinng Media got to do with it?
Crid at September 1, 2017 9:53 AM
Boycott Grace Slick! Boycott Jefferson Starship and Airplane music!
But most of all . . . BOYCOTT HOLLYWOOD!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/grace-slick-wants-give-trump-lsd-nut-job-goofball
mpetrie98 at September 1, 2017 3:53 PM
23 Powerful Photos of Harvey Rescues This Week
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/31/24-powerful-photos-of-harvey-rescues-this-week/
mpetrie98 at September 1, 2017 4:15 PM
I want the paper lion..
https://twitter.com/mymodernmet/status/903384380281847808
Sixclaws at September 1, 2017 4:51 PM
> Boycott Grace Slick! Boycott
> Jefferson Starship and
> Airplane music!
Dood.
Crid at September 1, 2017 4:58 PM
Homophobic President:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348952-trump-nominates-richard-grenell-ambassador-to-germany
Snoopy at September 1, 2017 6:29 PM
Still winning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/903766326631698432
Snoopy at September 1, 2017 6:30 PM
TV star Christina Hendricks reveals that Hollywood hates hot babes.
Because victim.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 1, 2017 6:35 PM
TV star Chloe Bennet reveals that Hollywood hates half-Asian babes.
Because victim.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 1, 2017 6:37 PM
I like the idea of Trump getting some guided hallucinogen treatments with a shrink, but then, I think EVERY politician should be required to do this.
The Doors of Perception
Let's face it, most politicians are not as brilliant as Huxley.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 2, 2017 11:32 AM
It is an interesting thing Gog that high IQ presidents don't seem to work out well for the rest of us. My guess is that smart presidents think they can actually figure everything out on their own and don't delegate effectively. No one is capable of being an expert in everything all the time. There just aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with everything.
Ben at September 3, 2017 9:44 AM
IQ is not closely correlated with ability to work with others to implement an agenda; nor with leadership or ability to persuade, or empathize with, others. Qualities a president needs.
Nor is IQ necessarily correlated with ambition or work ethic. The smartest guy in the room is not always the hardest working. I've met plenty of charismatic lazy people who knew how to take credit, but not how to do the work.
I've been a member of Mensa for years and in the few events I've attended, I've met under-appreciated geniuses (usually under-employed as bus drivers, waiters, clerks, etc.), UFO believers, people who spend their entire day playing video games, people who will argue the Star Trek universe with you as if it were real, and other folks lost in their own little worlds and not fully grounded in reality.
I've also met some very smart and driven people. But folks like that usually fill their social calendars with people from work or work-related groups, hobbyist groups, their neighborhood, parents of their children's friends, from the sources that "normal" people generally use to acquire friends and contacts.
IQ tests measure potential and theoretical intelligence, not applied intelligence. One of the smartest people I ever met was a high school dropout who worked as a stand-up comedian. He was quick with a snappy comeback and a joke, but did not spend his time navel-gazing or discussing the socio-economic ramifications of political policy. He didn't give a damn about Star Trek either. Most importantly, he was happy with his life.
As for high IQ presidents, the most-mentioned ones have been Clinton and Obama. Clinton spent his mental energy getting nookie and avoiding getting caught at it while Obama's intelligence was probably over-rated (the 57 states and other gaffes). Clinton got by on charm and Obama by people mistaking his studied disinterest for intelligence. Both had a tendency to get lost in details and ignore information that ran counter to what they "knew" to be true.
Obama felt he was more qualified for the jobs of his underlings than the underlings were ("I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters."). He never had the experts present his daily intelligence briefings, preferring to read them himself and draw his own conclusions without running anything by those experts.
I think, in the case of both Clinton and Obama, but especially Obama too many people told them how smart they were from childhood on, leaving them no concept of not being the smartest person in the room or that anyone might know more about something than they did.
These days, voters tend to look for that one magical quality desired at that moment in a presidential candidate ("it's time for a woman" or "he's rich and ran his own company") and at least an illusion of intelligence (e.g., Ivy League degree).
Instead of perceived IQ, executive experience (e.g., governor or a CEO of a public company) can be a good indicator of a candidate's abilities to conceptualize and drive an agenda, occupy a leadership position, receive and evaluate information and act on it, work with a deliberative body (legislature, board of directors, etc.), and present a position to an audience, the very job description of a president - no matter the candidate's intelligence or education.
Conan the Grammarian at September 3, 2017 11:15 AM
Leave a comment