And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.
Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.
Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities. You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites. When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.
... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.
So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that. Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.
Gee I can't believe I'm explaining this one more time.
I'm saying that half your country is average to less than average intelligence (which is no screaming hell). And... there are many racist people as well.
The amount of dummies and racists made up a significant voting bloc.
I think it was more people that were willing to look the other way. no different than those willing to look the other way on hillary's woes.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I think some people were really concerned with the potential war with Russia Russia Russia under another war hawk administration. I think most don't really see Russia Russia Russia as a "real" threat.
Based on the last 2 administrations foreign policy, I would think Russians think we are a bigger threat to them then they to US.
It's amazing that there is still a back and forth about what each side thinks of Trump or those who voted for him. It doesn't really matter who voted for him or what it means that they voted for him at this point. He has been elected under the current longstanding rules of our country. Like any argument, both sides are presenting jaded points based on their view and separate supporting facts, but the reality is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Time to move on. No one on here is going to convince an anti Trump person he is ok and vice versa. The burden is on him to prove/disprove those opinions based on what the eye of the beholder values.
I know "racist" is used a lot to describe any Trump voter, but lets be honest, it doesn't always have to fall back to racism. To be clear, racists in the truest sense more than likely voted for Trump, but not all Trump voters are racist. We all associate with people of the same ethnicity and race who we are biased against or hold in a less than favorable view, but that doesn't hit the hot button in the mainstream so we default to the clear physical identifiers, race and gender, when those are just an easy way for them to be categorized.
As for Russia, did they tamper with votes and help Trump win the election? No, I don't think there is any tie to Russia rigging/changing votes that caused Clinton to lose, but they did have influence and that should be addressed so it can never happen again. Simply dismissing it or downplaying it because they didn't rig ballots isn't a proper response. It's like ignoring all the precursors that led up to 9/11 or any other terroristic act because they weren't successful. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
My concern, and what should be everyone's, is who is being appointed in to the positions that will really influence and shape where our country goes from here. I don't claim to be all knowledgeable about the best person or experience needed in some of these positions, but I tend to focus on the character of the person, not the qualifications. You can train or educate someone on the skills needed to perform a job, but you can't teach or train character traits and people are very set in their ways outside of significant influence from specific experiences.
It is virtually impossible to appoint people without a biased opinion about something and especially the certain policies/procedures related to their job; however, someone who is of good personal character will not simply dismiss opposing viewpoints, they will seek clarifying confirmation and supporting evidence from the side they have found to be best to gain confidence and support from everyone. Obtaining and gathering feedback from those who have sat across the table from these current picks are the people I want to hear from because they have seen how they actually manage, make decisions and lead in a real life setting.
By definition of average, isn't half of every country less than average intelligence?
Nope. By definition of median, half of every country is less than median intelligence.
okay, not sure what your point is. My point was it is impossible (okay, I'll say very unlikely or, even better, a significant population that is greater than 50%) for any country to have more than half the population with higher than average intelligence if you're using the country's average. And unless I misread the comment, it seemed to be stated as a negative that half the country is either average or less than average intelligence. And statistically speaking it will be half on both sides, so instead of saying "by definition" I should have said "statistically speaking." And if you want to get nitpicky, since median has a middle, there would not be half on either side of median either. Albeit the larger the population the closer to 50% each half gets, but its not 50%. Just seems like you want to get picky so I'll point that out.
How many ex Generals has he appointed to his cabinet ?
Three so far: Secretary of Defense - retired Marine General James Mattis National Security Advisor - retired Army Lt. General Michael Flynn Secretary of Homeland Security - retired Marine General John Kelly
Yay, more old white men running the show. Just what America needs. I can't wait for these old man politicians (and businessmen) from a bygone era to die out.
Forget their political views for a minute. Your first complaint is with their age, race and sex? What if they stood for what you believed in, would that still be a problem?
No, my complaint is their world view and their attitudes. That they are "old white men running the show" is very obviously a generalized comment - a stereotype of the beleaguered baby boomer politicians who we all know are stuck in the past - and I'm sure you probably actually understood the connotation of what I said without needing it to be qualified. Their actual age, race, and gender by themselves isn't the issue. I assumed everyone who has been alive for longer than a couple of decades would have understood the point I was getting at, but I guess not. FWIW, I couldn't care less if my comment offended anyone. I stand by the valid point I was making (as always).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
By definition of average, isn't half of every country less than average intelligence?
Nope. By definition of median, half of every country is less than median intelligence.
okay, not sure what your point is. My point was it is impossible (okay, I'll say very unlikely or, even better, a significant population that is greater than 50%) for any country to have more than half the population with higher than average intelligence if you're using the country's average. And unless I misread the comment, it seemed to be stated as a negative that half the country is either average or less than average intelligence. And statistically speaking it will be half on both sides, so instead of saying "by definition" I should have said "statistically speaking." And if you want to get nitpicky, since median has a middle, there would not be half on either side of median either. Albeit the larger the population the closer to 50% each half gets, but its not 50%. Just seems like you want to get picky so I'll point that out.
I apologize, I've misread Thirty's original statement. Firstly, I believe Thirty was referring to a global average - which it would be very possible for the majority (over 50%) to be below. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "median has a middle"... a median IS a middle, meaning equal number of people above and below it, meaning 50% of the population is less than that IQ. Next, I wasn't intending to be pedantic whatsoever - by referencing a definition, wouldn't you be guilty of that? Finally, why does any of this matter?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Pulling the classic Russell... But I'll address anyway. Trump was elected bec people fear rapist drug dealing Mexicans and terrorist Muslims?
You're trying to make something that's grey very black and white, so I'm not sure this will work very well. There's a large enough group of whites who feel that non-whites and basically outsiders are a threat to their way of life. There's a push back from them as minority groups have gained more equality. They're afraid of whites becoming a minority in the future. Difficulties in their life are seen as a result of people who are different taking things away from them, both socially and economically. Trump engaged this group with emotional manipulation with the policies I mentioned earlier, as well as others. He made an external enemy for voters, and these voters also perpetuated and believed total mistruths (Hillary wants open borders, our country is worse off in the last 8 years, etc).
The turning grey to black is exactly what screaming racism misogynist sexism etc etc etc is!!! Serious?
That's a different issue. Identifying statements or policy as racist is different than identifying an individuals level of prejudice based on their voting for trump and reasons for doing so. Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women. Calling him misogynist as a result isn't a stretch.
By definition of average, isn't half of every country less than average intelligence?
Nope. By definition of median, half of every country is less than median intelligence.
okay, not sure what your point is. My point was it is impossible (okay, I'll say very unlikely or, even better, a significant population that is greater than 50%) for any country to have more than half the population with higher than average intelligence if you're using the country's average. And unless I misread the comment, it seemed to be stated as a negative that half the country is either average or less than average intelligence. And statistically speaking it will be half on both sides, so instead of saying "by definition" I should have said "statistically speaking." And if you want to get nitpicky, since median has a middle, there would not be half on either side of median either. Albeit the larger the population the closer to 50% each half gets, but its not 50%. Just seems like you want to get picky so I'll point that out.
I apologize, I've misread Thirty's original statement. Firstly, I believe Thirty was referring to a global average - which it would be very possible for the majority (over 50%) to be below. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "median has a middle"... a median IS a middle, meaning equal number of people above and below it, meaning 50% of the population is less than that IQ. Next, I wasn't intending to be pedantic whatsoever - by referencing a definition, wouldn't you be guilty of that? Finally, why does any of this matter?
it matters not. New thread: mean vs. median! But if median is the middle, that means 50% - 1 is below, and 50% - 1 is above, and never 50% on either side. That's what I meant.
In a shocking and unexpected development, President-elect Donald Trump has rescheduled his planned Thursday press conference to an undetermined date in January.
^^^ What better way to start his inaugural address free and clear of that Russian stuff and that stupid recount by the libs. President-elect Trump will tell all once officially sworn in as your next POTUS. It's going to be great.
In a shocking and unexpected development, President-elect Donald Trump has rescheduled his planned Thursday press conference to an undetermined date in January.
He's the best just keep stringing them along after a while they'll stop asking he doesn't care about any stinking presidential rules , conflict of interest lol it's hilarious
In a shocking and unexpected development, President-elect Donald Trump has rescheduled his planned Thursday press conference to an undetermined date in January.
Bafoon has assembled one of if not the richest cabinets in modern history worth an estimated 14 billion , yeah his for the blue collar working stiff alright !
Kellyanne Conway: "We in the Trump presidency do not want foreign governments interfering in our elections. That's very clear. We don't want intelligence interfering in our politics. But we also certainly do not want what we have now, which is politics interfering in our intelligence."
Kellyanne Conway: "We in the Trump presidency do not want foreign governments interfering in our elections. That's very clear. We don't want intelligence interfering in our politics. But we also certainly do not want what we have now, which is politics interfering in our intelligence."
Kellyanne Conway: "We in the Trump presidency do not want foreign governments interfering in our elections. That's very clear. We don't want intelligence interfering in our politics. But we also certainly do not want what we have now, which is politics interfering in our intelligence."
And the Trump campaign's complete and total rejection of the possibility that this might have happened isn't politics interfering in our intelligence?
What ever happened to these politics possibilities: Might...be might be a sexist racist misogynist Might...he might have sexually harassed women Might...he might have cheated in Wisconsin Pennsylvania Michigan
Kellyanne Conway: "We in the Trump presidency do not want foreign governments interfering in our elections. That's very clear. We don't want intelligence interfering in our politics. But we also certainly do not want what we have now, which is politics interfering in our intelligence."
And the Trump campaign's complete and total rejection of the possibility that this might have happened isn't politics interfering in our intelligence?
What ever happened to these politics possibilities: Might...be might be a sexist racist misogynist Might...he might have sexually harassed women Might...he might have cheated in Wisconsin Pennsylvania Michigan
You'll get no argument from that Hillary Clinton didn't run a misguided and cynical campaign, but that is a deflection. Trump himself claimed the election was rigged numerous times. Now that it has worked out in his favor he summarily rejects the possibility. Again...how is that not politics interfering in our intelligence?
Comments
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/tom_shattuck/2016/12/shattuck_president_elect_s_popularity_rising
-EV 8/14/93
I think most don't really see Russia Russia Russia as a "real" threat.
Based on the last 2 administrations foreign policy, I would think Russians think we are a bigger threat to them then they to US.
By definition of average, isn't half of every country less than average intelligence?
I know "racist" is used a lot to describe any Trump voter, but lets be honest, it doesn't always have to fall back to racism. To be clear, racists in the truest sense more than likely voted for Trump, but not all Trump voters are racist. We all associate with people of the same ethnicity and race who we are biased against or hold in a less than favorable view, but that doesn't hit the hot button in the mainstream so we default to the clear physical identifiers, race and gender, when those are just an easy way for them to be categorized.
As for Russia, did they tamper with votes and help Trump win the election? No, I don't think there is any tie to Russia rigging/changing votes that caused Clinton to lose, but they did have influence and that should be addressed so it can never happen again. Simply dismissing it or downplaying it because they didn't rig ballots isn't a proper response. It's like ignoring all the precursors that led up to 9/11 or any other terroristic act because they weren't successful. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
My concern, and what should be everyone's, is who is being appointed in to the positions that will really influence and shape where our country goes from here. I don't claim to be all knowledgeable about the best person or experience needed in some of these positions, but I tend to focus on the character of the person, not the qualifications. You can train or educate someone on the skills needed to perform a job, but you can't teach or train character traits and people are very set in their ways outside of significant influence from specific experiences.
It is virtually impossible to appoint people without a biased opinion about something and especially the certain policies/procedures related to their job; however, someone who is of good personal character will not simply dismiss opposing viewpoints, they will seek clarifying confirmation and supporting evidence from the side they have found to be best to gain confidence and support from everyone. Obtaining and gathering feedback from those who have sat across the table from these current picks are the people I want to hear from because they have seen how they actually manage, make decisions and lead in a real life setting.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
And unless I misread the comment, it seemed to be stated as a negative that half the country is either average or less than average intelligence. And statistically speaking it will be half on both sides, so instead of saying "by definition" I should have said "statistically speaking." And if you want to get nitpicky, since median has a middle, there would not be half on either side of median either. Albeit the larger the population the closer to 50% each half gets, but its not 50%. Just seems like you want to get picky so I'll point that out.
FWIW, I couldn't care less if my comment offended anyone. I stand by the valid point I was making (as always).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Edit: but every country's average intelligence is not equivalent to each other.
But if median is the middle, that means 50% - 1 is below, and 50% - 1 is above, and never 50% on either side. That's what I meant.
All valid points w/ no verbal diarrhea
No need for a biased press conference.
Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can't get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!
Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!
Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?
The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-to-delay-news-conference-announcing-business-plans-232535
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What better way to start his inaugural address free and clear of that Russian stuff and that stupid recount by the libs.
President-elect Trump will tell all once officially sworn in as your next POTUS.
It's going to be great.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Might...be might be a sexist racist misogynist
Might...he might have sexually harassed women
Might...he might have cheated in Wisconsin Pennsylvania Michigan
"...I changed by not changing at all..."