Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

I just do not think President Trump is very smart.

+4
Joanimaroni
RealLindaL
PkrBum
2seaoat
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

2seaoat



My wife showed me a series of tweets where the President could not spell hereby. He used the word three times. The first tweet was wrong. The second tweet was wrong which yet another spelling, and finally on the third tweet someone alerted him of his spelling errors. I think folks in New York found out early on that he was not an intellectual man. His personality was formed in an environment where his brain power was a bit of a joke, which has resulted in this strange bragging on how smart he is.....he is not. I am kind of sad for him. His illusion of success and intelligence is under so much scrutiny as President, he is losing what is left of his mind........his personality disorder only becomes more acute in this pressure cooker. This is not going to end well.

PkrBum

PkrBum

Agreed... he's just a damn showman so far. I don't like people like him.

2seaoat



Agreed... he's just a damn showman so far. I don't like people like him.

I have sadly seen too many like him in my life on the golf course. Daddy's silver spoon had them believing that they were talented and that standing on third base was because they hit a triple.....not because he was born on third. President Trump is just a manifestation of all the less than talented people in my life whose arrogance about nothing is only matched by their usual lack of intelligence.

RealLindaL



Agree with you both 2000%. And it's not just his spelling, which is often atrocious (another example from this morning: "wire tapp"), because that's more a matter of knowledge, not intelligence, and spelling was obviously never important enough to him to bother learning. (Plus he doesn't read much, which adds to the inability to spell.) But you're right: he's simply not very smart, even though he certainly thinks he is. He's always been able to throw his weight around in the development marketplace and thereby gained his unearned hubris.

He's waaay out of his league in this position, and the Peter principle kicked in early on. Unfortunately, his lack of intelligence just makes him that much more dangerous to us and the world, being at the helm where he most definitely does NOT belong.

PkrBum

PkrBum

However... he's no less prepared than Obama was... and in some ways had much more real world experience.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Plus he doesn't read much, which adds to the inability to spell.






No, not really.   There are plenty of intelligent well read individuals that are not very good spellers. Not being a good speller has nothing to do with being able to read and comprehend.

Spelling is not linked to IQ.

2seaoat



Actually, my life experience indicates just the opposite. People who are careless spellers are one thing, but people who do not understand the structure and grammar have proven to me to be low intelligence people. They simply did not get the skills to use the English language. My brother is highly intelligent and had hyper activity as a child which makes him an atrocious speller as an adult. However, his schooling deficits actually give the impression of low intelligence. Donald Trump gives the impression of low intelligence. I came to that conclusion watching celebrity apprentice where it was obvious he was not an intellectual man. However, he is setting records for becoming the dumbest President in our history. President Bush got the accusations that he was dumb, but I honestly believe he has a higher IQ than President Trump.

Telstar

Telstar

2seaoat wrote:Actually, my life experience indicates just the opposite.  People who are careless spellers are one thing, but people who do not understand the structure and grammar have proven to me to be low intelligence people.  They simply did not get the skills to use the English language.  My brother is highly intelligent and had hyper activity as a child which makes him an atrocious speller as an adult.  However, his schooling deficits actually give the impression of low intelligence.  Donald Trump gives the impression of low intelligence.  I came to that conclusion watching celebrity apprentice where it was obvious he was not an intellectual man.   However, he is setting records for becoming the dumbest President in our history.  President Bush got the accusations that he was dumb, but I honestly believe he has a higher IQ than President Trump.



I never heard anyone accuse Dick Cheney of being a dumb man.

Vikingwoman



Bush was smart enough to get a law degree. Trump has a bachelor's and no higher. No honors even though he lied and said he was first in his class.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:Actually, my life experience indicates just the opposite.  People who are careless spellers are one thing, but people who do not understand the structure and grammar have proven to me to be low intelligence people.  They simply did not get the skills to use the English language.  My brother is highly intelligent and had hyper activity as a child which makes him an atrocious speller as an adult.  However, his schooling deficits actually give the impression of low intelligence.  Donald Trump gives the impression of low intelligence.  I came to that conclusion watching celebrity apprentice where it was obvious he was not an intellectual man.   However, he is setting records for becoming the dumbest President in our history.  President Bush got the accusations that he was dumb, but I honestly believe he has a higher IQ than President Trump.


Oops....not to me. My life experiences is opposite of what you said. That being said, I am sure there are many poor spellers because they are uneducated. However,  I know quite a few highly intelligent, well read, and degreed individuals that are poor spellers.

Telstar

Telstar

He was smart enough to get himself elected but that probably means he's only smarter than the brain damaged backward morons that voted him into office. Let's see how long he manages to hold on to his position without causing too much damage to America.

RealLindaL



Joanimaroni wrote:Spelling is not linked to IQ.

That's precisely what I said, ma'am.  To repeat: Spelling is NOT a function of intelligence, but of knowledge.  And knowledge of how words are spelled can definitely be augmented via READING WORDS. Obviously it's not a guarantee, but it sure as hell can help, and Trump is NOT well read.



Last edited by RealLindaL on 3/5/2017, 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total

RealLindaL



PkrBum wrote:However... he's no less prepared than Obama was...

Baloney. As you know, Obama was well versed in the Constitution and its various nuances and interpretations over time, having been a professor of same, and was also a student of this nation's history, which Trump has demonstrated virtually no interest in learning about. Further, Trump's only apparent experience in the U.S. political system was in making monetary contributions when it suited his own business interests.

There is simply no comparison when it comes to depth.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:President Bush got the accusations that he was dumb, but I honestly believe he has a higher IQ than President Trump.

So do I.

PkrBum

PkrBum

RealLindaL wrote: Baloney.  As you know, Obama was well versed in the Constitution and its various nuances and interpretations over time, having been a professor of same, and was also a student of this nation's history, which Trump has demonstrated virtually no interest in learning about.  Further, Trump's only apparent experience in the U.S. political system was in making monetary contributions when it suited his own business interests.

There is simply no comparison when it comes to depth.  

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

This term confirmed a very real phenomenon: the Obama administration, by historical standards, has done exceedingly poorly before the Supreme Court. While this conclusion may seem counterintuitive given the term’s liberal victories on abortion and affirmative action—or previous terms’ rulings upholding Obamacare—the statistics are staggering.

This past term, the federal government won 13 cases and lost 14. Such mediocrity may seem surprising, but the 48 percent win rate is actually the Obama Justice Department’s third-best result. The administration’s best term was 2013-2014, when it went 11-9 (55 percent), while its worst record of 3-9 (25 percent) came in the abbreviated 2008-2009 term—counting only cases argued after the January 2009 inauguration.

Overall, the administration has managed a record of 79-96, a win rate of just above 45 percent. There’s little difference between the first term’s 35-44 (just above 44 percent) and second term’s 44-52 (just below 46 percent).  Now, there may be a handful of cases to add to the totals before the next president takes office, but we can essentially audit the 44th president’s judicial books now.

That audit doesn’t look too good when compared to the record of his predecessors. George W. Bush achieved a record of 89-59 (60 percent)—and that’s if you fold in all of 2000-2001, including cases argued when Bill Clinton was president in what was an unusually bad term for the government (roughly 35 percent). Clinton, in turn, had an overall record of 148-87 (63 percent), again including all of 1992-1993. George H.W. Bush went 91-39 (70 percent), while Ronald Reagan weighed in with an astounding record of 260-89 (about 75 percent).

While it looks like this is merely a tale of a downwards trend in recent years, Jimmy Carter still managed a 139-65 record (68 percent). Indeed, the overall government win rate over the last 50 years—I’ve calculated back to the early 1960s—is comfortably over 60 percent.

To be sure, this isn’t an exact science, with some judgment calls to be made about certain cases that aren’t pure wins or losses for either side. The Supreme Court also used to hear many more cases, so the last 20 years or so are statistically less significant. But even giving Barack Obama every benefit of the doubt, his 45 percent score falls far short of the modern norm—which is really the relevant period, regardless of how well or poorly Andrew Jackson or Benjamin Harrison may have done.

Obama’s Own Justices Are Voting Against Him
You could argue, of course, that a simple won-loss rate doesn’t tell the whole story. After all, Obama’s solicitors general have faced a bench occupied by a majority of Republican appointees. (As did Clinton’s, but that didn’t stop him from pipping his Republican successor.) But the news gets even worse when you look at unanimous losses.

This term, the federal government argued an incredible 10 cases without gaining a single vote, not even that of one of President Obama’s own nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That brings his total to 44 unanimous losses. For comparison, George W. Bush suffered 30 unanimous losses, while Bill Clinton withstood 31. In other words, Obama has lost unanimously 50 percent more than his two immediate predecessors.

These cases have been in such disparate areas as criminal procedure, religious liberty, property rights, immigration, securities regulation, tax law, and the separation of powers. Here are some recent unanimous headline-grabbers.

In Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC (2012), the government sued a church school that fired a teacher for violating one of its religious tenets. The court ruled that punishing a church for not retaining an unwanted teacher violates the First Amendment.

In United States v. Jones (2012), the government claimed the power to attach a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer’s car and monitor his movements without a warrant. While the justices had differing opinions on why this violated the Fourth Amendment, all agreed that it did.

In Sackett v. EPA (2012), the government denied property owners the right to contest an order to stop building their house. The court ruled that access to courts is the least the government can provide in response to “the strong-arming of regulated parties.”

While the conventional wisdom about Arizona v. United States (2012) is that the high court smacked down a perniciously anti-immigrant state, Arizona actually won unanimously on its most controversial “show me your papers” provision. Not one justice accepted the theory that mere enforcement priorities trump state laws.

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2013), the government claimed raisin farmers weren’t entitled to judicial review of a byzantine New Deal-era program that confiscated crops in an attempt to regulate prices. The Supreme Court again allowed plaintiffs their day in court—and two years later ruled for them 8-1 on the merits.

In Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the government needs to get a warrant if it wants to search the digital information stored on arrestees’ cell phones.

In Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board (2014), the court invalidated President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board appointments essentially because the Senate had not declared a recess when he made them.

Just last week, in McDonnell v. United States (2016), the court reversed the conviction of a former Virginia governor because meetings with constituents who seek the favor of elected officials are not the kinds of “official acts” that can be prosecuted under public-corruption statutes.

The government’s arguments across this wide variety of cases would essentially allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants without meaningful constitutional restraint. This position conflicts with another unanimous decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant’s right to challenge her federal prosecution. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.”

Curiously, Bond again came before the Supreme Court in 2014—on the question of whether a weapons-trafficking statute could be used against someone who used household chemicals in a bizarre revenge plot—and again the government lost unanimously.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the government’s lawyers are sub-par. Solicitor General Don Verrilli and his predecessors (including Kagan herself) are very well respected, and their staffs are populated by people who graduated at the top of elite law schools and clerked on the Supreme Court. If they’re not qualified to represent the government, nobody is.

No, this is a situation where, as noted Supreme Court advocate Miguel Estrada put it a few years ago when asked to opine on the administration’s poor record: “When you have a crazy client who makes you take crazy positions, you’re gonna lose some cases.”

So the reason this president has done so poorly at the high court is because he sees no limits on federal—especially prosecutorial—power and accords himself the ability to enact his own legislative agenda when Congress refuses to do so. The numbers don’t lie.

2seaoat



The worse AG in American history might have contributed to those results. Not one bankster or Wall Street felon was indicted. A total failure.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:However... he's no less prepared than Obama was... and in some ways had much more real world experience.

Trump had never held public office. His "real world experiences" include cheating people out of wages and investments and trying to bully everyone around him when thinks went south, as they did for Trump in the 1990's. He reminds me of Wally Yost...Mr. Big Stuff, drowning in debt but unable to stop...so..."desperate times call for desperate measures", like Russian investors.

2seaoat



I just heard Senator Franken say on the ABC morning show that his son in 2008 announced they had major business deals with the Russians. I think he may be under audit for the very thing which is evolving right now. President Trump always attempts to distract from the real issue. He makes smoke screens by outrageous claims, but I think folks are figuring out as the Senator said this morning that those distractions will not stop the need for a special prosecutor. The claim there is no crime is a lie. Senator Franken said the Russian hacks of the computers is a crime and all those working in a conspiracy are subject to investigation. Let us stop the distractions and get a special prosecutor to determine how far the Russians have penetrated our government with their agents. This is light years more important than somebody saying videos contributed to the attack at Benghazi, where 18 investigations took place, yet this involves a super power interfering with an American election.

dumpcare



I've searched and read this morning, neither bad spelling or grammar equates to one's intelligence. It certainly helps to make one's case but not necessary. No I'm not going to post links, look them up for yourself's.

Anyway I do not think trump has too many smarts. A sitting President can declassify wiretaps anytime he/she wants to. If he was truly tapped he needs to declassify. Too bad none of adviser's realize this since he doesn't. The supposed wire tap request was turned down twice before it was initially approved in either Sept or Oct.

PkrBum

PkrBum

*yourselves

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

RealLindaL wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:Spelling is not linked to IQ.

That's precisely what I said, ma'am.  To repeat: Spelling is NOT a function of intelligence, but of knowledge.  And knowledge of how words are spelled can definitely be augmented via READING WORDS.  Obviously it's not a guarantee,  but it sure as hell can help, and Trump is NOT well read.



Oh in that case I apologize....when you insinuated being well read would improve spelling I was in  disagreement.  Being well read does not necessarily improve spelling.

In all honesty I thought you were just tring to insult President Trump.

Some but certainly not all of the intelligent well read  poor spellers.



  • Jane Austen....

  • George Washington. ...

  • Winston Churchill. ...

  • Agatha Christie. ...

  • Andrew Jackson. ...

  • Albert Einstein. ...

  • Ernest Hemingway. ...

  • John F. Kennedy.... the list goes on with Benjamin Franklin,  Faulkner, Keats etc.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

ppaca wrote:I've searched and read this morning, neither bad spelling or grammar equates to one's intelligence. It certainly helps to make one's case but not necessary.  No I'm not going to post links, look them up for yourself's.

Anyway I do not think trump has too many smarts. A sitting President can declassify wiretaps anytime he/she wants to. If he was truly tapped he needs to declassify. Too bad none of adviser's realize this since he doesn't. The supposed wire tap request was turned down twice before it was initially approved in either Sept or Oct.


I can agree except for grammatically spoken language.  Perhaps it's just me, but it is like nails on a chalk board when I hear someone slaughter the spoken English language. 

I seen it and I seen them......are on the top of my list.

PkrBum

PkrBum

It irks me a little when a person says they have two choices when there are only two options.

They have a choice between things... they aren't getting two choices.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


There are 9 types of intelligence, and luckily for the human race, not everyone has the same strengths and abilities. It would be completely boring and nothing would ever get done. It is precisely because of these differences that things like brainstorming work...and why teamwork is so important. That said, Trump is Biff in Back to the Future...but with lots of cash thanks to Daddy...a seriously bad combination...a bully with big bucks...a whack job with a Twitter account. And the "tell" is his constant bragging about being the "best" and the overuse of the same tired phrases and gestures.

dumpcare



PkrBum wrote:*yourselves

That was a test.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum