Progressive on social issues, regressive/conservative on a lot of economic issues. Neoliberalism is back 19th century style.

They will just repeat what Trump said with a shit-eating grin. There is no original thought going on there.

I guess it boils down to what you consider worst. Gangs, or a tyrannical government who disappear people without due process. It is like releasing killer monkeys to take care of your radioactive crocodile problem.

my fucking eyes

NoOn, ceux naille pas pawssible.

Yep! It is kind of funny too because petty insults is all they have, but they seem extremely sensible to them themselves. Trump has a nickname for virtually everyone, and they think it’s the best thing ever, but point out that he’s an insecure man wearing ungodly amount of makeup and they immediately get weirdly offended by it. “OrAnGe MaN bAd”. The funny thing is, as Trump would say, there is a lot of subject matter with his overall presentation, ironically.

Ultimately they have to decide if he can hold an office, I’d argue this supercede any technicality about the election itself. At worst I guess this could be decided after he won, but this would break the country.

I also think so. You can usually tell who is close to your own level, but anything too far off andthe signals for what is considered smart or dumb tend to blend together.

The one trait which usually don’t lie is the person ability to learn. Fast learners and autodidacts are almost always smart, and people who are slow to learn are almost always left of the curve. Other signals you mentioned are deeply rooted in culture and can reqlly give the wrong impression.

Removing bias from IQ tests is one hell of a challenge, but if we put that aside and only analyse IQ results from people from similar backgrounds, it definitely measure something, and it usually gives accurate results. Meaning your score would not change much by taking the test again.

IQ score correlate with someone general ability in pattern recognition, languages, logic, bias check and etc. It also correlate with grades, salary, lifespan. So, is that intelligence? I don’t know, but it is something.

I’d argue given enough time and effort almost anyone can become a domain expert in specific things and do incredible stuff. What distinguishes smart people from simpler folks usually boils down to them having a very easy time processing new stuff, which includes the ability to filter noise and fact check.

I don’t like the term “stupid”, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of evidence supporting the idea that human intelligence is compartimented. Humans with high IQs tend to outperform in average at most of what they try. Low IQ probably means you will work harder and have to specialize to achieve the same degree of competency. This just my hot take, I’ve fallen into this rabbit hole before and read a lot on the origin of IQs tests. In the end, intelligence alone does not determine a person’s worth anyway.

IQ tests were first developped because it seemed obvious not all students performed equally. On average a student that is good in a given discipline will also tend to do well in other unrelated disciplines. On average is the keyword here, outliers exist.

I think gifted students can easily tell what side of the curve they’re on, even though they might not want to acknowledge it. It is not even avout the grades, because gifted students also often learn early on that they can get away by doing the minimum amount of work and still get passing grades. So they’re not necessarily top of classes.

Gifted students get told they’re fast learner all the time, and they notice how everyone else seem to be progressing in slow motion. They know.

I think it gets harder to self-evaluate the closer you are to the average, since most of your peers will be more or less just as intelligent as you. Then, the dullest you are, and the less you can identify competense and the more likely you are to be over-confident.

I think in the end, most people will end up believing they’re above average because we tend to notice dumb people a lot. Ironically it is probably students who are just slightly above average who will have the most self-doubts, because they feel different from their peers, yet they can probably tell more gifted students are around.

Source: 50% my ass, 50% being surrounded by incredibly smart people who shared their personal experiences with me.

I knew someone like this, his entire universe was a collection of random lies, and he’d always adapt the story for maximum impact with different audiences. He got a high from it. He lived for that feeling of manipulating people. So unfortunately in my experience, even though he was miserable without the lies, sewing the web of lies was a high point in his life. Normal people would feel sick to their stomachs lying so much, but psychos lack this reaction.

You’re right. To add onto that it was Ivana who said he kept this book near his bed, it always been pretty credible.

For-profit healthcare.

It is funny because it is the opposite actually. Former senates and presidents actually clashed over foreign policies, it is only in recent times that presidents were more or less left to decide. So, I guess there is a bit of projection going on here.

Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.

Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I’d be curious to see.

I’ve been told the cat thing twice in my life, in both cases I ended up cutting contact years later because both persons turned out to be borderline sociopaths. Truth is we can’t really be sure for most animals, but to immediately assume most animals can’t feel shit is such a stretch.

Or sick.

I kenow better