President Trump Addresses the Joint Session of Congress

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I still don't think that it necessarily has anything to do with one's intelligence level but we all have our own pov. I'm not sure what snowflakes have to do with this. If someone is acting like a snowflake they can be called out on it. If someone is acting like a fool who fell for a con they can be called out on that too. But to insinuate that there's an underlying intelligence factor is wrong imo. Again I'm sure Teddy didn't even mean it the way that it may have come across, we know Teddy and he likes to joke around, but I know there are some who genuinely believe that "Trump got elected because people are stupid" and I think that's ignorant.

i dont know about teddy, but i totally remember thinking, all summer and fall, no way america is dumb enough to fall for this con. so, there's that.

calling someone a snowflake for voicing an opinion, or for calling a con a con..is a totally acceptable lable to me, just thought it sounded like you've had enough of the dismissive, generalizing judgements.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I still don't think that it necessarily has anything to do with one's intelligence level but we all have our own pov. I'm not sure what snowflakes have to do with this. If someone is acting like a snowflake they can be called out on it. If someone is acting like a fool who fell for a con they can be called out on that too. But to insinuate that there's an underlying intelligence factor is wrong imo. Again I'm sure Teddy didn't even mean it the way that it may have come across, we know Teddy and he likes to joke around, but I know there are some who genuinely believe that "Trump got elected because people are stupid" and I think that's ignorant.

Don't take anything in here serious , it's musical chairs for the mind.  To me it's like pick your character and enter the rpg

[OriZ 3,157]

16 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i dont know about teddy, but i totally remember thinking, all summer and fall, no way america is dumb enough to fall for this con. so, there's that.

calling someone a snowflake for voicing an opinion, or for calling a con a con..is a totally acceptable lable to me, just thought it sounded like you've had enough of the dismissive, generalizing judgements.

Problem is, it was Clinton on the other side. Who would want to vote for her either?

 

In my 5 years or so here, have you ever seen me equate someone's actions or beliefs(even if I find them reprehensible) with their level of intelligence? I just think that's wrong. Everybody believes something different and they might all score really high in an IQ test. Look, I'll be the last one to act all innocent, naitch can tell you how much I rant about idiots on my FB. But that's only because I come across so many idiots on a daily basis because of our business. I still don't honestly believe it inherently has anything to do with someone's level of intelligence. We all have our shortfalls.

Edited March 2, 2017 by OriZ

[OriZ 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Don't take anything in here serious , it's musical chairs for the mind.  To me it's like pick your character and enter the rpg

RPG games are fun. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Problem is, it was Clinton on the other side. Who would want to vote for her either?

 

In my 5 years or so here, have you ever seen me equate someone's actions or beliefs(even if I find them reprehensible) with their level of intelligence? I just think that's wrong. Everybody believes something different and they might all score really high in an IQ test. Look, I'll be the last one to act all innocent, naitch can tell you how much I rant about idiots on my FB. But that's only because I come across so many idiots on a daily basis because of our business. I still don't honestly believe it inherently has anything to do with someone's level of intelligence. We all have our shortfalls.

guess i feel entitled to make such judgments concerning trump because i wouldn't score high on an iq test myself yet i still know a con when i see one.

[OriZ 3,157]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

guess i feel entitled to make such judgments concerning trump because i wouldn't score high on an iq test myself yet i still know a con when i see one.

Granted I only know you online, but I wouldn't guess that you wouldn't score high. We may have our differences, but you seem quite intelligent to me.

 

....(I don't give compliments often so take it for what it's worth).

Edited March 2, 2017 by OriZ

[yuna628 9,646]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

 

 

I was for Brexit, and still am. I think many people misunderstand what Brexit was really all about. I’ve long been concerned over what I see as an untenable structure underlying the European Union. There’s certainly merit in promoting flexible trade among European nations, and in the ideal of a common European identity. But the additional fact is that Europe is virtually unequalled in its economic and cultural dispersion. It includes some of the strongest but also weakest economies in the developed world, with diverse languages and deeply held cultural identities that are immediately invoked by the names of each country - the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Spain, and many others. These individual national identities are not unanimously seen as insignificant relics, and it is a source of greater discord, not less, to imagine that they don’t exist. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the same fiscal and monetary policies are appropriate to all of them.

 

Probably the most poorly structured element of the EU in this regard is the euro, which binds many (though not all) of these members together under a common currency. A stable common currency requires that its member states pursue common fiscal policies, and presumes that a common monetary policy is appropriate for all of them. This has been a disaster for Europe. The clearest symptom of this untenable structure is the European Central Bank under Mario Draghi. The blindly frantic “anything it takes” monetary dysfunction promoted by the ECB has enabled the development of massive sovereign debt burdens, Humpty Dumpty banks (with Deutsche Bank being the most leveraged among major institutions, and Credit Suisse not far behind), and negative interest rates across Europe, with the ECB now buying the bonds of even private corporations.

 

Given that Britain has its own currency, part of the support behind the Brexit vote relates to the relatively free migration of workers under the Common Market. While I do believe that every country has the right to immigration policies that contribute to the relative stability of its own culture, I don’t defend the ugly leap to intolerance that some have demonstrated in Britain, and that has also become an unfortunate and offensive element in the US political debate. My own concern with the structure of the EU is primarily focused on the misguided structure of the common currency, and the underlying requirement for fiscal and monetary harmony that it imposes on countries that desperately need the flexibility to pursue substantially divergent policies. Those constraints have brought Greece close to a depression, while at the same time shoveling default prone sovereign debt onto the balance sheets of European banks and the ECB.

 

Compared with what might result from the exit of another major EU member, Britain actually has a relatively easy course over the next two years. There is every reason to expect provisions that are mutually beneficial to each side to be preserved. The transition will be substantially eased by the fact that many of these provisions have broad public support in Britain across a wide range of sectors. Despite protests that “everything has gone back to square one,” it’s not as if all of those mutually beneficial provisions have suddenly gone up in flames and have to be redrafted from scratch. The discord will be among provisions that have “political” features; those that might benefit one group within Britain versus another.

Any country that shares the euro as a common currency would have a more difficult exit course, because currency uncertainties would suddenly be introduced, disrupting a wide range of securities and private contracts. That’s not to say that Brexit will be easy, but the main risk of Brexit is actually the risk of a domino effect that might encourage defection of other EU members, particularly those that share the euro. Also, some EU members, particularly Germany, look at the unrestrained behavior of the European Central Bank with increasing dismay. Once Europe experiences another round of economic weakness, soon, there may be increasing strains on this passive acceptance by Germany, which is currently required to preserve the euro.

 

The dignity of a united European identity can survive without forcing each member country into an inappropriately identical fiscal, monetary and political shoe. Think of the EU, in its current ill-structured form, as a kind of Ponzi scheme, and Britain as the guy who just asked for his money back. The hallmark of a Ponzi scheme is the attempt to use progressively greater distortions in order to preserve a structure that is fundamentally unsound and increasingly bankrupt. Of any large country that could leave the EU, Britain was the best first mover. I have no immediate concerns about a domino effect, but if one was to emerge, my view is that the exit of Germany, France, and the Nordic countries would be preferable to the exit of Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal. It would be better to leave the euro intact and capable of steep devaluation among the weaker members than to sustain a system where the stronger and larger members of the euro become even more deeply entrenched in its flaws.

If one could be for Brexit in that it only meant achieving real independence for one-self I think the British people already answered that question long ago on the subject. But ask people on the street time and time again, and see how the politicians pushed the subject on the people and it was, and still is largely all about immigrants. That's how it was sold. Not illegal immigrants (they were in the mix too of course) but the real wrath of hatred is toward legal immigrants - pure and simple. The Tories have slowly instituted policies not curbing illegal immigration or even closing loopholes, but have been extremely insulting to the legal immigrant populace overall - even the High Court acknowledges that fact. Look at the debate that went on in the Lord's today and you'll see a variety of crass comments by one stodgy peer (who currently employs a 'migrant' as his 'servant') speak about immigrants almost as if they are filth. Britain never could rid itself of it's class system. It's still rigidly in place among it's own people - and immigrants are very low down on the totem-pole so to speak. Brexit brought out all the ugly, the people always knew was there for all to see - and when asked whether they'd change their vote if they had the chance - the people have said, yes they would. There are other complex issues at work here, such as the UK being a kingdom of various nations and that unity is wearing a bit thin these days. If NI and Scotland want no part of Brexit, how is it fair to them? Ask those people if they feel the ''London'' politicians are doing the right thing by them and if they really truly have a say. The Brexit vote did not even have to happen you know. From a legal standpoint all of it was entirely unnecessary, and was all rather about Cameron's foolish gambling. Referendum democracies without safeguards are imo, a death sentence to a country.

 

The Euro was always a rather failed experiment, especially in the UK. It didn't really recognize the individuality of a nation or economic specifics of particular countries if you get what I mean. But what the EU stood for after the war, was truly a noble cause, that came from a good place, with good ideals, and high goals. Those goals, despite whatever problems it currently has, are still noble. It's what millions of people fought and died for. I don't feel optimistic about the state of the health of the UK if it continues on this path. If something needs fixing, you fix it. Without abandoning everything. Things are very bad and depressed for the working-class - and companies are already starting to pull out. The identity of many British expats has been shattered with Brexit. For my husband it was natural of him to identify himself as British but also European. What rights the UK government fail to acknowledge or give to their citizens the EU, does. The idea of traveling and living in any country in Europe is as also natural as inter-state travel within the US. That identity is being taken away - a hard thing to think about in American terms. If the UK for instance, will not recognize the rights of EU citizens to live in their country, then why should any country in the EU recognize the same? The UK will also come clamoring to the US, looking for trade deals (I wonder if they will still keep the hostile immigration policies toward non-EEAs if they do so..) and I can guarantee those deals won't be to the true benefit of them either. My husband is concern for his country and his family that he left behind - they barely recognize the country they call home anymore. If my great grandmother were alive today, I know she'd be terribly sad and appalled at what has happened.

Edited March 2, 2017 by yuna628

[OriZ 3,157]

23 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

If one could be for Brexit in that it only meant achieving real independence for one-self I think the British people already answered that question long ago on the subject. But ask people on the street time and time again, and see how the politicians pushed the subject on the people and it was, and still is largely all about immigrants. That's how it was sold. Not illegal immigrants (they were in the mix too of course) but the real wrath of hatred is toward legal immigrants - pure and simple. The Tories have slowly instituted policies not curbing illegal immigration or even closing loopholes, but have been extremely insulting to the legal immigrant populace overall - even the High Court acknowledges that fact. Look at the debate that went on in the Lord's today and you'll see a variety of crass comments by one stodgy peer (who currently employs a 'migrant' as his 'servant') speak about immigrants almost as if they are filth. Britain never could rid itself of it's class system. It's still rigidly in place among it's own people - and immigrants are very low down on the totem-pole so to speak. Brexit brought out all the ugly, the people always knew was there for all to see - and when asked whether they'd change their vote if they had the chance - the people have said, yes they would. There are other complex issues at work here, such as the UK being a kingdom of various nations and that unity is wearing a bit thin these days. If NI and Scotland want no part of Brexit, how is it fair to them? Ask those people if they feel the ''London'' politicians are doing the right thing by them and if they really truly have a say. The Brexit vote did not even have to happen you know. From a legal standpoint all of it was entirely unnecessary, and was all rather about Cameron's foolish gambling. Referendum democracies without safeguards are imo, a death sentence to a country.

 

The Euro was always a rather failed experiment, especially in the UK. It didn't really recognize the individuality of a nation or economic specifics of particular countries if you get what I mean. But what the EU stood for after the war, was truly a noble cause, that came from a good place, with good ideals, and high goals. Those goals, despite whatever problems it currently has, are still noble. It's what millions of people fought and died for. I don't feel optimistic about the state of the health of the UK if it continues on this path. If something needs fixing, you fix it. Without abandoning everything. Things are very bad and depressed for the working-class - and companies are already starting to pull out. The identity of many British expats has been shattered with Brexit. For my husband it was natural of him to identify himself as British but also European. What rights the UK government fail to acknowledge or give to their citizens the EU, does. The idea of traveling and living in any country in Europe is as also natural as inter-state travel within the US. That identity is being taken away - a hard thing to think about in American terms. If the UK for instance, will not recognize the rights of EU citizens to live in their country, then why should any country in the EU recognize the same? The UK will also come clamoring to the US, looking for trade deals (I wonder if they will still keep the hostile immigration policies toward non-EEAs if they do so..) and I can guarantee those deals won't be to the true benefit of them either. My husband is concern for his country and his family that he left behind - they barely recognize the country they call home anymore.

As I said I don't defend the ugly leap to intolerance. I think unfortunately, the politicians had to package it a certain way in order to get people's attention and get them to vote the way they wanted them to(I'm not saying those people are stupid val - just that the majority of people are too busy with their every day life to be able to pay attention and understand in depth the other aspects of the EU and Brexit and what it all meant). I think the reason people said they would change their vote was because of the slight panic that occured right afterwards. People panicked, so it seemed to them like they made the wrong choice. If you asked them again the results might be different. It's kind of like during the crisis in 08 when they initially tried to pass the bailout package and failed. People were initially opposed, and then the market dropped(we won't get into the real reasons for that - I'll just use the perceived ones for the sake of this conversation) and everybody was like, well, there goes my 401k. People are finicky like that so I don't think much of people now saying they would have changed their vote, their mind can change again tomorrow. I also don't think it takes everybody knowing what they actually voted for in order for that vote to still be not only legit but correct. I'm sure just like there are some people who voted yes and didn't know what they were doing, there's also some who voted no and know nothing about the issue. In the end they cancel each other out.

 

I agree that initially what the EU stood for was a noble cause but that has not been the case for a long time now. The problem with fixing the EU is that people like Jean-Claude Juncker and Mario Draghi make it pretty much impossible right now, really the only option was to exit.

Edited March 2, 2017 by OriZ

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

38 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

guess i feel entitled to make such judgments concerning trump because i wouldn't score high on an iq test myself yet i still know a con when i see one.

I grant thee a shield of immunity..do ye need to cast a spell on Oriz? Your roll.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

I grant thee a shield of immunity..do ye need to cast a spell on Oriz? Your roll.

the moon is not ready. ill retreat to the shire with my wench and mead. top off my hearts though. some snowflake daggers got in before the lock.

[Teddy B 17,251]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

Now see that's where my problem comes in, every time people start bringing other people's intelligence into question just because they don't agree with them or their choices. That's why I made it a point earlier to mention my PCP who again, I consider to be incredibly intelligent even though we don't see eye to eye politically. I know many brilliant people who like Trump. I also know many brilliant people who like Bernie, hell I even know some smart people who like Clinton. I don't think insulting people is the answer. I get that it might have just been tongue in cheek, but still.

 

I meant what I said and I'll explain why I think that.

 

The Donald Trump that ran for President brought absolutely nothing to the table. He was abrasive in so many ways and insulted many groups of people along with the candidates he was running against. He voiced no plans of action should he become President. The only words of wisdom he could muster were that "he would be the most amazing President ever" and that "he would win bigly". He showed himself to be completely inept on both domestic and foreign issues. He was caught on tape voicing his misogynist views of women and how he likes to sexually assault them. He was described by many as the worst presidential candidate in history, a joke, and an insult to one's intelligence. Yet this abrasive, insulting, misogynist, inept man did end up winning the Presidency. In my opinion that doesn't speak very highly for the moral character and level of intelligence of the people that voted for him.

 

Now that being said, I don't believe that every person who cast a vote for Trump is of lower intelligence, but I do think the majority of them are. There is no other way to explain that many people voting for him based on the way he ran his campaign and the things he said and did. Even a smart person who voted for Trump should take a look at their own moral character. It takes either a certain level of ignorance or lack of moral character and quite possibly both in a lot of cases to have voted for Trump. There's really no way around that knowing what we knew about the man going into election day.

 

I am fully aware that Hillary Clinton was no prize either, I have said many times that this was the worst pair of Presidential candidates I've ever seen, but the differences between Clinton and Trump in character and knowledge of the issues are like night and day. There really is no comparison between the two. Hillary Clinton is head and shoulders above Trump when it comes to qualifications and experience to hold the office of President. And if someone can overlook these differences and still vote for Trump, well then they are either not too smart or they have another agenda going on.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Jacque rocks!

Edited March 2, 2017 by Teddy B

[OriZ 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I meant what I said and I'll explain why I think that.

 

The Donald Trump that ran for President brought absolutely nothing to the table. He was abrasive in so many ways and insulted many groups of people along with the candidates he was running against. He voiced no plans of action should he become President. The only words of wisdom he could muster were that "he would be the most amazing President ever" and that "he would win bigly". He showed himself to be completely inept on both domestic and foreign issues. He was caught on tape voicing his misogynist views of women and how he likes to sexually assault them. He was described by many as the worst presidential candidate in history, a joke, and an insult to one's intelligence. Yet this abrasive, insulting, misogynist, inept man did end up winning the Presidency. In my opinion that doesn't speak very highly for the moral character and level of intelligence of the people that voted for him.

 

Now that being said, I don't believe that every person who cast a vote for Trump is of lower intelligence, but I do think the majority of them are. There is no other way to explain that many people voting for him based on the way he ran his campaign and the things he said and did. Even a smart person who voted for Trump should take a look at their own moral character. It takes either a certain level of ignorance or lack of moral character and quite possibly both in a lot of cases to have voted for Trump. There's really no way around that knowing what we knew about the man going into election day.

 

I am fully aware that Hillary Clinton was no prize either, I have said many times that this was the worst pair of Presidential candidates I've ever seen, but the differences between Clinton and Trump in character and knowledge of the issues are like night and day. There really is no comparison between the two. Hillary Clinton is head and shoulders above Trump when it comes to qualifications and experience to hold the office of President. And if someone can overlook these differences and still vote for Trump, well then they are either not too smart or they have another agenda going on.

That's where we will have to agree to disagree my friend. I think there are many considerations that the electorate factors in when voting that you guys aren't taking into account. But that's just my opinion of course. I just don't believe in creating a link between people's intelligence and their voting patterns, we're all different.

[Teddy B 17,251]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

That's where we will have to agree to disagree my friend. I think there are many considerations that the electorate factors in when voting that you guys aren't taking into account. But that's just my opinion of course. I just don't believe in creating a link between people's intelligence and their voting patterns, we're all different.

I respect your opinion.

 

On the electorates, I don't think they consider much of anything these days, they simply vote the way their state voted.

[Jacque67 7,328]

39 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Jacque rocks!

I'm the smartest person I've ever met!!!! Period!!!