Jump to content
270soft Forum
SirLagsalott

Trump tells AOC, Tlaib, Pressley, Omar to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came”

Recommended Posts

@servo75 I respect your ability to make such a long and articulated opinion. But you also do not speak for all Conservatives nor do you have to feel as though you do. One can believe that both Trump is racist and "the squad" is anti-semitic as the same time. I believe that both the President and Omar, AOC and their ilk are chemically toxic for the American body politic. With that said let me address a few of your points.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

On the balance, I'd honestly give him a B so far. I will not expound further on that here since that's not the topic at hand, other than to say I think 95% of Americans would grade him either A+ or F-.

You're probably right about the 95% thing. I'd put him on a D+ to C range personally. He's been subpar to poor in performance as far as I am concerned. He has a few saving graces and those shouldn't be denied, but on the whole he hasn't satisifed my expecations of what a good conservative administration should like like, he's barely even begun to do it and he's already on the eve of re-election season. Let it be known that I am likely even more conservative than you as I do not have any views that would be considered "very left wing" not close to it.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

That being said, I am of the opinion that in no way were his statements racist. With respect for @Reagan04, especially since there are pitifully few of us here, "very clearly a racist incident and premiers one of the reasons why no decent American could ever support him for re-election." That's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy and frankly speaks more of your opinion, which you are of course entitled to. But while I'm sure you are yourself a decent American, so am I and I support his re-election. With respect @Reagan04, you do not speak for "decent Americans" and should not be making blanket statements like that! I can only give my own take on the issue. What is racism? According to Wikipedia, " Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another." Did Trump's statements indicate in any way that AOC and the others are of inferior race? Not even close! Since when did ANY criticism of ANYONE who happens to be in a minority class for ANY reason become racist? Because do not mistake, that's what we have here. I still remember when even the mildest criticism of any of Obama's policies "must" be racist. Or only "racists" voted for Donald Trump. The Democrats and left have cried wolf so many times, have overused the word "Racist" so many times to simply describe anyone and anything that they disagree with, that the bubble gum is out of flavor. Like the "South Park" episode that said "shit" 200 times, they have permanently neutered the word so that it has no more meaning.

I do take grave issue here. The statements were grotesquely racist, among the most racist I've heard him say. And it's yet another point to what I am seeing in that he is using white identity politics to divide this nation for political gain in a manner we haven't seen as effective in over 50 years when it worked out real well for George Wallace in 1968. The term "love it or leave it" has serious racial history and connotation attached to it. We in America are absolutely allowed to criticise the nation and no you dont have to "love it" or get deported. And frankly as conservatives we really ought to know that the President can't define loving your nation. "Love it" is defined by Trump as supporting all his policies. Well I deplored Obamacare and Roe v. Wade and the Debt being doubled and our credit being downgraded and weak policy in Syria on the party of the Obama administration, but that doesn't mean because I didn't love it I have to leave it. The idea of "sending them back" is again dripping with racist connotation and undertones. I point you to this song to understand the longstanding context of the statement (Not sure what the video is, just listen to the words.) The idea that American citizens can be "sent back" simply because of their skin color is ridiculous. When I call Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib the anti-semites that they are, that is not be being racist, and yet I am still criticising a member of a minority group. This goes beyond simply criticizing a minority, it's attacking them as less American for their skin colors and beliefs. He calls minority nations shitholes and their immigrants rapists and drug dealers. He has a terrible record on criminal Justice (See Central Park case) and he continually tries to pander to the black vote in insulting ways. This is categorical racism. And do the Democrats have a tendency of over using the word? Yes. But does that mean that racism is somehow now tolerable when it is real and exists especially that it now has firmly planted itself in the White House? Hell no! It's our duty to stand up as conservatives and rout this out of our movement.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

The SQUAD has continually made statements that I believe are detrimental to our country. They have compared ICE detention facilities to concentration camps, something that as a Jew who has lost ancestors in those camps I find personally insulting. They have advocated for the complete removal of our border, de facto if not de jure. They have called for the complete takeover of our economy and transformation to a socialist system (single payer healthcare, "free" everything for anyone who gets across our border legally or not, and of course the Green New Deal), things that can be easily demonstrated are not only not affordable, but undermine the very fabric of our capitalist system, and our republic. And ANYONE who criticizes ANY of that is racist! That is their intent. This is another reason why the criticism of Trump's comments must be taken with a few pounds of salt. EVERYTHING is racist to the left. They constantly attack police officers, call for the abolitionof ICE, put up sanctuary cities to protect criminal illegal aliens from deportation THEN HAVE THE FUCKING NERVE TO ACCUSE OUR PRESIDENT OF NOT RESPECTING THE LAW!!!!!!  Give me a fucking break!

Here's a hot take: Both the President and the Squad have disqualified themselves from public service for how flippantly they disregard American legal conventions. You can believe both at the same time because they're both true. Let me be clear, simply because I don't stand for the President's racist rhetoric doesn't mean I #StandwithIlhan either. Again, Ilhan Omar is, like the President, a pock mark on the American political system. Both mass child separation and poor conditions and abolishing ICE for an open border are terrible policies. Running up giant deficits with an irresponsible and unpaid for tax cut plus dangerously burdensome Trade Wars as well as with a Green New Deal are horridly irresponsible. And yes, both threatenting to suspend the constitution and amending the 2nd Amendment by Executive Order as well as Socialist Healthcare are terrible infringement against our small government values. And sadly both the President and the Squad are no better than each other on conservative values.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

In other words, the United States is a horrible, racist, misogynist, rape culture country that systematically kills black boys, runs terror camps at our borders and rips children apart from our mothers.

The United States is a great nation where women and minorities are the best off in the world because they are Americans. America is without a doubt the greatest nation on the planet for the very reasons that both the squad and the President would see destroyed if they gained total power. Yes, police brutality exists and yes there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. So that's just true. But no there is no rape culture and you know what, we do kill black boys. We've been disproprtionately slaughtering black children in the womb since the 1920s when Margaret Sanger set up her Eugenics operation at Planned Parenthood. And yes, we also are killing them disproportionately on the street. Again, both parties led by the Squad and Trump are failing to solve the entirety of the issue. To tear down systemic black oppression is to teardown the welfare and abortion state as well as the unnaccountability of the Police State.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

Barack Obama, who I'm sure they would consider far right wing at this point, said just before his 2008 election that we were "five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Let that sink in. FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING. I dare say that if you love a person or place, you do NOT want to transform it.

This is where you get off the rails my friend. Was not the Declaration of Independence a fundamental transformation of the colonies? The 13th amendment a fundamentral transformation of free labor in the nation? The 19th amendment a fundamental change in voting rights? The Civil Rights Act a fundamental change in equal opportunity and rights? Or even our participation in World War II a fundamental transformation of America into a global superpower? Good government must always be reforming itself, changing itself, into better government. So when President Obama said that I absolutely believe that what he was saying that America was going to be fundamentally transformed for the good. That a great racial barrier would be broken down and history healed. Of course, he failed to transform anything, and singlehandedly sat back and allowed race relations to suffer. At least while Rome burned he fiddled and didn't pour the gasoline like the current President. Again, America has fundamental issues and must be transformed into a nation of smaller government, healed of its social ills. There are problems with our nation and because I love it and because I love it for the potential of what American can be, I dare say you can NOT love something if you won't fight to change it when you see something going wrong. When I see abortion sky high, a godless culture, a rampant tax and spend regime, an administration caring not for civil rights or humanitarian issues, a government intent on stripping away ever last God given right, damn straight I want to see a fundamental transformation.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

From all that these four, and the modern Democrat Party at large, has stated, they do not like our country. They refer to an Islamic terror attack that destroyed 2 buildings and killed 2,000 innocent Americans as "some people doing something." Omar herself also attacked the very soliders who rescued her from war-torn Somalia to give her a new life in the greatest country ever on Earth. You'd think they'd show a little appreciation. But they, and the Democrat Party in general have demonstrated time and again that they care more about foreign citizens (as long as they're from the right countries) than they do about Americans. They advocate for free everything at OUR taxpayer expense for people whose very existence on our soil is a criminal act, while at the same time dragging their feet at best when it comes to giving benefits to veterans and first responders. They promise free everything to citizens (and now non-citizens too) in plans that are provably impossible without huge increases in middle class taxes. They have passed laws saying that if I'm a boy and say I'm a girl I should be allowed to participate on the girls' track team and gobble up all the records and if anyone says anything about it they're a hateful misogynist. They bend over backwards to give free health care to illegal aliens sneaking across our border while citizens and veterans die in the streets. They have been running some of the very towns now rife with homelessness, human feces, and drug needles, which have been Democrat controlled for 100 years. They want to tear down everything that's great about this country - our Constitution, our republican form of government, our capitalist system, our electoral college, to re-make America in a way that would be unrecognizable to the Founders.

Yep, Far-Left Democrats are assholes. But here's a hint: The Republicans held hostage by Trump are little better

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

I'm going to say it, this is no longer Republican vs. Democrat. This is, LITERALLY, good vs. evil. The GOP is far from perfect, but I at least give them credit for not wanting to fundamentally transform our country (Barack Obama's own words) into a Socialist "paradise", trampling over the Constitution and individual rights, and saying it's okay to take from one group and give to another out of some arbitrary feeling that they "deserve" it more, not manufacturing a two-year-plus investigation into fabricated charges and utilizing the weapons of our Intelligence Community against political opponents. Yeah, those are facts, deal with it.

No it's bad vs. bad. No evil involved. There is no Satanist plot here. There's just a whole lot of bad policy and bad rhetoric from Ilhan Trump and Donald Omar or whatever their names are. And uh, yeah, I'd say "Making America Great Again" is pretty much just a giant call sign for fundamental change and transformation. Do you think people would have voted for him if he didnt campaign on massive change? Again, not a bad thing, I don't see your unnuanced and completely blanket view that change or transformations are uniformly evil. And no, the charges were not fabricated and it's pretty likely the President obstructed Justice, you're blinding yourself if you say nothing is here. If we go on an unbiased reading of the report and of the statements of our Intelligence Community (though the President has a tendency to trust foreign dictators over our own Intelligence Community) there is absolutely enough here to warrant further investigation and if Barr will continually use the DoJ for political obstruction purposes, Congress will just have to do it.

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

What the President is saying, in his not-so-eloquent way, is that if you don't like our country, why are you here? Why do you trash our country, trash our law enforcement, call everyone who disagrees with you racist, put together a "hit list" of Democrats who don't play along, and yet want to import half the third world here, from countries with vastly different cultures who have no desire to contribute to or assimilate with our society. It's a perfectly reasonable question and is in no way shape or form having ANYTHING to do with skin color or race. No one is TELLING them to leave, or trying to deport them. They are American citizens, and speaking for myself think they should show a little goddamn appreciation once and a while instead of trying to tear us apart.

They're here because they have ideas that they think will make it better and so do a couple hundred thousand people in Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, and the Bronx too. They all have a right to a representative in Congress elected by the people. And while I think those people did in fact vote against their interest, they elected the four bozos they did. It's not a reasonable question whatsoever, no one told Donald Trump to "go back home to Germany" when he called out America for "stupid leadership" and "corrupt and dirty cities". Wait a minute.... didn't you just, several breaths ago, criticize American cities pretty heavily yourself? Or do cities not get counted in "real America" and you're free to criticize Democratic policies just not Republican ones? Because if you're criticizing Republicans you must hate America so we;re going to deport you. Which brings me to my next point, the President literally told them to leave and the crowd chanted for him to deport her and he let it happen, which as I've said, is tantamount to support as the President on the trail. They're trying to tear us apart just as much as the President is. (Again, I think both are tearing us apart a great deal, you're probably seeing a trend here)

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

lthough I'm not right about everything, I would not be doing my duty if I didn't at least challenge far-left opinions rather than let them sit there and be taken for gospel. That's how we've gotten so divided in this country, because conservatives for too long have sat there and let themselves be the butt of jokes, bringing knives to gun fights and assuming that the opponent plays fair. The media has made fun of conservatives for decades. They're just rich racist bigots who hate women and the poor. We've all heard it. But enough is enough. Our POTUS won't take it and neither will I. The media was just as unkind to the Bushes and Reagan, but the difference with Trump is that they're not used to having someone who won't take their BS, they're so used to just ripping on conservatives and having them take the high road. Now we have a POTUS who punches back. So I don't care who it pisses off, if it needs to be said I WILL say it, and never hold back, never apologize. If you don't like it, block me. You'll be doing me a favor.

I mean this is just more of the same old identitarian conservative victim card crap. We've been divided because first the Left and now the Right are diving head first into identity politics and the Right, having chosen the white people as their race of choice are going to come out morally bankrupt and electorall ruined. Again, the Right is now playing identity politics and the victim card as much as the Left used to. The difference now is that Trump cannot laugh at himself. While the press loved Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr could actually take a joke, Trump throws a tantrum every time Alec Baldwin furrows his brow on SNL. Yes, Alec Baldwin is bad at playing Trump and yes Will Ferrell was kinder to Bush and Phil Hartman played a masterfully respectful and hilarious Reagan, they could take it, where is Trump with his famously thin skin cannot. 

 

It boils down to this: Principled Conservatives need to oppose identity politics wherever it lie. And we've got to sort it out in our own backyards before we start throwing rocks at the other guys. Trump is a poor leadership with poor executive skills, bad ideas, an ineffectual administration, and rhetoric fit to divide an entire nation. No conservative should ever feel forced to defend him and his antics simply because of the letter next to his name or the ideology he identifies as. Just like a man identifying as a woman is not a man, Donald Trump, simply for identifying as a conservative, is not a conservative. He never has been, not from the day he funded Democratic causes and paid for ads calling Reagan a failure and conman, and he never will be straight to the day he changes his party to Democrat on January 21st, 2021 after having left office as he felt he'd gone too long in one party, even that will probably be a record in staying in one party save for how long he was a Democrat until the mid 1990s. Then again the 2000s and well... you know the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@servo75 I respect your ability to make such a long and articulated opinion. But you also do not speak for all Conservatives nor do you have to feel as though you do. One can believe that both Trump is racist and "the squad" is anti-semitic as the same time. I believe that both the President and Omar, AOC and their ilk are chemically toxic for the American body politic. With that said let me address a few of your points.

You're probably right about the 95% thing. I'd put him on a D+ to C range personally. He's been subpar to poor in performance as far as I am concerned. He has a few saving graces and those shouldn't be denied, but on the whole he hasn't satisifed my expecations of what a good conservative administration should like like, he's barely even begun to do it and he's already on the eve of re-election season. Let it be known that I am likely even more conservative than you as I do not have any views that would be considered "very left wing" not close to it.

I do take grave issue here. The statements were grotesquely racist, among the most racist I've heard him say. And it's yet another point to what I am seeing in that he is using white identity politics to divide this nation for political gain in a manner we haven't seen as effective in over 50 years when it worked out real well for George Wallace in 1968. The term "love it or leave it" has serious racial history and connotation attached to it. We in America are absolutely allowed to criticise the nation and no you dont have to "love it" or get deported. And frankly as conservatives we really ought to know that the President can't define loving your nation. "Love it" is defined by Trump as supporting all his policies. Well I deplored Obamacare and Roe v. Wade and the Debt being doubled and our credit being downgraded and weak policy in Syria on the party of the Obama administration, but that doesn't mean because I didn't love it I have to leave it. The idea of "sending them back" is again dripping with racist connotation and undertones. I point you to this song to understand the longstanding context of the statement (Not sure what the video is, just listen to the words.) The idea that American citizens can be "sent back" simply because of their skin color is ridiculous. When I call Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib the anti-semites that they are, that is not be being racist, and yet I am still criticising a member of a minority group. This goes beyond simply criticizing a minority, it's attacking them as less American for their skin colors and beliefs. He calls minority nations shitholes and their immigrants rapists and drug dealers. He has a terrible record on criminal Justice (See Central Park case) and he continually tries to pander to the black vote in insulting ways. This is categorical racism. And do the Democrats have a tendency of over using the word? Yes. But does that mean that racism is somehow now tolerable when it is real and exists especially that it now has firmly planted itself in the White House? Hell no! It's our duty to stand up as conservatives and rout this out of our movement.

Here's a hot take: Both the President and the Squad have disqualified themselves from public service for how flippantly they disregard American legal conventions. You can believe both at the same time because they're both true. Let me be clear, simply because I don't stand for the President's racist rhetoric doesn't mean I #StandwithIlhan either. Again, Ilhan Omar is, like the President, a pock mark on the American political system. Both mass child separation and poor conditions and abolishing ICE for an open border are terrible policies. Running up giant deficits with an irresponsible and unpaid for tax cut plus dangerously burdensome Trade Wars as well as with a Green New Deal are horridly irresponsible. And yes, both threatenting to suspend the constitution and amending the 2nd Amendment by Executive Order as well as Socialist Healthcare are terrible infringement against our small government values. And sadly both the President and the Squad are no better than each other on conservative values.

The United States is a great nation where women and minorities are the best off in the world because they are Americans. America is without a doubt the greatest nation on the planet for the very reasons that both the squad and the President would see destroyed if they gained total power. Yes, police brutality exists and yes there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. So that's just true. But no there is no rape culture and you know what, we do kill black boys. We've been disproprtionately slaughtering black children in the womb since the 1920s when Margaret Sanger set up her Eugenics operation at Planned Parenthood. And yes, we also are killing them disproportionately on the street. Again, both parties led by the Squad and Trump are failing to solve the entirety of the issue. To tear down systemic black oppression is to teardown the welfare and abortion state as well as the unnaccountability of the Police State.

This is where you get off the rails my friend. Was not the Declaration of Independence a fundamental transformation of the colonies? The 13th amendment a fundamentral transformation of free labor in the nation? The 19th amendment a fundamental change in voting rights? The Civil Rights Act a fundamental change in equal opportunity and rights? Or even our participation in World War II a fundamental transformation of America into a global superpower? Good government must always be reforming itself, changing itself, into better government. So when President Obama said that I absolutely believe that what he was saying that America was going to be fundamentally transformed for the good. That a great racial barrier would be broken down and history healed. Of course, he failed to transform anything, and singlehandedly sat back and allowed race relations to suffer. At least while Rome burned he fiddled and didn't pour the gasoline like the current President. Again, America has fundamental issues and must be transformed into a nation of smaller government, healed of its social ills. There are problems with our nation and because I love it and because I love it for the potential of what American can be, I dare say you can NOT love something if you won't fight to change it when you see something going wrong. When I see abortion sky high, a godless culture, a rampant tax and spend regime, an administration caring not for civil rights or humanitarian issues, a government intent on stripping away ever last God given right, damn straight I want to see a fundamental transformation.

Yep, Far-Left Democrats are assholes. But here's a hint: The Republicans held hostage by Trump are little better

No it's bad vs. bad. No evil involved. There is no Satanist plot here. There's just a whole lot of bad policy and bad rhetoric from Ilhan Trump and Donald Omar or whatever their names are. And uh, yeah, I'd say "Making America Great Again" is pretty much just a giant call sign for fundamental change and transformation. Do you think people would have voted for him if he didnt campaign on massive change? Again, not a bad thing, I don't see your unnuanced and completely blanket view that change or transformations are uniformly evil. And no, the charges were not fabricated and it's pretty likely the President obstructed Justice, you're blinding yourself if you say nothing is here. If we go on an unbiased reading of the report and of the statements of our Intelligence Community (though the President has a tendency to trust foreign dictators over our own Intelligence Community) there is absolutely enough here to warrant further investigation and if Barr will continually use the DoJ for political obstruction purposes, Congress will just have to do it.

They're here because they have ideas that they think will make it better and so do a couple hundred thousand people in Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, and the Bronx too. They all have a right to a representative in Congress elected by the people. And while I think those people did in fact vote against their interest, they elected the four bozos they did. It's not a reasonable question whatsoever, no one told Donald Trump to "go back home to Germany" when he called out America for "stupid leadership" and "corrupt and dirty cities". Wait a minute.... didn't you just, several breaths ago, criticize American cities pretty heavily yourself? Or do cities not get counted in "real America" and you're free to criticize Democratic policies just not Republican ones? Because if you're criticizing Republicans you must hate America so we;re going to deport you. Which brings me to my next point, the President literally told them to leave and the crowd chanted for him to deport her and he let it happen, which as I've said, is tantamount to support as the President on the trail. They're trying to tear us apart just as much as the President is. (Again, I think both are tearing us apart a great deal, you're probably seeing a trend here)

I mean this is just more of the same old identitarian conservative victim card crap. We've been divided because first the Left and now the Right are diving head first into identity politics and the Right, having chosen the white people as their race of choice are going to come out morally bankrupt and electorall ruined. Again, the Right is now playing identity politics and the victim card as much as the Left used to. The difference now is that Trump cannot laugh at himself. While the press loved Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr could actually take a joke, Trump throws a tantrum every time Alec Baldwin furrows his brow on SNL. Yes, Alec Baldwin is bad at playing Trump and yes Will Ferrell was kinder to Bush and Phil Hartman played a masterfully respectful and hilarious Reagan, they could take it, where is Trump with his famously thin skin cannot. 

 

It boils down to this: Principled Conservatives need to oppose identity politics wherever it lie. And we've got to sort it out in our own backyards before we start throwing rocks at the other guys. Trump is a poor leadership with poor executive skills, bad ideas, an ineffectual administration, and rhetoric fit to divide an entire nation. No conservative should ever feel forced to defend him and his antics simply because of the letter next to his name or the ideology he identifies as. Just like a man identifying as a woman is not a man, Donald Trump, simply for identifying as a conservative, is not a conservative. He never has been, not from the day he funded Democratic causes and paid for ads calling Reagan a failure and conman, and he never will be straight to the day he changes his party to Democrat on January 21st, 2021 after having left office as he felt he'd gone too long in one party, even that will probably be a record in staying in one party save for how long he was a Democrat until the mid 1990s. Then again the 2000s and well... you know the story.

I'm quite impressed, @Reagan04. Although there are some notable point there I sharply disagree with, which I won't bring up at this particular point, all-in-all, that's the most admirable tract I've seen you post on this forum yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

@servo75 I respect your ability to make such a long and articulated opinion. But you also do not speak for all Conservatives nor do you have to feel as though you do. One can believe that both Trump is racist and "the squad" is anti-semitic as the same time. I believe that both the President and Omar, AOC and their ilk are chemically toxic for the American body politic. With that said let me address a few of your points.

You're probably right about the 95% thing. I'd put him on a D+ to C range personally. He's been subpar to poor in performance as far as I am concerned. He has a few saving graces and those shouldn't be denied, but on the whole he hasn't satisifed my expecations of what a good conservative administration should like like, he's barely even begun to do it and he's already on the eve of re-election season. Let it be known that I am likely even more conservative than you as I do not have any views that would be considered "very left wing" not close to it.

I do take grave issue here. The statements were grotesquely racist, among the most racist I've heard him say. And it's yet another point to what I am seeing in that he is using white identity politics to divide this nation for political gain in a manner we haven't seen as effective in over 50 years when it worked out real well for George Wallace in 1968. The term "love it or leave it" has serious racial history and connotation attached to it. We in America are absolutely allowed to criticise the nation and no you dont have to "love it" or get deported. And frankly as conservatives we really ought to know that the President can't define loving your nation. "Love it" is defined by Trump as supporting all his policies. Well I deplored Obamacare and Roe v. Wade and the Debt being doubled and our credit being downgraded and weak policy in Syria on the party of the Obama administration, but that doesn't mean because I didn't love it I have to leave it. The idea of "sending them back" is again dripping with racist connotation and undertones. I point you to this song to understand the longstanding context of the statement (Not sure what the video is, just listen to the words.) The idea that American citizens can be "sent back" simply because of their skin color is ridiculous. When I call Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib the anti-semites that they are, that is not be being racist, and yet I am still criticising a member of a minority group. This goes beyond simply criticizing a minority, it's attacking them as less American for their skin colors and beliefs. He calls minority nations shitholes and their immigrants rapists and drug dealers. He has a terrible record on criminal Justice (See Central Park case) and he continually tries to pander to the black vote in insulting ways. This is categorical racism. And do the Democrats have a tendency of over using the word? Yes. But does that mean that racism is somehow now tolerable when it is real and exists especially that it now has firmly planted itself in the White House? Hell no! It's our duty to stand up as conservatives and rout this out of our movement.

Here's a hot take: Both the President and the Squad have disqualified themselves from public service for how flippantly they disregard American legal conventions. You can believe both at the same time because they're both true. Let me be clear, simply because I don't stand for the President's racist rhetoric doesn't mean I #StandwithIlhan either. Again, Ilhan Omar is, like the President, a pock mark on the American political system. Both mass child separation and poor conditions and abolishing ICE for an open border are terrible policies. Running up giant deficits with an irresponsible and unpaid for tax cut plus dangerously burdensome Trade Wars as well as with a Green New Deal are horridly irresponsible. And yes, both threatenting to suspend the constitution and amending the 2nd Amendment by Executive Order as well as Socialist Healthcare are terrible infringement against our small government values. And sadly both the President and the Squad are no better than each other on conservative values.

The United States is a great nation where women and minorities are the best off in the world because they are Americans. America is without a doubt the greatest nation on the planet for the very reasons that both the squad and the President would see destroyed if they gained total power. Yes, police brutality exists and yes there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. So that's just true. But no there is no rape culture and you know what, we do kill black boys. We've been disproprtionately slaughtering black children in the womb since the 1920s when Margaret Sanger set up her Eugenics operation at Planned Parenthood. And yes, we also are killing them disproportionately on the street. Again, both parties led by the Squad and Trump are failing to solve the entirety of the issue. To tear down systemic black oppression is to teardown the welfare and abortion state as well as the unnaccountability of the Police State.

This is where you get off the rails my friend. Was not the Declaration of Independence a fundamental transformation of the colonies? The 13th amendment a fundamentral transformation of free labor in the nation? The 19th amendment a fundamental change in voting rights? The Civil Rights Act a fundamental change in equal opportunity and rights? Or even our participation in World War II a fundamental transformation of America into a global superpower? Good government must always be reforming itself, changing itself, into better government. So when President Obama said that I absolutely believe that what he was saying that America was going to be fundamentally transformed for the good. That a great racial barrier would be broken down and history healed. Of course, he failed to transform anything, and singlehandedly sat back and allowed race relations to suffer. At least while Rome burned he fiddled and didn't pour the gasoline like the current President. Again, America has fundamental issues and must be transformed into a nation of smaller government, healed of its social ills. There are problems with our nation and because I love it and because I love it for the potential of what American can be, I dare say you can NOT love something if you won't fight to change it when you see something going wrong. When I see abortion sky high, a godless culture, a rampant tax and spend regime, an administration caring not for civil rights or humanitarian issues, a government intent on stripping away ever last God given right, damn straight I want to see a fundamental transformation.

Yep, Far-Left Democrats are assholes. But here's a hint: The Republicans held hostage by Trump are little better

No it's bad vs. bad. No evil involved. There is no Satanist plot here. There's just a whole lot of bad policy and bad rhetoric from Ilhan Trump and Donald Omar or whatever their names are. And uh, yeah, I'd say "Making America Great Again" is pretty much just a giant call sign for fundamental change and transformation. Do you think people would have voted for him if he didnt campaign on massive change? Again, not a bad thing, I don't see your unnuanced and completely blanket view that change or transformations are uniformly evil. And no, the charges were not fabricated and it's pretty likely the President obstructed Justice, you're blinding yourself if you say nothing is here. If we go on an unbiased reading of the report and of the statements of our Intelligence Community (though the President has a tendency to trust foreign dictators over our own Intelligence Community) there is absolutely enough here to warrant further investigation and if Barr will continually use the DoJ for political obstruction purposes, Congress will just have to do it.

They're here because they have ideas that they think will make it better and so do a couple hundred thousand people in Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, and the Bronx too. They all have a right to a representative in Congress elected by the people. And while I think those people did in fact vote against their interest, they elected the four bozos they did. It's not a reasonable question whatsoever, no one told Donald Trump to "go back home to Germany" when he called out America for "stupid leadership" and "corrupt and dirty cities". Wait a minute.... didn't you just, several breaths ago, criticize American cities pretty heavily yourself? Or do cities not get counted in "real America" and you're free to criticize Democratic policies just not Republican ones? Because if you're criticizing Republicans you must hate America so we;re going to deport you. Which brings me to my next point, the President literally told them to leave and the crowd chanted for him to deport her and he let it happen, which as I've said, is tantamount to support as the President on the trail. They're trying to tear us apart just as much as the President is. (Again, I think both are tearing us apart a great deal, you're probably seeing a trend here)

I mean this is just more of the same old identitarian conservative victim card crap. We've been divided because first the Left and now the Right are diving head first into identity politics and the Right, having chosen the white people as their race of choice are going to come out morally bankrupt and electorall ruined. Again, the Right is now playing identity politics and the victim card as much as the Left used to. The difference now is that Trump cannot laugh at himself. While the press loved Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr could actually take a joke, Trump throws a tantrum every time Alec Baldwin furrows his brow on SNL. Yes, Alec Baldwin is bad at playing Trump and yes Will Ferrell was kinder to Bush and Phil Hartman played a masterfully respectful and hilarious Reagan, they could take it, where is Trump with his famously thin skin cannot. 

 

It boils down to this: Principled Conservatives need to oppose identity politics wherever it lie. And we've got to sort it out in our own backyards before we start throwing rocks at the other guys. Trump is a poor leadership with poor executive skills, bad ideas, an ineffectual administration, and rhetoric fit to divide an entire nation. No conservative should ever feel forced to defend him and his antics simply because of the letter next to his name or the ideology he identifies as. Just like a man identifying as a woman is not a man, Donald Trump, simply for identifying as a conservative, is not a conservative. He never has been, not from the day he funded Democratic causes and paid for ads calling Reagan a failure and conman, and he never will be straight to the day he changes his party to Democrat on January 21st, 2021 after having left office as he felt he'd gone too long in one party, even that will probably be a record in staying in one party save for how long he was a Democrat until the mid 1990s. Then again the 2000s and well... you know the story.

Fair enough, I'll just say a few things in rebuttal. I never said anything about anyone being deported, nor said that a person should not be allowed to criticize our country. Neither did Trump. But what ticked me off was NOT that you thought Trump's comments were racist. You're free to have that opinion and we can agree to disagree. I'm merely stating my case for why I believe they were not racist (though admittedly unwise) statements. What was truly at the heart of my post was your no-true-Scotsman assumption that no decent person could vote for Trump, and implying that I'm somehow "held hostage" to him (though I'm not a Republican) as if I can't think or make rational decisions for myself. I like to think of myself as a decent, albeit vastly imperfect, person, yet despite being a Cruz guy in 2016 and voting ultimately for Johnson, I have every intent of voting for Trump in 2020 because I think his good far outweighs any baggage and I saw only two Democrats on that stage who even remotely deserve my vote and neither one of them has any chance at nomination. I'm not going to defend Mr. Trump's personality or his words.  I wish he would tweet less, not shame people publicly, and focus more on his positive agenda instead of tweeting at every shiny object. He's uncouth, potty-mouthed, thin skinned, egotistical, switching parties, multiple marriages, affairs, bad business deals, etc, etc, etc. I grant you EVERY BIT of that. Here's what the left and never-Trump right cannot grasp: I... don't... care. He's obviously no boy scout, that's no newsflash, his voters have known that for decades (and the collusion/obstruction stuff is rubbish). But here's the thing: my income is up, my taxes are down, my retirement fund has a 15% APR this year, and we have at least a chance of getting a handle on the illegal alien crisis, plus not paying a penalty to the gummint for the "crime" of not having health insurance for half the year alone saved me $400! That's what I vote on, not some off-handed comments that in my opinion had to do solely with the squad's actions and statements rather than their skin color. Yes I cast my vote out of pure rational self-interest. Shocker, right? And I chafe at the idea that to criticize "people of color" is assumed to be racist by default. That's how the far left thinks, and perhaps I expected better from our side of the aisle. At the end of the day, we vote for POTUS not BFF. We've had a lot of "nice guys" who have been upstanding people and great family men, but horrible Presidents. VERY few vice-versa. If my choice is clean-cut vs. effective I'll choose effective every time. If my choice at the ballot box is naughty words vs. open-borders socialist utopia it's not even a decision! Can you HONESTLY say it's a tough choice for you?  Just posing a question. That's the reality of politics. You don't have to like the guy, you just have to hate his opponent more. Yeah it sucks but I don't make the rules. Dennis Prager put it best in 2016, as a choice between two doors labeled "MAN-EATING LION" and "MAYBE A MAN-EATING LION." The fundamental question IN MY OPINION as I stated is, "Well if we really ARE that bad, then I'm curious why you would WANT to be here." That's all I read into it, nothing more. Racism is a very serious charge and I require more evidence than mind-reading between the lines, "well he must really be thinking X because he said Y." Two more points: I never implied that anyone is told or forced to go anywhere, nor have I claimed to speak for all conservatives (in fact I'm actually more libertarian anyway). I was pretty clear that it was my own opinion that they were not racist comments, because to say so would imply that Trump only criticized them because of their skin color, which from what I see is clearly not the case. Trump's comments were made (right or wrong) solely from of their actions and words. I'll leave this with one thought: Couldn't one easily ask the same question to Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas Warren as well (or would that make it 1/1024 racist)? I think so. They've also made major criticism of our country and I'd ask them the same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis Prager gave us another great quote, which I can totally identify with and which sums up my opinion on supporting Trump.

"He was my 17th choice of 17 candidates. So I just want to make clear that I was not a Trump supporter, when there was a choice. There is no choice now. There is no choice. The only choice is four more years of left-wing rule in the United States. It would mean the end of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years or 30 years minimally."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Dennis Prager gave us another great quote, which I can totally identify with and which sums up my opinion on supporting Trump.

"He was my 17th choice of 17 candidates. So I just want to make clear that I was not a Trump supporter, when there was a choice. There is no choice now. There is no choice. The only choice is four more years of left-wing rule in the United States. It would mean the end of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years or 30 years minimally."

He wasn't 17th, I'd say he was pretty far from the top. My preferences in order were Paul, then Cruz, then Fiorina, then Christie (sorry I'm a native New Jerseyan). I even referred to Trump as a buffoon unfit for Presidency as late as mid-August. Ultimately I voted for Gary Johnson since hell, I live in a deep blue state that was pre-destined for Hillary anyway. But I have been pleasantly surprised, and to anyone who claims to be a conservative, I have to ask, what choice do you have? Sometimes you have to hold your nose and pull the lever, put rhetoric aside and think about who at least comes closer to your interests. Yeah it stinks, but I think it speaks more to our broken election system. We need more (or zero) parties, and voting reforms like ranked-choice voting so we're not always left with this choice. If we truly had a situation where there were 3-4 candidates all with a chance of winning, that would fix things real fast, but then you could easily run into a deadlocked Electoral College so we'd need a Constitutional amendment allowing for a runoff if no one gets to 270. We don't need a repeat of 1800 or 1824.

(not-so) fun fact: in the primary elections, out of all eligible voters, a TOTAL of 15% voted for Clinton and Trump combined. Let that sink in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Dennis Prager gave us another great quote, which I can totally identify with and which sums up my opinion on supporting Trump.

"He was my 17th choice of 17 candidates. So I just want to make clear that I was not a Trump supporter, when there was a choice. There is no choice now. There is no choice. The only choice is four more years of left-wing rule in the United States. It would mean the end of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years or 30 years minimally."

I have many R friends who can easily justify Trump votes based solely on the SCOTUS ramifications.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HonestAbe said:

I have many R friends who can easily justify Trump votes based solely on the SCOTUS ramifications.  

The politicized court appointments based on partisan spoils and patronage appointments that has sunk the credibility and sagacity of the Supreme Court and the very role it was intended to play down to yet another vile partisan game brinkmanship, with true integrity and impartiality of judgements be damned means that that elements would ALWAYS be a negative to me on any candidate's platforms and opportunities, and should be to ANYONE who respects integrity and justice in any way. That "SOLE positive" for Trump is actually, to me, by far, another negative, and another negative - in terms of judicial appointments being relevant in electoral campaigns as a hole - for the declining, corrupt, broken, unaccountable, divisive, non-transparent, and complacent U.S. political system as a hole. Obviously partisan judges appointed by partisan patronage for their political views is frankly disgusting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

The politicized court appointments based on partisan spoils and patronage appointments that has sunk the credibility and sagacity of the Supreme Court and the very role it was intended to play down to yet another vile partisan game brinkmanship, with true integrity and impartiality of judgements be damned means that that elements would ALWAYS be a negative to me on any candidate's platforms and opportunities, and should be to ANYONE who respects integrity and justice in any way. That "SOLE positive" for Trump is actually, to me, by far, another negative, and another negative - in terms of judicial appointments being relevant in electoral campaigns as a hole - for the declining, corrupt, broken, unaccountable, divisive, non-transparent, and complacent U.S. political system as a hole. Obviously partisan judges appointed by partisan patronage for their political views is frankly disgusting...

It’s been partisan patronage since the early 1800s. Nothing new 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

It’s been partisan patronage since the early 1800s. Nothing new 

That doesn't mean it hasn't been disgusting since the early 1800's, and it doesn't mean it should continue to be praised and lauded, and used as a reason to support candidates in elections. It's something that's a glaring in the integrity of U.S. Government and a stain on the credibility of the Supreme Court and it's role and purpose, and SHOULD really be cleaned up - not declaring that such a "culture of corruption," has been going on for long that no one should complete and it's magically become a matter of true integrity, and there is no actual problem with it. That way of thinking is highly flawed. In fact there's a name for it. It's properly called "Medievalist" thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@servo75 I'm sorry but I simply can't vote for a racist divisor like that. Your taxes are down sure but your debt is up and soon the price of goods will follow suit. Trump wasn't my 17th choice, he was my 18th, I'd gladly take Democrat Jim Webb over him. But honestly his moral repugnance and overt racism is something I cannot stomach. Hes not being called racist for attacking minorities, he's racist for using attacks targeted at minorities related to their minority status to divide them from his white base. He is identitarian in chief and we can't give.him another 4 years. Biden isn't for open borders or a socialist paradise and so to your point @Conservative Elector 2, behind one door is Trump the Man Eating Lion and behind the other is Biden the probably not Man Eating Lion. We've given him a shot, he's failed miserably, its time to tell him he's fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

relevant

burntheconstitution.jpg

You know, if I, myself, didn't buy into the myth of all the grand success, competence, ease-of-wealth, eloquence, and wealth that just roll in because one just happens to have a high IQ - a myth you proudly quoted, but I know, from experience, as someone who has a very high IQ score and did have such a cakewalk though life like you feel is INEVITABLE- if I didn't know such a myth was pure bunk, I'd HIGHLY doubt you had the high IQ you claim to have. Fortunately for you, I know very well that myth is just hooey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

You know, if I, myself, didn't buy into the myth of all the grand success, competence, ease-of-wealth, eloquence, and wealth that just roll in because one just happens to have a high IQ - a myth you proudly quoted, but I know, from experience, as someone who has a very high IQ score and did have such a cakewalk though life like you feel is INEVITABLE- if I didn't know such a myth was pure bunk, I'd HIGHLY doubt you had the high IQ you claim to have. Fortunately for you, I know very well that myth is just hooey.

My IQ is 144 as tested from when I was in Kindergarten. My dad graduated high school in 8 years and had high hopes for me, unfortunately I am somewhat an underachiever in academics (though still above-average, just no scholarships) but I excel in areas such as mental math and calculation, chess (rated over 2000 in under a year of play), memory, maps, athletic IQ (I was a great passer and ball-handler in basketball), mental toughness, investing and tons of other areas. I never said having a high IQ would grant anyone success or anything, and @vcczar could confirm (if he remembers) that I in fact said the opposite, in that a high IQ score (below 160) is basically worthless (he brought up a college professor who had an unusually low IQ score and I said something about despite having high IQ I would consider myself average intelligence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

My IQ is 144 as tested from when I was in Kindergarten. My dad graduated high school in 8 years and had high hopes for me, unfortunately I am somewhat an underachiever in academics (though still above-average, just no scholarships) but I excel in areas such as mental math and calculation, chess (rated over 2000 in under a year of play), memory, maps, athletic IQ (I was a great passer and ball-handler in basketball), mental toughness, investing and tons of other areas. I never said having a high IQ would grant anyone success or anything, and @vcczar could confirm (if he remembers) that I in fact said the opposite, in that a high IQ score (below 160) is basically worthless (he brought up a college professor who had an unusually low IQ score and I said something about despite having high IQ I would consider myself average intelligence)

But IQ is STILL not a guarantee of success, wealth, competence, or ease in life. A lot of those cherished 'child geniuses" grow into bitter, dissolute alcoholics. Did you know that? My IQ is very high, but I am not rich, my life has not been easy, and I do not have a top-tier, glorified profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

But IQ is STILL not a guarantee of success, wealth, competence, or ease in life.

I never said it was lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a quick google, it seems IQ scores are statistically correlated with higher levels of income.

For example https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/16/is-iq-a-predictor-of-success/

"[A real IQ test score result] is a strong statistical predictor of multiple future life outcomes - income, education level, health, even longevity."

This is different from a guarantee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

My IQ is 144 as tested from when I was in Kindergarten. My dad graduated high school in 8 years and had high hopes for me, unfortunately I am somewhat an underachiever in academics (though still above-average, just no scholarships) but I excel in areas such as mental math and calculation, chess (rated over 2000 in under a year of play), memory, maps, athletic IQ (I was a great passer and ball-handler in basketball), mental toughness, investing and tons of other areas. I never said having a high IQ would grant anyone success or anything, and @vcczar could confirm (if he remembers) that I in fact said the opposite, in that a high IQ score (below 160) is basically worthless (he brought up a college professor who had an unusually low IQ score and I said something about despite having high IQ I would consider myself average intelligence)

I'd also take the results of an IQ test from when you were in Kindergarten with a grain of salt, rather than throwing it around whenever you get the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I'd also take the results of an IQ test from when you were in Kindergarten with a grain of salt, rather than throwing it around whenever you get the chance.

IQ is so overrated, just like almost any standardized tests. The SAT is a joke. I've qualified for Mensa and I don't feel any smarter than the average populace. And of course too many people confuse intelligence, education, and wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, servo75 said:

IQ is so overrated, just like almost any standardized tests. The SAT is a joke. I've qualified for Mensa and I don't feel any smarter than the average populace. And of course too many people confuse intelligence, education, and wisdom.

I actually find myself completely agreeing with you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilentLiberty said:

I'd also take the results of an IQ test from when you were in Kindergarten with a grain of salt, rather than throwing it around whenever you get the chance.

I don't really throw it around, Poutine brought it up unrelated. Also IQ doesn't change as you age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I don't really throw it around, Poutine brought it up unrelated. Also IQ doesn't change as you age.

I don't think that's correct. If one took an IQ test while in the full throes of dementia, or other age-related malady, I"m pretty sure the IQ score would decrease. There's also other external factors that could result in a lower IQ score. Let's also factor in that one could probably score differently on the test even if taking the test multiple times on the same day. Fatigue, self-confidence, psychosis, and other often temporary handicaps can result in a misleading IQ score. Likewise, one could just be at a temporarily heightened state--a time of odd clarity that rarely occurs--at the time of testing. If anything, there shouldn't be a score, but a range. I don't mean the standard bracket range, but something closer to how in polling there is a margin of error. For instance, a 144 IQ, and based on the type of IQ test, and any other relevant factors, might lead to a 136-151 range, or something. Ideally, the IQ test would be scored annually, like a physical, with the margin adjusting based off consistency of performance. I'm sure you'd admit there are times you feel you are more cognitively alert and precise and times that you are not.  One could be a 144 IQ and consistent in their cognitive abilities--the margin of error is small. One could be a 153 IQ, but also cognitively erratic. In this case, the 153 IQ person might have a higher mental ceiling, but the 144 person might actually be brighter generally. 

Then there's also range vs specialization. Experience and child-rearing can also play a roll. I'm fairly sure a well educated 150 IQ child is going to perform better than a 150 IQ child that hasn't been exposed to anything beyond basic vocabulary or to the format of advance high school or college level mathematics. 

I think IQ must be malleable to a degree, and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that it is even a fixed number. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't think that's correct. If one took an IQ test while in the full throes of dementia, or other age-related malady, I"m pretty sure the IQ score would decrease. There's also other external factors that could result in a lower IQ score. Let's also factor in that one could probably score differently on the test even if taking the test multiple times on the same day. Fatigue, self-confidence, psychosis, and other often temporary handicaps can result in a misleading IQ score. Likewise, one could just be at a temporarily heightened state--a time of odd clarity that rarely occurs--at the time of testing. If anything, there shouldn't be a score, but a range. I don't mean the standard bracket range, but something closer to how in polling there is a margin of error. For instance, a 144 IQ, and based on the type of IQ test, and any other relevant factors, might lead to a 136-151 range, or something. Ideally, the IQ test would be scored annually, like a physical, with the margin adjusting based off consistency of performance. I'm sure you'd admit there are times you feel you are more cognitively alert and precise and times that you are not.  One could be a 144 IQ and consistent in their cognitive abilities--the margin of error is small. One could be a 153 IQ, but also cognitively erratic. In this case, the 153 IQ person might have a higher mental ceiling, but the 144 person might actually be brighter generally. 

Then there's also range vs specialization. Experience and child-rearing can also play a roll. I'm fairly sure a well educated 150 IQ child is going to perform better than a 150 IQ child that hasn't been exposed to anything beyond basic vocabulary or to the format of advance high school or college level mathematics. 

I think IQ must be malleable to a degree, and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that it is even a fixed number. 

 

It is malleable with some studies saying that it can grow up to 15 points in your life, but the point of an IQ test is to compare the individual's pattern recognition, memory, etc. in comparison with the rest of the population and in a controlled study where there are no external factors affecting the tester it should mostly be a fixed value throughout their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

It is malleable with some studies saying that it can grow up to 15 points in your life, but the point of an IQ test is to compare the individual's pattern recognition, memory, etc. in comparison with the rest of the population and in a controlled study where there are no external factors affecting the tester it should mostly be a fixed value throughout their life.

The malleability you mention and the qualifier “Should mostly” still contradicts “IQ doesn’t change as you age.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

It is malleable with some studies saying that it can grow up to 15 points in your life, but the point of an IQ test is to compare the individual's pattern recognition, memory, etc. in comparison with the rest of the population and in a controlled study where there are no external factors affecting the tester it should mostly be a fixed value throughout their life.

I had a sociology professor who asserted the IQ test can be a poor measurement tool in that it inherently favors the white male. I didn't really buy into what he was saying but maybe worth noting.

52 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I don't really throw it around, Poutine brought it up unrelated. Also IQ doesn't change as you age.

 You do throw it around. I've never seen someone mention their IQ as many times as I have seen you do in in my short time on the forum. Also yes it can change as you age, as does everything else in life, @vcczar also brought up several arguments I'd agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The malleability you mention and the qualifier “Should mostly” still contradicts “IQ doesn’t change as you age.” 

A rare exception doesn't break the rule.

19 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I had a sociology professor who asserted the IQ test can be a poor measurement tool in that it inherently favors the white male. I didn't really buy into what he was saying but maybe worth noting.

Whites are objectively more intelligent than African Americans, this is shown in school attendance, GPA, SAT scores, IQ (the average person in Mozambique's IQ makes them retarded), it's not a privilege, it's literal brain anatomy (and probably culture too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...