Post that crap in the Hillary thread
I agree there. He should be punished, possibly a demotion too. Being fired seems too much IMO.He behaved recklessly by sending these messages and what makes it even more stupid was that the messages were sent on government issued devices. He wasn't some level employee but a senior ranking official who should have known better.
Even the former law inforcement officials on CNN are saying the conduct of Strzuk has damaged the reputation of the FBI.
I’m glad somebody did. He’s been missing from that tomb for years.That was before he found Jesus!
It’s a tempAhw Vancouver was banned? He was like an ironic confirmation that Trump is a moron. The fact that said irony is lost on him made it even better.
So any chance this foundation stuff might actually harm Trump? I just can’t see it impacting him in a real way at this point.
Ahw Vancouver was banned? He was like an ironic confirmation that Trump is a moron. The fact that said irony is lost on him made it even better.
So any chance this foundation stuff might actually harm Trump? I just can’t see it impacting him in a real way at this point.
Got a link?Hillary just owned Drumpf so hard that John Roberts has no choice but to have the orange cheeto arrested and make her president!
Hillary just owned Drumpf so hard that John Roberts has no choice but to have the orange cheeto arrested and make her president!
Why did Bernie lose to her then?
Trump did quite well amongst well educated people, if that’s any vague indication of IQ. He didn’t get voted in by idiots.
Insulting the intelligence of conservatives didn’t work so well last time around. It’s as though we learned nothing in the analysis of the election aftermath.
Trump did quite well amongst well educated people, if that’s any vague indication of IQ. He didn’t get voted in by idiots.
Insulting the intelligence of conservatives didn’t work so well last time around. It’s as though we learned nothing in the analysis of the election aftermath.
He did not. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
I am not insulting the intelligence of conservatives, I am judging Trumpites by the actions and words of Trump, the man they have chosen to follow.
IQ=/=Decency or a well rounded, rational moral center. Most serial killers and successful despots were likely of above average intelligence.
College educated whites were the people that put Trump in the position where he is today.
Why do you believe that?
Breakdown of votes in 2016 US Presidential election:
High School or Less: Trump 51% > Clinton 45%
Some college (no degree): Trump 52% > Clinton 43%
College Graduate: Clinton 49% > Trump 45%
Postgraduate: Clinton 58% > Trump 37%
Trump ONLY beat Clinton among those without a college degree. Clinton beat Trump in both categories of 'higher education'.
When you break it down to just whites, the split is even more stark:
Whites without college degree: Trump 67% > Clinton 28%
Whites who graduated college: Trump 49% > Clinton 45%
I'm just curious why there's this belief that Trump won because of educated whites. It's simply not true. He won because of uneducated whites. By an absolute landslide. If you include all races, he didn't win a single category who graduated college.
Now intelligence absolutely is not measured by degrees, however I'd strongly argue that if the majority of educated votes in a country as big as the US vote one way, it's probably the more INFORMED choice.
Face it, loads and loads of Trump voters did not vote based on issues, facts, policies or anything past their 'gut' - which was almost entirely formed from watching US pravda.
We had this 5 pages back.
From the 538 article you quoted, and note the locales mentioned:Your last statement is simply not true. Below are a few examples that non-educated white voters were a massive thrust for Trump (in fact, those with college degrees actually moved slightly towards Clinton):
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/11/01/441926/voter-trends-in-2016/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
From the Pew article:High-income, medium-education white counties shifted to Trump
Rich white people, who mostly would grade above average in intelligence and education if not in morality, determined this outcome.Among whites, Trump won an overwhelming share of those without a college degree; and among white college graduates – a group that many identified as key for a potential Clinton victory – Trump outperformed Clinton by a narrow 4-point margin.
No no no. It's a numbers game. Yes, in certain counties things switched. And yes, Trump carried educated white males by a small margin. But overall, if you picked an 'average' Trump voter vs. 'average' Clinton voter, Trump's are the uneducated.From the 538 article you quoted, and note the locales mentioned:
From the Pew article:
Rich white people, who mostly would grade above average in intelligence and education if not in morality, determined this outcome.
From the 538 article you quoted, and note the locales mentioned:
From the Pew article:
Rich white people, who mostly would grade above average in intelligence and education if not in morality, determined this outcome.
No no no. It's a numbers game. Yes, in certain counties things switched. And yes, Trump carried educated white males by a small margin. But overall, if you picked an 'average' Trump voter vs. 'average' Clinton voter, Trump's are the uneducated.
I guess it's semantics. You're arguing about, say 1-2% of voters who 'swung' the election to Trump. I'm arguing about the 38% of Americans that represent his actual voting block. Who are, relatively, uneducated.
From the 538 article you quoted, and note the locales mentioned:
From the Pew article:
Rich white people, who mostly would grade above average in intelligence and education if not in morality, determined this outcome.
The biggest drive behind Trumps win is racial resentment. His policy is split and divide. Us vs them. Etc.
1-2% of the electorate, mainly in the upper Midwest, did swing the election to Trump. The rest of the voting block is baked in.No no no. It's a numbers game. Yes, in certain counties things switched. And yes, Trump carried educated white males by a small margin. But overall, if you picked an 'average' Trump voter vs. 'average' Clinton voter, Trump's are the uneducated.
I guess it's semantics. You're arguing about, say 1-2% of voters who 'swung' the election to Trump. I'm arguing about the 38% of Americans that represent his actual voting block. Who are, relatively, uneducated.
I'll try a couple more ways: some well educated white Americans voted for Trump. The majority who voted for him are relatively not well-educated.1-2% of the electorate, mainly in the upper Midwest, did swing the election to Trump. The rest of the voting block is baked in.
It’s not semantics; it’s the crux of the issue. These people aren’t idiots.
I love how both the EU and the Chinese know to hit back right in Trump-country. And then I cry because that makes those poor soon-to-be-unemployed Trump voters somehow MORE likely to vote for the GOP in November.Back in the present day with stuff about, you know, what this thread is about hint hint go to the election thread if you want to rehash that again again again.
EU to put tariffs on motorcycles, bourbon and blue jeans.
http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-tariffs-4072188-Jun2018/