ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

*complains about passive aggressiveness, whilst posting a passive aggressive post*

In order for my post to be passive aggressive, you’d have to think I was talking about you.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

You should have seen that person's posts about the lab. Think this shit is passive aggressive? WHOA

Some of those posts were brutal. Probably got probated over and over.

But it was the same story, different subject.

The lab SUCKS! It should be removed.

And btw, if you disagree you suck and you are the most idiotic person and you should probably just shut your mouth until you grow enough sense to agree with me.

(I paraphrased an actual post from that person in that last sentence).

Seriously. Some people just can't help themselves.

Apparently you have some trouble understanding. I'll try to help a little bit.

You said,

"

kolyaboo wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:
The final judge will be history. History takes at least 10 years or so to digest a presidency.

That is why you cult people already consider Obama the GREATEST president since Washington? Has it been 10 years already?

-I never said Obama is the greatest president since Washington and I don't believe that Obama is the greatest president since Washington.
-I'm not in a cult.
-Nothing I have said contradicts my assertion that history takes time to digest a presidency. Perhaps you don't understand what the concept of a "final judgement" means?

I don't think you read anything I wrote, but that's OK I'm not fussed one way or the other.

Generally, when people say you in the plural sense it is not meant personally. Just so you know in the future and no longer say nonsensical things.

"Apparently you have trouble understanding" = "you do not share my pov therefore you are stupid"

You are doing the EXACT same stuff you did in the lab threads! Or do you have no memory of things you write?

Try some new material maybe. Just for fun. I am yawning here. Just like the lab complaint posts (all 4k of them although I stopped reading long before you hit that).

Lab is still in game and Trump is still Prez.

Whining didn't do anything.

I think it's easy to forget that Trump can't handle a joke.

The man pretends he is joking (most common excuse from the white house press secretary regarding something controversial he has said), when in reality he is too afraid to go and bomb during the annual White House Correspondents Dinner.

Joining such other notable presidents like Nixon, in not honouring free speech.

I wonder if Trump will say something nice about CNN, since CNN just fired some racist guy, for giving an anti-Semitic speech.

"

Khoranth wrote:

I wonder if Trump will say something nice about CNN, since CNN just fired some racist guy, for giving an anti-Semitic speech.

Probably if it comes up. he gives due credit when its due.

People like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers.

"

Ersatzdrummel wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Choose one:
1. Without significant intervention by Russians in the 2016 election, candidate Trump defeated the Clinton campaign fair and square in an electoral contest, while spending much less money than she did. This makes Trump almost certainly smarter than Hilary Rodham Felon, a former US Secretary of State and Senator.

It was an election, not an IQ-test. How could you miss that?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. With significant intervention by Russians in the 2016 election, candidate Trump managed to conspire with said Russians in such a manner that, even after more than a year and over $20 million of dedicated investigation, the Mueller probe has not yet discovered the evidence necessary to prove Trump's complicity. This makes Trump almost certainly smarter than Robert Mueller, a former Director of the FBI.

It is an investigation, not an IQ-test. How can you miss that?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Either way, he's almost certainly smarter than you, because you're probably not on the same level as Secretaries of State and Directors of the FBI.

I am not even slightly annoyed by this, knowing that you have obvious problems discerning different levels of intelligence, at least, where Trump is concerned.

First off, that's not very progressive. How wrongthink of you to suggest that IQ tests are a viable standard for the measurement of intelligence! May your time in the Ministry of Love be educational.

Second, although I'll readily concede that elections and investigations are not as broad as a standardised IQ test — which is in fact a battery of ten tests, measuring ten different categories of intelligence — I believe strongly that real-world practical challenges are always better indicators of potential than the theoretical implications of standardised testing. This is in part because, according to standardized tests, I'm exceptionally talented, borderline genius — 99th percentile plus in everything. But then I take a look at the 20 years of my life since and I don't see all that much intelligence in my choices, to be perhaps a bit too candid.

What I think is at the heart of your reply is essentially a semantic argument. If by "intelligence" you mean something akin to a D&D Int score — that is, defined such that mental strengths such as Wisdom and Charisma are decidedly NOT Intelligence — then I believe you can forever move the goalposts on me such that the mental skills tested by the tests here (election strategy or covering up a crime from investigation) always fall outside the boundaries of capital-I Intelligence. So I say: by "intelligence" here I specifically mean any or some type of mental (meaning: non-muscular) skill, of which there are various known kinds, and I don't mean any one of those kinds specifically — that is, the character with 12 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha is "smarter" than the character with 18 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha. Or to put it another way, we're not merely going to count the forms of "Intelligence" you like and ignore the ones you disapprove of.

I'm intelligent. Some people would say I'm very, very, very intelligent.