ladies and gentlemen, the president.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Maybe Trump could release his tax returns at the same time and prove he is more generous too. As well there are plenty of folks with high IQ who are morons

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Guilty as charged.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Why do I have a persistent nagging feeling that Trump is either lying outright about his IQ, or is relying on a number from a test in which he cheated?


Edit: Am I reading this right?

https://twitter.com/...s/676174398253068289

This is Trump, a long time pre-election, "boasting" that his IQ is 132.

Whilst a lot higher than I'd estimate it to be, that's nothing to boast about.

And here I thought we might hear something about the Iran nuclear deal, the threats from North Korea, the recovery in Puerto Rico or details on tax reform.

But, seeing who has the higher I.Q between Trump and Tillerson is important too...

Perhaps he thought it was scored out of 100.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

At some point I hope that Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly, and the other sane people in the admin have accepted that they are doing this for the good of the country.

These are very accomplished people. They do not need the income from this job. Why they continue to put up with this BS is interesting.

drn92

An even more likely explanation is that some sycophant lackey set up an IQ test for Donnie and made sure the result he go was "genius". Donnie is obsessed with his image to the point were he apparently gets a daily dossier with clippings of positive news stories and media photos of him looking 'powerful'.
He's the type of egotistical, vindictive and unrestrained person to whom you don't deliver the news that he has a 107 IQ. You tell him he's got a 169 IQ and that GQ was going to make him the "Sexiest Man of the Year" until Hillary rigged the voting so that some Hollywood liberal type won it.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Weirdly though not surprisingly Tillerson has been one of the better surprises of DJT's tenure

Nor surprising because he is a bloke that has worked his way to the very top of a huge business and broadly speaking dont get to do that if you are an idiot

Weird because he seemed quite a random pick for DJT - not sure the government was going to be big enough for both of them, i'd also guess RT does not suffer fools

Anyway, we know DJT will be smarter because he told us

Whilst a high IQ is not the only requisite for a good presidency - other requisites include self control, integrity, strategic thought, focus, self-accountability, respect for others, and charisma. Except for the last one, he lacks all these.

But even if he is a 132 IQ - that only 98% percentile. That would make him one of, if not the, least intelligent President in US history.
That means there are approximately 6,500,000 Americans that are more intelligent than him. Pretty much every decent sized high school has a dozen kids and teachers who are brighter than him. Heck, about 500,000 illegal / undocumented immigrants in the USA are more intelligent.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

What I don't understand is how Trump undermines himself. Tillerson works for Trump. It's Trump's job to tell his employee, "Take approach X on North Korea." And if he doesn't take that approach, then either fix it in private, or get a new employee. Trump makes it sound like he has little to no influence or authority over his employee.

With respect to intelligence in general, which, is, of course, a sideshow, Trump used to sound intelligent and articulate. At least "average." Now he just repeats a small set of catch-phrases and sentences over and over, and wanders from topic to topic, showing little attention span. I don't know if that's an affectation or he's actually changed. But it's weird, and a little scary.

He never sounded intelligent.

FYI - for the ball washers. That does not mean he is not intelligent, he just never sounded it.

Equally of course it may be he is exactly what he appears to be.

I would honestly be less worried about attempting to determine his intelligence than understandinf if the randomness is a strategy or more indicitive of a cognitive impairment problem

This sounds like the beginning of a beautiful tweet storm.

---

Live long and surf!

That would make him one of, if not the, least intelligent President in US history.

If he has an IQ score of 132, I seriously doubt that would make him one of the least intelligent presidents in history. I don't especially trust these kinds of estimates, but:

https://www.usnews.com/...s-in-the-oval-office

If he has an IQ score of 132, though, the question is why he's such a moron.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If he has an IQ score of 132, though, the question is why he's such a moron.

The other question being why do we put any emphasis on IQ scores...

I'm sure they have their place, but yeah.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'd like to think it's part of a good cop / bad cop routine.

"Trump used to sound intelligent and articulate. At least "average." Now he just repeats a small set of catch-phrases and sentences over and over, and wanders from topic to topic, showing little attention span."

He has a very limited vocabulary but at one time was far more articulate. A number of people who study this stuff have wondered about his brain health.

https://www.statnews.com/...ng-style-interviews/

Even worse is his argument: I have a high IQ, therefore my voters must as well.

That is what I keep hoping.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

To be fair, Trump did not say HE would win. He just knows who would.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

https://lm.facebook.com/...6ium3wydWVxA&s=1

Id pay to see this!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

    There's been a lot of stupid and juvenile that has come out of Trump, but this episode may be the winner so far.

With more yet to come? I'm a guessing we ain't seen nuthin' yet. After all, its only been nine months.

More like there are plenty of people with high IQs who are not well educated and/or lack "common sense". Likewise, there are plenty of people who are very well educated with middling IQs.

Here's the flip side: about 320,000,000 Americans have a lower IQ. My perception is that Trump and/or his campaign managers were highly aware of this and pandered accordingly. Hillary very well may have gone "high" during the campaign and that was her undoing. Tailoring your message to well-educated and intelligent voters is not a statistically sound approach. BTW I'm not being facetious or trying to troll.

A more scary possibility: maybe he's not a moron. Maybe his approach to governance is a form of political Aikido. It's either that or we're now having to confront one of the downsides of democracy.

Indeed...

https://www.nytimes.com/...weet-liddle-bob.html

The stupid that just keeps giving.

And today after Trump incorrectly accused Corker of being played by the NYTimes by being recorded ( when Corker checked with the reporter to make SURE the interview was being recorded), Sarah Huckerby Sanders actually had the gall when asked about the tweet to say (without irony), "The Senator is allowed to have his opinions but not his facts."

How long before she, like Spicey, is on the talk show circuit laughing it all off as just doing her job and trying to regain a semblance of her credibility?

A more scary possibility: maybe he's not a moron.


No, he's a Moran.

More on the meeting after which reportedly Tillerson called Trump a moron:

https://www.nbcnews.com/...tary-leaders-n809701

According to the report, Trump was shown a graphic of the number of US warheads (peak 32k, current 4k) and he said we should get back to the peak level. So, if true, not technically a tenfold increase, rather an eightfold increase, but pretty close.

And in response to the story above, Trump just tweeted:

"Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a "tenfold" increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!"

and

"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!"

...so now he's threatening the freedom of the press?!

Revocation of a broadcast license is not infringing on freedom of the press.

The internet (and cable tv) are chock full of news outlets that do not have a broadcast license, not to mention an almost infinite amount of printed news.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Uh-huh.

Yup.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Wait, what?

Yes seems like this is going to go on throughout, or worsen. There's the real chance he's slipping into dementia, like Ronnie.

You read that right.

You, I, nbc, the thousands of you tubers, etc do not need a broadcast license to deliver news.

Is there something about that you don’t understand?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

While by the absolute technical letter of the law, you may (may) be correct, there isn't a court in the country that would uphold a president revoking the broadcast license of a news corporation because he wants them to broadcast different news. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Maybe if you add a couple together, you'd get to around 130 or so?

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

The logical end point of that argument is that so long as (say) NBC has some means to deliver news (eg carrier pigeon, direct mailshots using USPS, something else), there is no infringement of the freedom of the press if every other channel of communication (eg broadcast, internet, radio) are removed from it.

You don’t need a license to deliver news over the internet.

In other words, you don’t need a broadcast license. They are essentially obsolete.

And for the record, I think revoking nbc’s license is a horrible idea and don’t support it in any way.

But to say that it would take away their right to freedom of the press is absurd.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Exactly: your point is that there are other dissemination channels available so taking one away doesn't matter. But when you take one away, you curtail a freedom, so it does matter.

You keep qualifying your statements like this then your title of Trump's ballwasher may be reduced to JSA ballwasher.

You are not curtailing a freedom by revoking a broadcast license. I don’t have one. Are my first amendment rights being denied?

Does the constitution require the government to issue broadcast licenses to everyone who wants one?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I don’t think the government should issuing broadcast licenses at all. And now, in 2017, they obsolete anyway.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

if you don't see anything wrong with the president threatening NBC's broadcasting license then you really are the Ball Washer In Chief.

If you take away their liscence because you dont like what they say, then you are absolutely infringing on their speech. Youre whole argument is changing "infringing" to completely blocking , which is a tad dishonest.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The right question would be "If I have a broadcast licence, are my FA rights being infringed by its (unjustified) revocation?".

The criteria for grant of the licence also aren't relevant. Trump isn't suggesting that he is going to grant a broadcasting licence. He is suggesting revoking one. Now I don't know for sure, but I am pretty confident that the basis for not renewing, or revoking an FCC-granted broadcast licence is not "The President doesn't like what you say about him in your news programmes".

Holy shit. And you guys are saying Trump is dumb.

I see plenty wrong with it and it’s likely that there is no legal basis to revoke the license in this instance.

Maybe you can understand it this way...

You have a government issued driver license. You don’t have a constitutional right to that license even though you do have a right to move around as you wish. The government can revoke that license but they have the have a legal basis for doing so. They can’t take it away because they don’t like what you say or the music you play while driving.

But in the end you do not have a constitutional right to a driver license.

In the case of NBC, it doesn’t appear that there is a legal justification to revoke their license. But doing so (legally) does not infringe on freedom of the press any more than the fact that you not having a broadcast license infringes on yours.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Do you have a broadcast license?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Why do you bother? They don't understand becasue it doesn't jive with their agenda.

ok, so you're just trying to be a pedant. got it.

so what do you think of the president threatening to take away NBC's broadcasting license?

If you don’t have a legal justification to revoke a license then you don’t have a legal justification.

If your driver license it taken away illegally it’s not a violation of your right to move around as you wish. It’s just an illegal taking of the license.

You can still take the bus.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No and thats an irrelevant red herring. If i had one, and the president ordered it revoked because i criticized him, that would be an infringement of my rights, REGARDLESS if i could still publish a website.

Do you know what infringe means?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I’m being correct.

Also, in the interest of being correct it is individual tv and radio stations that each hold their own licenses, not NBC.

As for Trump threatening to revoke, it’s idiotic and dangerous because his “justification” is that he doesn’t like what was said and a man in his position shouldn’t be so cavalier with threats like this.

I said the same thing essentially about his suggestion to fire NFL players for kneeling. In fact I started a whole fucking thead about it.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

There may we’ll be a complaint that the broadcast licence is revoked unlawfully. But that would be in addition to infringement of the FA right, not instead of it.

Since there isn’t a constitutionally protected right of freedom of movement I don’t think the driver’s licence analogy takes us anywhere.

You do, OTOH, have a right to bear arms which is constitutionally protected. Let’s say you need to be granted a local permit to exercise that right. If the President were to say “Hey Duffy, I don’t like your swagger. I’m revoking your gun permit”, you’d be complaining that the revocation was unlawful *and* that precisely because of that your SA rights had been infringed.

Constitutionally it does NOT mean “revocation of a government issued license”.

The government does not dole out rights. Anything given to you by government (a license) is not a right.

Do they need a legal basis to revoke a license? Yes.

That basis is found in the license agreement, not the constitution.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ah, that's better. Glad we got there in the end. Now can I have those bits of my life back you just wasted? ;)

There is no constitutional right to a broadcast license.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

You didn't answer the question. What does infringe mean?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;

There’s nothing in the constitution saying the government shall issue broadcast licenses so revoking a broadcast license does not infringe on a constitutional right.

It may infringe on a legal protection, depending on the justification for revoking the license.

If you applied for a broadcast license and your application was denied, would you have been denied 1st amendment rights?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

So I guess people should be punished if they spread false rumors, right?

Holy shit man you're attempting to introduce irrelevant hypotethicals.

Just because they would have other routes available to them, Does not mean their rights were not infringed.

If I parked in front of bobs driveway, I would absolutely be blocking bobs path even though he could drive through his yard to get to the street . That's the same argument we're having here but you keep insisting That bob wasn't blocked because he could still drive-through yard.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I believe that the requirement to get a permit to own a gun is a violation of my 2a rights, just like the requirement to get a permit to express my political opinions would be a violation of my 1a rights.

I don’t believe that a requirement to get a permit to use a publicly owned shooting range is a violation of 2a just like the requirement for broadcast license isn’t a violation.

If the government revoked my permit to use a publicly owned shooting range that doesn’t mean they violated my right to keep and bear arms. I just can’t shoot at The People’s Gun Club.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

There’s no constitutional right to a broadcast license.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Correct and absolutely irrelevant.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Actually that’s the whole fucking point.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No its not. They would be infringing on speech currently available to them simply because they dont like it. The fact that they can have another option is irrelevant to the fact that they have been infringed.

If a defender holds the hand of the receiver, its still pass interferrence if the receiver manages to catch the ball. Likewise, its infringement on speech even if the speaker manages to broadcast their message in another way.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Good thing, since NBC doesn't have a broadcast license.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6449457#p6449457

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Broadcast licenses are held by local TV affiliates that broadcast the network's production. For example - San Diego's KVWN channel 4 hold the FCC licence to broadcast at a given frequency and power. If it's affiliated with NBC, it will play the NBC Nightly News in the evenings and Saturday Night Live on the weekends.
And these broadcasts either lampoon the president or, even more damaging, simply report the crazy, stupid things the President actually says and does.
"You stay classy, Donald Trump"

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Yeah, well, I can't make it any fucking simpler for you. Maybe try to focus on the point instead of introducing irrelevant and unhelpful distractions.

The last two pages of this thread have been incredibly entertaining.

Duffy vs. the deranged.

Except Duffy eventually agreed with me after we'd finished his little circle jerk.

Back to the original topic though, I read that Mensa had offered to conduct the Trump v Tillerson IQ show down. It would be great entertainment. The best!

Even though your assessment is bullshit because Duffy's position was incorrect and unrealistic despite being technically accurate in some very narrow ways, your gif is adorable. So I'll give you that.

Ok. How’s this for simple...

There is no constitutional right to a broadcast license.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Here is what the FCC says they can do relating to complaints including fake news. The question have they ever actually done anything, i.e. sanctions when they have confirmed intentional false reporting?

https://www.fcc.gov/...broadcast-journalism


Complaints About Broadcast Journalism
[/url]
Español
The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints from consumers about whether networks, stations, news reporters or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news presentations, fail to cover certain events or cover them adequately, overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of news events. Other complaints are received regarding the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news.
The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope and the Commission is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.
What can the FCC do?
The FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary. However, the FCC does regulate content in some narrow areas. Federal law prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language as defined by U.S. courts. Also, the FCC may issue penalties for knowingly broadcasting false information.
What responsibilities do broadcasters have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.
What if I have comments or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary?
All concerns or comments about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed to the local station and network involved, so that the people responsible for making the programming decisions can become better informed about audience opinion.

What’s funny is that they are arguing that corporations have constitutional rights (and I’m fairly certain these same people would disagree with citizens united ruling).

I’ve also read some of these posters saying things to the effect that the second amendment should only apply to muskets. Using that same logic, freedom of the press should only apply to pen and ink written on hemp paper.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Good points.

Also, NBC still does not have a broadcast license subject to Trump's threats.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6449457#p6449457

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Once again, the stupidest post of the day goes to Old Hickory.

Congrats

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Revocation of a license by the govt, solely because the govt doesn’t like what you broadcast could very definitely be a first amendment violation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Agreed, but again, NBC doesn't have a license to revoke because NBC doesn't itself broadcast.

It's an empty threat on every possible level.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, he didn’t just make the threat against NBC, but I agree it was a mostly toothless threat.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

NBC and the other networks, I think.

I don't know what's worse- the fact that the president would make a threat like that, or the fact that he doesn't understand how the system works well enough to know it's meaningless. (Or the fact that a lot of other people, including Congress critters, seem equally ignorant. Or the likelihood that I'll see lots of Trump supporters saying that NBC's license should be revoked because it's fake news.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb