Date: March 28th, 2015 3:24 PM Author: Shimmering motley indian lodge
Objectively speaking? Dude was val of his high school, then was editor of like three journals including law review at HLS. Dershowitz said he was "off the charts brilliant."
I'm skeptical of credentials (especially from politicians) but it seems like he might be legit a tier above recent candidates.
Date: March 28th, 2015 3:30 PM Author: ungodly stage stock car
can we stop citing that dershowitz quote? he made that remark in the context of praising cruz for supporting israel, which is more than a bit self-serving.
Date: March 6th, 2016 7:11 PM Author: Misunderstood codepig
Obama might be--he's certainly very bright--but I doubt it. He had some meaningful breaks in life that didn't stem from his intelligence, unlike Teddy, to whom you can attribute intelligence in explaining essentially every break he's ever gotten.
Ditto for Jeb.
HRC failed the bar. Despite what the pansy faggots around here will tell you, you should be able to pass the bar w/o prep, so it's no excuse that she didn't/couldn't prep or whatever. I don't mean to say that everyone who fails the bar is a retard, but it does disqualify you from competition with Ted Cruz.
Date: March 28th, 2015 5:38 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
Cruz also has a remarkably low EQ, which is in part what leads to his extremism and which will ultimately be what indirectly dooms him as a POTUS candidate.
Date: March 28th, 2015 6:16 PM Author: Underhanded resort chad
You seem to be conflating "EQ", as you call it, & IQ here... Clinton by all accounts is one of the most charismatic people on the planet, and is obviously no dummy, but when you think of Clinton do you really think of RAW HORSEPOWER INTELLECT?
Date: March 28th, 2015 6:31 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
EQ is an important component of wisdom, and wisdom is an important part of applied intelligence. Applied intelligence is *by far* the most important version of intelligence for a political leader to have, and that's what this thread is about.
But even if you want to isolate RAW INTELLIGECTUAL HORSEPOWER, just look at the facts: He wasn't born with much social capital, but he has reached the pinnacle of power. That implies amazing strategic thinking abilities. He's a YLS and a Rhodes Scholar, which obviously implies outstanding analytical thinking abilities. And if you go back and watch footage of him in debates when he was in his prime, you'll see that he's sharp as a tack on his feet, which implies a pronounced ability to process information extremely quickly.
So yeah, I think he's a genius, even if you're just talking about RAW INTELLECTUAL HORSEPOWER.
Date: March 28th, 2015 6:48 PM Author: Underhanded resort chad
"... Leadership skills are the most important trait for politicians ... and even if you want to ISOLATE RAW INTELLECT.. look at the facts... he had enough charisma to rise to the pinnacle, which implies intellect!"
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:25 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
To be frank,
What papers have Obama and Clinton published that are noteworthy? What specifically demonstrates their intelligence? Are you this stupid to conclude their smarts based on speeches that were written by 28 year olds? How utterly dumb are you?
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:28 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
(Guy who thinks "publishing papers" is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement)
I would ask you to state your IQ before I engage you further, but (1) I can deduce a probable range from your responses ITT so far (see how that works?), and (2) I have no intention of engaging you further.
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:31 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
To be frank,
You list absolutely nothing to demonstrate their intelligence. Cruz has won five SCOTUS cases. You can read the transcripts of his arguments. What has Obama done? What demonstrates his intelligence? Be specific. Are you this utterly low IQ that you can't justify your opinion?
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:34 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
I'm sorry that the rigor of my proofs fails to live up your expectations, pumo. Although I have neither the time nor the inclination today to get into this with you--which you should feel free to interpret as an unmitigated substantive win--I would invite you to console yourself with the knowledge that your disapproval will undoubtedly haunt me late tonight when I finally lie down and try to sleep.
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:39 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
To be frank,
Why can't you justify your opinion with one link that demonstrates his intelligence? It seems like you're resorting to a cop out because you're too much of a shitlib to question your dear leader's intelligence. Why? Are you this much of a delusional hack?
not speaking for TBF here, but you have to be delusional to think he's just another AA dumb. i mean, see this letter he wrote in college to a white girl he was smashing:
"I haven’t read “The Waste Land” for a year, and I never did bother to check all the footnotes. But I will hazard these statements—Eliot contains the same ecstatic vision which runs from Münzer to Yeats. However, he retains a grounding in the social reality/order of his time. Facing what he perceives as a choice between ecstatic chaos and lifeless mechanistic order, he accedes to maintaining a separation of asexual purity and brutal sexual reality. And he wears a stoical face before this. Read his essay on Tradition and the Individual Talent, as well as Four Quartets, when he’s less concerned with depicting moribund Europe, to catch a sense of what I speak. Remember how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism—Eliot is of this type. Of course, the dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep fatalism, not ignorance. (Counter him with Yeats or Pound, who, arising from the same milieu, opted to support Hitler and Mussolini.) And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and death, which I touched on in my last letter—life feeds on itself. A fatalism I share with the western tradition at times. You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?"
insufferable maybe, but you at least know that was his original thinking. you can't ascribe ted cruz's scotus cases to just him, he had whole team. just like how sotomayer isn't smart just because she's a supreme court justice.
and most saliently, compare the way obama and ted cruz handle their campaigns. obama is a fucking juggernaut and ted cruz is making himself look like a complete joke. i say this as a reptile, tho i'm sure you won't believe me
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:42 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
Are you fucking serious with this? What exactly did you learn from his rambling? That writing is typical of any 20 year old shitlib's who uses the thesaurus too much to sound like a pretentious shithead.
Cruz argued the Supreme Court and won five cases. Just LOL at that liberal arts shit being anywhere comparable.
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:45 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
CR, that crap wasn't even SUBMITTED for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, let alone actually published in one. This shitlib hack is fucking done here.
Date: March 28th, 2015 10:05 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
Uhh, no. What kind of pretentious retard writes that to a friend? It's the product of someone trying to sounds smarter than he really is. Think of Reddit posts. Just LOL at you. Are you ESL? Do big words impress you?
nigger he was writing love letters to a white girl at columbia. presumably some flourish is excusable here.
he knew he had to cast the image of debonair, scholarly blackdood to cop white cunnus, and it looks like it worked for him, so who are u to talk shit?
anyway, everything he said makes complete sense, even if it could be tighter. but who cares if it's not tight? it's a throwaway letter, one of many. doubt he was editing that shit all night
ok i'm done talking to you genius, you couldn't even grasp what he was saying and you're hung up on the tone.
if we're gonna talk tone here, note how obama was able to get a nation of people to believe in HOPE&CHANGE, whereas everyone, even stormfront members, thinks ted cruz is a smarmy elitist douche
Date: March 28th, 2015 6:04 PM Author: Appetizing nudist nursing home
he had a middle class life, was not privileged
"Clinton" is not even his paternal last name. He was born William Blythe. His father died before he was born, and he later took his step father's last name (Clinton).
Date: March 28th, 2015 6:50 PM Author: Ultramarine space
i doubt it and the only way to measure someone's "objective" intelligence is by quantifying it through an IQ test, not listing the person's accomplishments. since we don't know what his IQ actually is, this is a retarded conversation.
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:30 PM Author: Boyish corner
To be fair,
lol @ thinking that Obama is "in the 115 IQ" range. That's slightly above average for undergraduates at flagship state schools. Yeah, that sounds right.
Some of you reptiles really are fucking delusional. While we're on the topic, is Obama a secret Muslim today, or merely a closeted homosexual athiest? I can never keep track, please enlighten me.
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:33 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
To be frank,
Prove that Obama has a high IQ. What paper has he published? He was a law professor wasn't he? Surely you can come up with a paper or two to demonstrate his intelligence. Why aren't you doing it?
Date: March 28th, 2015 10:20 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
Cite Obama's body of work that demonstrates his brilliant intelligence. One paper is fine. Do it. You do law, don't you? Who do you think has the burden here?
Date: March 28th, 2015 9:24 PM Author: adventurous faggotry juggernaut
tbf, he basically in 2011 decided to go all-in on the Tea Party. I'm not sure he was yapping like that before that, but I could be wrong. Someone might dig something up.
Date: March 28th, 2015 10:14 PM Author: ungodly stage stock car
cruz is fairly intelligent, but so what? the way he has applied his intelligence isn't very promising. he seems like a zealot who shamelessly appeals to GOP proles. i wouldn't want him in a leadership position over national affairs.
no. clinton will always be GOATPOTUS, because he is a tall charming chad with the ability to make WGs cum in panties with his prole accent and yale degree. looks, accent, virility.... far more important than anything else. see: the enduring mystique of the kennedys.
Date: March 28th, 2015 10:26 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
Is that all you have? Do you not see how the media destroyed Zimmerman? They're doing the same to Cruz because he holds NOT OKAY opinions. Do you law? Look at how Scalia is portrayed to the general public by shitlibs.
Date: March 28th, 2015 10:34 PM Author: chrome razzmatazz theatre
Yeah bro, you determined Obama is "brilliant" without anything to substantiate it. You're like a typical shitlib who resorts to talking points because you just "feel" it.