Just because one has the intelligence of a child doesnt mean they have the social skills or experience of a child. Intelligence isnt everything... Bottom line is that humans live in very different places, and evolutionarily, different environments lead to different outcomes.
We all understand what intelligence means. That doesn't make it any more plausible. Not to mention that the data in question is completely fraudulent. But even if we didn't know that, no one in their right mind would think these numbers are reasonable - it's bait for racists who will believe anything as long as it makes them come out near the top.
This is the sort of stuff that Trump supporters believe in. The table lists Equatorial Guinea as having an average IQ of 59, which is well below the cutoff for mental retardation. Think this through for a second - is there really a country where everyone is mentally disabled?
Any thinking person would be able to tell that's obviously not the case. And in fact we know it's not the case:
The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.
Just to be clear, I'm not condemning democracy just because of Trump specifically; both Trump and Clinton are ******* awful and each in their own ways show what a terrible election system we have.
In other words, other people like different candidates than I do, therefore the system is terrible.
Oh no i have somewhat of a grasp. Been low income at one point of my life. Guess what? I had an ID.
So if you had an ID, every poor person will also have an ID? That's not how that works.
I think you really dont grasp my point. If you are to poor to buy food you will attempt to get assistance from the government and that will require an ID. Unless you are some recluse that lives of the land in the middle of nowhere you are going to need some sort of ID 1 to 100 times in your life.
Or perhaps another member of your household has an ID, and they're the one who applies for assistance?
Then +1 free renewal each time it expires. You're missing the point - we make the ID free and only then require it for voting.
And what will be the requirements to be issued this ID? Are you just going to hand it out to everyone who comes walking through the door, with no other verification of their identity?
Wait what?!! poor people cannot afford a car?! No crap dude. Everything you listed is a worst case example. Those are a few examples I put out there.
If it's such a bad example, maybe you shouldn't have put it in your list?
All those poor people are poor to eat, drink, smoke, buy drugs, or live in some sort of house?
Are these supposed to be more things that require an ID? What is this list even?
Sure in some cases that is true but to act like just because you are low to no income there is no way you can obtain an ID.
If it's true in some cases, then requiring them to vote unconstitutional. Everyone has a right to vote - even the people who are the "worst case example".
While the double standards surrounding violence and the sabotage of the democratic system are certainly more important, let's not forget the way the left-wing power structure uses the media to harp on the mistakes of 3rd party candidates as well, while ignoring items like Hillary's Mosul Moment. You're probably not going to see the Times making a big deal out of that.
Ah yes, poor oppressed Gary Johnson. How dare anyone ever say anything negative about his fragile candidacy. No one ever says anything negative about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, so it's just so abjectly unfair that they would think to criticize Gary.
Being wrong about the position of Mosul is a bit different than looking like a deer in the headlights when asked about Aleppo, don't you think? Or being unable to name even a single world leader, and needing your VP to bail you out? Maybe if Hillary's response to the question had been "and what is Mosul?", he'd have a point. As it is, this sort of whining comes off as more than a little pathetic on Johnson's part.
So you`re poor. I bet you are getting government assistance. Gonna need an ID for that. You wanna go see a Dr.? Gonna need an ID for that. Drive a car? Wait for it... ID required. If you can not afford some sort of ID the state should pay for it.
You need an ID to apply for welfare, you do not need an ID to receive it. Many poor people have expired or otherwise no longer valid IDs.
I know this might come as a shock, but poor people can't afford to own a car, or see a regular doctor (they go to the ER if they have something serious, where they will be treated regardless of their ID situation). That's how being poor works. If these are your examples, I have to think you haven't really thought this through all the way.
Honestly, if there is an issue, I'd suspect it has more to do with election fraud rather than voter fraud. For instance, there's some interesting video testimony from a computer programmer who stated flat out that he had specifically created a program designed to electronically "flip the vote" in favor of whichever candidate the user wanted to win. Unfortunately, he died in a plane crash a few years afterwards, which could very possibly have been a retaliatory act for his testimony. As I recall, in specific instance it was alleged that the GOP was the beneficiary of the fraud, but honestly the fact that such programs exist should scare you, because again, if one party isn't above doing it, why would you think the other one is?
Is this a mashup of the Michael Connell and Clint Curtis conspiracy theories?
I'm not understanding why people are upset about the mere suggestion that our election process is actually free from corruption. We have evidence that clearly shows the Democrats aren't afraid to manipulate the electoral process, and one can only imagine the Republicans do similar things. We've seen countless times that the media has corruption issues and has both political and financial biases towards corporate candidates. Why, then, is it such a ridiculous suggestion that maybe the groups that stand to gain the most from election fraud in favor of certain candidates might actually be committing election fraud? Are we seriously too afraid to even question it, let alone discuss the issue? The way that the media is so casually dismissing the idea as crazy is somewhat disturbing to me.
What evidence do you think we have that "clearly shows the Democrats aren't afraid to manipulate the electoral process"?
Can you name some of these "countless times" that we've seen the media has "corruption issues"?
As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
You chose to put it in the list! No one forced you to write that. Me actually reading the items you chose is not "cherry-picking ridiculous things", it's YOU writing ridiculous things.
And rather than offer even a single word of defense of the truth of your assertion, you list off some completely irrelevant nonsense? Keep on Gish-galloping, I guess.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
A useful rule of thumb this election is: if Mormon, then consistently opposes Trump.
The Utah congressional delegation (all Mormons) is:
Senator Hatch - endorsed Trump, refused to rescind endorsement.
Senator Lee - opposes Trump. This is the guy Beck is talking about.
Representative Stewart - Opposed Trump in the primary, but said we should unite behind him to defeat Clinton once he won the nomination.
Representative Chaffetz - Endorsed Trump, rescinded endorsement after the tape.
Representative Love - Did not endorse Trump, but would not rule him out after the tape.
Representative Bishop - Supports Trump
At the state level we have:
Governor Herbert - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
House Speaker Hughes - enthusiastic trump supporter, did not rescind.
Senate President Niederhauser - difficult to find, seems to support Trump, but I can't find an exact statement.
There are also a few other Mormons at the national level:
AZ Senator Flake - opposes Trump
ID Senator Crapo - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
NV Senator Heller - opposes Trump
(also Reid and Udall, who are Dems and obviously oppose Trump)
NV Rep Hardy - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
ID Rep Simpson - opposes Trump
ID Rep Labrador - endorses Trump, did not rescind.
AZ Rep Salmon - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
FL Rep Clawson - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
(the last two are retiring, and so maybe haven't been pressured by voters to answer one way or the other)
So, among Republican Mormons in the US House and Senate, the score is:
4 (Lee, Flake, Heller, Simpson) opposed Trump consistently.
3 (Chaffetz, Crapo, Hardy) endorsed Trump but rescinded in the past few days.
3 (Hatch, Bishop, Labrador) endorsed Trump and explicitly did not rescind.
2 (Salmon, Clawson) endorsed Trump, have not been asked about rescinding.
1 (Love) seems to be on the fence.
So 4/13 consistently opposed Trump. If we add in the high-level Utah state level politicians, we have 4/16 consistently opposed Trump. This doesn't seem like a good rule of thumb to me. Even if we count the two Dems, the number isn't much better.
Yes, Mormon Republican politicians are more likely than the average Republican politician to have consistently opposed Trump. But not by as much as you might think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We all understand what intelligence means. That doesn't make it any more plausible. Not to mention that the data in question is completely fraudulent. But even if we didn't know that, no one in their right mind would think these numbers are reasonable - it's bait for racists who will believe anything as long as it makes them come out near the top.
Maybe you've been spending too much time in the tropics.
Any thinking person would be able to tell that's obviously not the case. And in fact we know it's not the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)
In other words, other people like different candidates than I do, therefore the system is terrible.
So if you had an ID, every poor person will also have an ID? That's not how that works.
Or perhaps another member of your household has an ID, and they're the one who applies for assistance?
And what will be the requirements to be issued this ID? Are you just going to hand it out to everyone who comes walking through the door, with no other verification of their identity?
So your point is that if you've got enough money to not starve, you also have enough extra money floating around to spend on an ID?
You really don't grasp how poverty works, do you?
If it's such a bad example, maybe you shouldn't have put it in your list?
Are these supposed to be more things that require an ID? What is this list even?
If it's true in some cases, then requiring them to vote unconstitutional. Everyone has a right to vote - even the people who are the "worst case example".
Ah yes, poor oppressed Gary Johnson. How dare anyone ever say anything negative about his fragile candidacy. No one ever says anything negative about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, so it's just so abjectly unfair that they would think to criticize Gary.
Being wrong about the position of Mosul is a bit different than looking like a deer in the headlights when asked about Aleppo, don't you think? Or being unable to name even a single world leader, and needing your VP to bail you out? Maybe if Hillary's response to the question had been "and what is Mosul?", he'd have a point. As it is, this sort of whining comes off as more than a little pathetic on Johnson's part.
You need an ID to apply for welfare, you do not need an ID to receive it. Many poor people have expired or otherwise no longer valid IDs.
I know this might come as a shock, but poor people can't afford to own a car, or see a regular doctor (they go to the ER if they have something serious, where they will be treated regardless of their ID situation). That's how being poor works. If these are your examples, I have to think you haven't really thought this through all the way.
Really, you think every single poor person has a valid ID?
You're still falling for O'Keefe videos?
Is this a mashup of the Michael Connell and Clint Curtis conspiracy theories?
What evidence do you think we have that "clearly shows the Democrats aren't afraid to manipulate the electoral process"?
Can you name some of these "countless times" that we've seen the media has "corruption issues"?
You chose to put it in the list! No one forced you to write that. Me actually reading the items you chose is not "cherry-picking ridiculous things", it's YOU writing ridiculous things.
And rather than offer even a single word of defense of the truth of your assertion, you list off some completely irrelevant nonsense? Keep on Gish-galloping, I guess.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
WaPo gives that lie four Pinocchios:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/25/does-huma-abedin-have-ties-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
If Clinton is so bad, why do you feel the need to pad your list with outright falsehoods? Or do you not bother to check?
The Utah congressional delegation (all Mormons) is:
Senator Hatch - endorsed Trump, refused to rescind endorsement.
Senator Lee - opposes Trump. This is the guy Beck is talking about.
Representative Stewart - Opposed Trump in the primary, but said we should unite behind him to defeat Clinton once he won the nomination.
Representative Chaffetz - Endorsed Trump, rescinded endorsement after the tape.
Representative Love - Did not endorse Trump, but would not rule him out after the tape.
Representative Bishop - Supports Trump
At the state level we have:
Governor Herbert - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
House Speaker Hughes - enthusiastic trump supporter, did not rescind.
Senate President Niederhauser - difficult to find, seems to support Trump, but I can't find an exact statement.
There are also a few other Mormons at the national level:
AZ Senator Flake - opposes Trump
ID Senator Crapo - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
NV Senator Heller - opposes Trump
(also Reid and Udall, who are Dems and obviously oppose Trump)
NV Rep Hardy - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
ID Rep Simpson - opposes Trump
ID Rep Labrador - endorses Trump, did not rescind.
AZ Rep Salmon - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
FL Rep Clawson - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
(the last two are retiring, and so maybe haven't been pressured by voters to answer one way or the other)
So, among Republican Mormons in the US House and Senate, the score is:
4 (Lee, Flake, Heller, Simpson) opposed Trump consistently.
3 (Chaffetz, Crapo, Hardy) endorsed Trump but rescinded in the past few days.
3 (Hatch, Bishop, Labrador) endorsed Trump and explicitly did not rescind.
2 (Salmon, Clawson) endorsed Trump, have not been asked about rescinding.
1 (Love) seems to be on the fence.
So 4/13 consistently opposed Trump. If we add in the high-level Utah state level politicians, we have 4/16 consistently opposed Trump. This doesn't seem like a good rule of thumb to me. Even if we count the two Dems, the number isn't much better.
Yes, Mormon Republican politicians are more likely than the average Republican politician to have consistently opposed Trump. But not by as much as you might think.