bcking

My wife is looking for jobs (there aren't many in her sector right now), though she isn't quite sure what would happen if she gets one. The visa in the passport is technically a "Green card" (A temporary one that is good for a year), but without an SS number not sure how the company would pay her. 

Glad we got here in the end.
 
This thread was made with the purpose of insulting a single person and her constituents. The single person I have less of an issue with because she chose to get into politics, and politics is never nice. Extending the insult to the people that vote is not okay. My original comment was made in direct relation to that. 
 
It happens a lot on these forums. Insults thrown at Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, Left, Right etc... Even this childish "TDS" thing thrown around lately. None of it makes for any intelligent discussion. It only serves to reflect poorly on those that do it.

I didn't mean to suggest that I liked that as a marker for intelligence, nor do I like IQ tests. However it is literally all we have.
 
How does the OP subject tell us anything really about the intelligence of an electorate? It doesn't. Just like we know nothing about the intelligence of the Trump electorate. We make assumptions based on our opinions.
 
It's insulting to suggest it for either group yet here people seem fine to do it with one, but not the other.

Another great example of hypocrisy. Pot calling the kettle black I think.
 

 
Sorry I just can't help myself. You're providing great entertaining. I'm pompous? Then what are you? Seriously you can make this up. You only make it worse.
 
 

You aren't name calling but you seem perfectly fine avoiding calling out one person for an insulting generalization, yet call me out for literally the exact same generalization.
 
The hypocrisy isn't in your own actions or words, but in your inconsistency in action again others.

How convenient you don't want to talk about it anymore...
 
There's a word for this...starts with h...
 
Believe me I would love if these forums were up to your "standards" that you claim here...but unfortunately it just never is. Most threads start with some offensive remark or generalization.

How is that different than my statement?
 
He said she got low IQ people to vote for her, I said Trump had the Monopoly on that. We both made wild generalizations and assumptions. That was my whole point.
 
Why apply your standards inconsistently?

Is the statement that she found enough low IQ people not a wild a** foolish claim?

I'm mostly joking around since I realize there is very little evidence in either direction for this question. First off, the utility of IQ to measure intelligence is certainly questionable, and secondly no one has ever included IQ in any exit poll or survey of potential voters (for obvious reasons).
 
The only thing we have that is even close is level of educational attainment, which in 2016 showed that a majority of college-educated people backed Clinton (I think it was around 10 point margin) and Trump easily won the "White non-college educated" demographic. I think the only question was college or no (or some college?). I realize that level of education does not equal intelligence (nor does IQ, in my opinion), but to my knowledge it's all we have from voter demographics that even remotely relates to this topic.
 
At the end of the day it is completely baseless claim so I figured if one person wanted to claim it, I might as well also. While we're at it, I hear Trump also controls the mindless zombie demographic, as well as the "People who eat babies" demographic. I've heard it somewhere, so I'll just repeat it. Maybe it'll catch on if I say it enough times, and if it catches that is basically the same thing as the "truth" right? Just learning from President Trump.
 

I also don't know how she found enough low IQ people...
 
Trump seems to have taken that whole demographic.
 

I think too highly for you to think you are being truthful, so we can just wink and nod.
 
It's so blatantly transparent that essentially everyone can see these types of threads for what they are. The problem is many people here, mods included, are complicit by saying nothing about it.

This thread was a thinly-veiled attempt to bait people into complaining or arguing. The article has nothing to do with collusion. You are well aware of that, and are intentionally trying to draw out discontent.
 
As I said before. Large part of the problem here.

I'm not talking about you specifically, you aren't the only one. 
 
That being said it's funny you seem to assume it's all about you. Seems you are well aware of how you behave here.

Somehow we've managed without spending billions on a giant wall

I'm usually not that kind of doctor, I find it wasteful.
 
People love to come up with a long differential and in medical school and residency you are rewarded/encouraged for thinking of the most obscure diagnosis. It tends to lead to "over testing" and "over diagnosis", which is a large contributor to waste in the healthcare system.
 
You need to have respect and admiration for zebras, but also remember that in the US you are far far far more likely to encounter a horse in the wild.

New York and California have a lot more representatives in the House, so they have "proportionately" more say there.
 
I have a bigger issue with whether the representatives in the House truly represent a fair breakdown of people in their states (Gerrymandering).

That's the assessment I get from my wife and everyone we speak to across the pond.
 
I remember the most entertaining taxi drive I've ever had was when a commuter train I was on from London to Reading had to stop because of lightning hitting the tracks. I shared a taxi with 2 other people (3 including the driver). We were all from different countries (The three of them from different European countries. One UK, one France and I forget the other). This was like a month before the 2016 election. It was hilarious. They genuinely did not understand how there were that many Americans that would support Trump to get him even to become a legitimate candidate. A lot of adjectives were thrown around, none of which were flattering. 
 
Of course the UK made their own crazy misstep with Brexit, though that may now be falling apart (and is off topic here).

Pump and dump?

I think the standard for posting a thread about an article here should be :
 
1. Provide the article, and summarize it if you wish
2. Provide your opinion, possibly with a question (at the very least a "What do you think?" type question)
 
Just linking an article with no opinion or topic for discussion tends to point an attempt to stir discord without a substantial discussion.
 
I am directing this at no one in particular. Just an observation. Also obviously a thread started with just a meme involving some sort of insult/dig at a person or group of people (so pretty much all memes posted here?) should be locked immediately (and honestly should be followed by a warning and/or punishment depending on repeat offense).

Question 1: "Are you a racist?"
Question 2: "Are you a terrorist?"
 
You are describing what the House is intended to be. There is a reason we have both. I think a lot could be done so that the House actually represents "the people", but I don't think we need to turn the Senate into basically a second House.
 
I can't read those two words without it sounding like that one song in Hamilton. They just roll off the tongue so well. It's great alliteration.

Yes. I'm not in the business of coming up what kind of response is appropriate. I'd leave that up to other people.
 
But I certainly don't think the letter he put out was the appropriate response. It sent the message that our countries silence and cooperation is "for sale". That if they weren't buying weapons, then we would have no problem calling them out but because they are buying weapons we'll just be quiet about it. That's not the right message (in my opinion). 
 
American is supposed to be a "shining beacon" that other countries aspire towards. I don't think a country should aspire towards that.

So then we disagree about whether that deserves a response from the US?
 
As I said before, I feel uncomfortable that our President has publicly said that the price for us not doing anything about a foreign leader conspiring to commit murder in cold blood is an arms deal.

is that when he makes parole?

That's the assessment I get from my wife and everyone we speak to across the pond.
 
I remember the most entertaining taxi drive I've ever had was when a commuter train I was on from London to Reading had to stop because of lightning hitting the tracks. I shared a taxi with 2 other people (3 including the driver). We were all from different countries (The three of them from different European countries. One UK, one France and I forget the other). This was like a month before the 2016 election. It was hilarious. They genuinely did not understand how there were that many Americans that would support Trump to get him even to become a legitimate candidate. A lot of adjectives were thrown around, none of which were flattering. 
 
Of course the UK made their own crazy misstep with Brexit, though that may now be falling apart (and is off topic here).

Absolutely.
 
Good discussions can get heated as long as they don't get personal and continue to involve either objective information or explicit "opinion" (but not opinion masquerading as fact).