Buttigieg the smartest, Trump the dumbest

[_Some Schmo]

Policy preferences and priorities, ability to lead / persuade, likely admin staffing decisions, disposition under stress, etc. Almost everything. You don’t want an idiot in office, but once you hit a certain threshold, intelligence strikes me as not nearly as important as a lot of other things when picking a candidate.

I suppose this is one of those situations where we're working from a different set of criteria for what constitutes "intelligent." Everything you just described here are intelligence indicators, in my opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

It's ridiculous to think Trump is anything but bumbling id. He's not a great anything. He acts like a shameless toddler, and that happens to appeal to assholes and idiots. There's no strategy. There's no insight.

Calling Trump an effective anything is like complementing moths for detecting light. Morons attract morons and assholes attract assholes. That's his entire formula.

[_subgenius]

In your world, people who have gone on to become politicians and have recorded public speaking in informal and formal settings spanning decades never have done anything but give previously prepared comments in all interactions.

What an impossibly dumb world you live in. Sadly, you probably really think something approaching this and imagine yourself clever for seeing how things really are.

No, not "people"...just the persons you listed as having done otherwise....but please, continue with your strategy of attacking messenger and proposing "must make sense", instead of providing facts as an effort to prove your point.

[_subgenius]

So Elizabeth Warren was recently viewed within her field as one of the foremost experts in bankruptcy law in the country.

CFR with an added spice of when EW last "recently" practiced bankruptcy law.

Subgenius's summation of that is to dismiss her as having accomplished nothing of note and to vaguely refer to his false belief that she only received her Harvard post due to being the beneficiary of affirmative action on a fabricated claim of Native American ancestry.

Nope, this is about your proposition that EW is "smart" and/or has "smartness" based on a specific group of measurements which you provided.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has given dozens of interviews where he has betrayed himself as lacking an elementary school level understanding of a whole range of subjects. He struggles with rambling, stream of consciousness, somethings flat out gibberish comments to just get through the fact he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Subgenius's interpretation of these moments has been that Trump is playing some deeper game where this is actually brilliant political strategy to distract and deflect.

I made no claim about Trump's "smartness" nor did I provide any references for how to measure candidate smartness...you did, so the burden for proof is rightfully on you.

It's not enough to simply acknowledge that Warren is a bright, accomplished academic while disagreeing with her views.

I do not agree with your claim here - CFR for "bright and accomplished" (prefer more than just a decades old resume-like-quote from an obscure colleague that worked with her for a limited time).

No, she must be a worthless hack who has earned nothing fairly.

While my opinion is that she is a worthless hack, I never claimed she did not earn anything fairly....I have simply disagreed with your methodology and challenged you to prove your claim for "smartness"...for which you have done nothing except frantically type insults and assumptions about me. If you can't back up your claim, just fall back on "in my opinion", after all, that is all you have on the matter and not some sort of objective "fact" that drops the mic.

It's not enough to think Trump is a bit of a dullard, but believe his political instincts are better aligned with what's in the country's best interest. No, he's got to be playing a clandestine political game where his abject stupidity is a clever ruse.

...huh?

It's an extreme partisan halo effect. Democrats have to be trash and Republicans have to be great. So reality gets contorted to match, no matter how ridiculous or pathetic it looks.

Yah, not sure what this is about, I am just happy that you are so obviuosly immune and possess such an uncanny ability to focus on posts and not posters (#goals).

[_canpakes]

So Elizabeth Warren was recently viewed within her field as one of the foremost experts in bankruptcy law in the country.

CFR with an added spice of when EW last "recently" practiced bankruptcy law.

I got this far, and just had to laugh.

You’ve really got to get a grip on this English thing. This is looking seriously bad for you. : D

[_Gunnar]

EA said, "extemporaneous ability to speak intelligently on a variety of topics", and subbie reduced that to, "eloquence".

That about sums it up.

Now comes the reknown subs display of irony, making another appearance right on schedule.

Boy! You sure called that one correctly! Not all that much of a surprise, though. Subby is nothing, if not predictable. He demonstrates even less learning ability than his hero, Trump!

[_subgenius]

I got this far, and just had to laugh.

You’ve really got to get a grip on this English thing. This is looking seriously bad for you. : D[/quote]
yeah, its akways bad when you guys run a string of unanswered CFR...if it werent for grammar nazism you would be waay back at a Primary level post count.
that's cool, i realize you can't offer much else in support of EAs odd claims, so just come at me bro (stick with what ya know amiright)

[_moksha]

Does anyone know if this is a genuine Jon McNaughton painting?

[_EAllusion]

that's cool, i realize you can't offer much else in support of EAs odd claims, so just come at me bro (stick with what ya know amiright)

She was one of the most cited law professors in the field within the decade. Not understanding the difference between this and serving as a legal representative in bankruptcy cases, you demanded to know the latter. The answer to that is mid-2000's, but that has nothing to do with the claim I made.

You can't read.

[_MeDotOrg]

Elizabeth Warren strikes me as the most intelligent candidate running. "Who is the smartest" should be pretty low on your priorities for selecting a person to vote for, though.

Okay, so this is a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend story...

My best friend got her PhD in a program where she became good friends with a woman who is married to a famous law professor at Stanford. I feel uncomfortable mentioning his name, but his book on the history of American Law has been considered one of the great textbooks on the subject. Anyway, this man is very good friends with Elizabeth Warren's husband (who teaches law at Harvard), and consequently the two couples have known each other for a long time.

According to my friend, what she hears is that the Warrens are a fantastic couple and they are very enthusiastic about their candidacy. Now obviously this comes from close friends, so it's doubtful this is totally objective. But I have to admit: I really like the couple down at Stanford that are good friends with the Warrens. Their assessment of the Warrens is a big plus in my book. I'm not throwing this out as a reason to vote the Elizabeth Warren. But it is comforting to know that someone I trust sees them as a nice couple, and not just two power hungry A-types.