It really isn't a shock, is it? Most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition. Most teachers in the classroom shouldn't be inventing their own curriculum or new styles of teaching etc, any more than people working in a factory or on the assembly line should automatically feel qualified to design the product and the machines for putting them together, themselves. No matter how long they've had those jobs, or how dedicated they might feel to bringing up the young'uns or whatever. They just aren't qualified. Better minds than theirs have (usually, hopefully) come up with the methods that work the best for the most situations. What is needed most of the time is just for the regular workers to follow those plans. The same goes for training nurses and others. Florence Nightingale was a pioneering nurse or even medical professional in general, even exceeding what a lot of doctors "knew" at the time. But very few nurses are Florence Nightingale, nor should they imagine themselves to be.

But we could also try a concrete example. Do you know WHY the conversion from c to f, is *9/5+32?

I do.

"In the grand scheme of things an"d that's all they can talk about. So there's 50 states, 1 federal district and 5 territories commonly spoken of.

I doubt Trump knows any of that."

Definitely he didn't He didn't even know that Puerto Rico was part of the United States.

At a minimum, the Presidential candidates should be required to pass the tests that are given to immigrants to qualify for citizenship. That would also eliminate the danger of party bias in the tests.

"Do you know WHY the conversion from c to f, is *9/5+32?"

If 0 C maps to 32 F and 100 C maps to 212 F and the rest of the scales are linear, "9/5+ 32" is the formula that drops out._

Pretty much, yes. More specifically, the range of C from water freezing to water boiling, is 0 to 100, or 100 degrees span. In F it's from 32 to 212, a range of 180. 180/100 = 18/10 = 9/5. And the F scale is offset by 32 vs C which starts at 0, so you add 32 when going from C to F, or subtract 32 when going from F to C. (But only when converting absolute temps! For a CHANGE in temp you would only apply the 9/5 or 5/9 factor, because a change doesn't have the offset for an absolute temp.)

But I wonder if Nubyan knew that. I'm pretty sure most nurses actually don't. They're just given the formula and that's it. At least half of math - and perhaps science in general too - could be knowing which equation to apply, when. And why.

And given the choice, which do you think is worse? Obama saying 57 states? Trump maybe not knowing that Puerto Ricans are (since only 1917) legally US citizens although they don't vote for President or Congress (which actually makes them irrelevant in any national election)? Or Hank Johnson - another Democrat - expressing concern in a Congressional hearing that if too many military people were sent to Guam, the island might flip over?

@CharlesTheBold: At minimum candidate should know how to behave like a rational human being. With that said...Trump would be disqualified.

"@CharlesTheBold: At minimum candidate should know how to behave like a rational human being. With that said...Trump would be disqualified."

I agree, but I was trying to suggest an objective test that could be applied and enforced.

@CharlesTheBold said:

"@CharlesTheBold: At minimum candidate should know how to behave like a rational human being. With that said...Trump would be disqualified."

I agree, but I was trying to suggest an objective test that could be applied and enforced.

Yes. I understood your point.

"And given the choice, which do you think is worse? Obama saying 57 states? Trump maybe not knowing that Puerto Ricans are (since only 1917) legally US citizens ."

Trump's is much worse, because it apparently it delayed government aid.

It sounds like Obama was talking about states and territories --- I don't know the context of the conversation or the reliability of the reporter. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

There was plenty of aid flowing into Puerto Rico, the problems were that the infrastructure there including for transportation was not good even before the storms. And since it is more isolated than places like Houston, it's not easy for things to get distributed once it arrives.

@Knixon said:

Since it was a binary choice, all that was required is figuring that Hillary would be worse. Which is not a difficult analysis to make, even compared with Trump.

Look I don't like Hillary Clinton, I hate the fact she was handed the nomination, I don't think she would have been a great president.

However, the difference between her and Trump in regards to governing a country would be the difference between hiring a pilot to fly a plane that has a drinking and gambling problem vs a pilot who's never flown before and never took any classes to learn how.

But, and people always get mad when I say this, but maybe it was a good thing Trump won because people are finally starting to realize we have two right wing parties in this country and are actually working to change that, and Trump's blatant incompetence is just going to make it happen that much faster.

Lots of right wing Democrats are being primaried next November and I can not wait to see that.

Comparing the presidency to flying a plane doesn't make much sense to start with. There's a lot of other people involved, including/especially Congress which is the #1 branch of government even according to the Constitution. To the extent that past presidents have gotten away with too much, it's because Congress let them. Often to avoid becoming unpopular themselves if they had made unpopular decisions to cut spending etc.

But if you'd like to go back to the original form of electing the president, where the Electoral College was selected by state legislatures etc rather than any kind of popular vote, that might not be a bad idea.

A good argument can also be made that there wouldn't be a President Trump if the media etc had been more... equal opportunity?... about the charges of sexual misconduct and even outright rape, against Bill Clinton. Some even say that if there had been a president Algore, instead of two terms of sexual assaulter/rapist Clinton, thanks to media and democrat party (but I repeat myself) collusion, there might not have been GWB, then Obama, and then Trump.

I frankly don't believe president Algore would have been much good with/after 9/11, but still it's an interesting case to be made.

@Knixon said:

A good argument can also be made that there wouldn't be a President Trump if the media etc had been more... equal opportunity?... about the charges of sexual misconduct and even outright rape, against Bill Clinton. Some even say that if there had been a president Algore, instead of two terms of sexual assaulter/rapist Clinton, thanks to media and democrat party (but I repeat myself) collusion, there might not have been GWB, then Obama, and then Trump.

I frankly don't believe president Algore would have been much good with/after 9/11, but still it's an interesting case to be made.

Why are you talking about a guy that hasn't been in power in 17 years? Why not blame JFK while you're at it?

Trump is president partly because the media gave him billions of dollars in free coverage, but mostly because HRC and the DNC handed it to him. Trump was very beatable. HRC was simply a terrible choice given her baggage and she offered nothing to voters. To this very day no one can tell me what her campaign promises were. She didn't even bother campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin and was the first Dem to lose Pennsylvania since Dukakis.

Comparing the presidency to flying a plane doesn't make much sense to start with. There's a lot of other people involved, including/especially Congress which is the #1 branch of government even according to the Constitution. To the extent that past presidents have gotten away with too much, it's because Congress let them. Often to avoid becoming unpopular themselves if they had made unpopular decisions to cut spending etc.

The plane metaphor was... a metaphor. And the "corporate" congress is corrupt. They don't serve people, they serve corporations and the donors that pay them. Until we get money out of politics that's how it's going to be.

The president sets the agenda, he or she is the captain of the ship so to speak, and Trump isn't steering the country in the right direction. He openly admits his main job is to get tax cuts for the rich, sabotage the ACA so poor people don't have healthcare, and repeal the estate tax so his kids will get more money when he dies, and guys like you and me will end up shouldering that cost when he blows up the deficit and bankrupts the country while millionaires and billionaires can put all that tax money they're saving in an offshore tax haven.

Granted we probably still would have gotten some of that stuff with HRC, but it wouldn't have been that bad. The ACA wouldn't be in nearly as much jeopardy and we'd still have Net Neutrality. Also we'd still have the ability to file class action lawsuits against corporations and ISP's would still need our permission before selling our online data to 3rd parties. We'd also save millions of dollars on all the weekly golf trips HRC wouldn't have taken.

Your assertions contain a lot of assumptions that really don't stand up to scrutiny. But you apparently believe them, probably as axiomatic, so there's not much to be done about it. I suspect that even if you got/had gotten your way, and it didn't work - as I'm certain would be the case - you still wouldn't admit/believe that it's your assertions/assumptions that are faulty. Same as Bernie Sanders can look at examples of how he thinks we should be, such as collapsing Venezuela, and still not see that it just doesn't work.

For example, it's been said for years, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait and see how much it costs when it's 'free.'"

And just in terms of "tax cuts for the rich," how much more would you like to instead cut taxes for those people who already pay no federal income taxes? It's close to 50% now, if not already over 50%. They have even less reason to vote responsibly, since everything they vote for - everything the politicians promise to give them - is already costing them nothing.

Am I crazy to ask why on earth is Bill Clinton considered relevant when discussing the past election and comparing his sexual misdeeds to Trumptard?

I thought it was the other Clinton who ran against Trumpy.

I suppose if you need to compare apples to apples one would have to go back a couple decades to attempt making a point. Nevertheless, they still fail to do so because they can't make any comparisons to the actual candidate to support their argument.

@CharlesTheBold:

Respectfully asking. Would you mind including the name of the person you are quoting when you reference someone else's comments in your posted reply?

It lessens the confusion when someone is quoting you after you've quoted someone else in your posted comment. 🤔

@cswood said:

Why are you talking about a guy that hasn't been in power in 17 years? Why not blame JFK while you're at it?

Good question. Where's the logic?