The Queen and Trump ~ Brexit Buddies & 4-D Chess Masters

a reply to: The GUT

You can't really say "it's a good thing" because it will take another year before the consequences start showing.
And there are many things that don't quite work out with the "American system", lead, fluoride in the drinking water, aspestos, all those flame retardants, ... It's not a myth that hormone disrupting chemicals have a very negative effect on cognitive development.
And that's the plan, mate, playing out in the US more than anywhere else, barely smart enough to function in the system Amazon. Unless of course you're rich enough...
The UK has already its Eton-Oxbridge twits running the show they don't need /shouldn't get support in controlling the masses from over the pond.
And that's exactly what Brexit is about.

a reply to: djz3ro

We may well ALL be dumbed & softened down enough that we can't make it without super-nannies. That certainly is a possibility. And I'm not yet dumbed-down enough to believe that the criminals are not in control pretty much everywhere. Further, I highly doubt we can ultimately resist Globalism.

Neither, however, am I dumbed-down enough to believe the globalist system will be anything but the most draconian system the world has ever seen.

I hear some of y'all and have acknowledged I agree with some of the points, but one thing I don't agree on is that the Brits can't rebuild a better economy with their own hands and traditionally strong spirit. Will there be growing pains? Yes. I have a lot of respect for farmers---we all should. In today's world they are always going to need a little help from us and are a legitimate national concern. The Russian people, btw, handled transitioning okay.

I also agree that Boris seems a little shaky in some ways, but you don't need someone who is perfect but someone who is perfect for the job. We'll see. Yah...that Huawei deal...problematic but more problematic to stick with it I think. We've all been a little slow catching onto how deeply our national security has been compromised by China.

a reply to: strongfp

You do realize that the founders, while disliking the monarchy, admitted that it had many positive aspects, right? In fact, the founders hated democracy as much as they hated the monarchy. Which is why we are the republic we are.

But more to your point, thankfully our constitution won't allow a monarchy. So your comment is completely irrelevant.

a reply to: Peeple

You realize the US is in the top 10 most intelligent countries, right? Meanwhile the least intelligent countries don't have any of the things you decry (lead, fluoride, asbestos, flame retardants)? How is that possible?

It's also funny to look at the avg IQ of each state, California and hawaii are 47th and 48th. LOL for all the huffing and puffing they do about the dumb southerners, they're heading up the bottom of the list.

a reply to: Dfairlite
I think "some founders hated democracy" would be more accurate.

The constitution can be changed.

And for the other post:

You realize the US is in the top 10 most intelligent countries, right? Meanwhile the least intelligent countries don't have any of the things you decry (lead, fluoride, asbestos, flame retardants)? How is that possible?

There is more than one road to stupid.

It's also funny to look at the avg IQ of each state, California and hawaii are 47th and 48th. LOL for all the huffing and puffing they do about the dumb southerners, they're heading up the bottom of the list.

There is less than 10% difference between No. 1 and No. 50.

Also, who actually takes IQ tests. Would most dumb southerners, as you called them, even take the test? No? So, they are not represented in those stats, although they may be a whole bunch of them.

a reply to: Dfairlite

27th is not top 10.

a reply to: Peeple

It is when there are only 8 scores higher than us... Just a bunch of ties. But there are 195 countries on earth, the US (even at 27th) is in the top 15% of countries. But more importantly, that wasn't my point. My point was, all of the intelligent countries in your list have flouride, asbestos, lead, etc. All of the dumb countries do not.

EDIT:
Another interesting point. 25 US states would make the top 10 in that list.

a reply to: daskakik

There is more than one road to stupid.

Exactly my point. However, to counter the idea that americans are getting dumber, IQ has been going up an average of 9-10 points per generation in the US.

There is less than 10% difference between No. 1 and No. 50.

And?

Also, who actually takes IQ tests.

A diverse enough sample to be statistically significant in each state.

Would most dumb southerners, as you called them, even take the test? No?

Are you arguing that only the smarter people are taking IQ tests? If so doesn't that mean california and hawaii are even dumber than represented in the list? See you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "the south is too dumb to take the test" while excluding the dumb californians and hawaiians from the people too dumb to take the test, as they're in the bottom 5.

So, they are not represented in those stats, although they may be a whole bunch of them.

You need a better understanding of statistical sampling.

a reply to: Dfairlite

But they're also not the richest country on Earth, are they?

Also: meh
I don't really care what you believe or not.
Because it wasn't my point anyways. The thing I'm talking about is that the plan is for the rich 1% to secure their elite status at all costs and if you believe a kid from the Bronx has the same opportunities as an Ivy League offspring ...there's not really much I can say to you but:
mhmkay

a reply to: Peeple

...and if you believe a kid from the Bronx has the same opportunities as an Ivy League offspring ...there's not really much I can say to you

It's funny you used the bronx as an example, fred trump (donald's father who started the trump empire) was born in the bronx to immigrant parents.

Now, that's not to suggest his life was as easy as a kid with a silver spoon getting into the elite class. No one believes the opportunities are the same. Rather most believe the opportunity exists for both. Life isn't fair. We aren't all born to look like gal gadot or brad pitt. We aren't all born with the same intelligence as albert einstein or james woods. We aren't all born with the athletic ability of usain bolt or steph curry. What we all have is the potential to use our strengths to our advantage with as little government interference as possible... well, that's the goal anyway.

a reply to: alldaylong

Yeh hopefully we will be shot of that pile of #e soon enough

Lizzie already agreed to Scotlands referendums bill , our sovereignty has been upheld

a reply to: The GUT

The Queen only went through with Brexit to protect her own power. Trump is doing it for a different reason...the people. I believe the Queen was there when they went 'into' the EU, wasn't she? She was also in charge when the UK let all those migrants in that are now raping, murdering and attacking people all over the UK. If she cared about the people of her country, she wold have done what Trump did and not let them in, in the first place. She knew what would happen. I don't respect her at all. Her family holds people down.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Exactly my point. However, to counter the idea that americans are getting dumber, IQ has been going up an average of 9-10 points per generation in the US.

It wasn't a US then vs US now comparison that you made. You compared the US to other nations.

And?

Small difference.

A diverse enough sample to be statistically significant in each state.

Are you sure about that? Diverse how?

Are you arguing that only the smarter people are taking IQ tests? If so doesn't that mean california and hawaii are even dumber than represented in the list? See you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "the south is too dumb to take the test" while excluding the dumb californians and hawaiians from the people too dumb to take the test, as they're in the bottom 5.

I said a lot of dumb people don't take the test so it isn't a good indicator of a states population in general.

You need a better understanding of statistical sampling.

Who says it is a good example of statistical sampling?

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The GUT

One actual monarch that longs for it's power back, to one that wants to become one. How endearing.

After watching the EU bully and attempt to humiliate the nation, and after all the crazies came out of the woodwork, she decided to make Britain great again. That's exactly the kind of Monarch one needs if one has one.

Happy Brexit, Sir!

Perhaps to take back power from the Rothschild bullies.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: The GUT

One actual monarch that longs for it's power back, to one that wants to become one. How endearing.

Well, I'd rather have that then the nightmare the libs would have in store for the US if they ever get the power they crave.

a reply to: daskakik

It wasn't a US then vs US now comparison that you made. You compared the US to other nations.

I got ahead of myself. Let me explain: The countries that head up the bottom of the intelligence spectrum don't have the chemicals that are being called out as a main contributor to dumbing down the population. Ergo, they should be getting smarter than the US is. But they are not. That leaves the only remaining argument where you can blame flouride lead and asbestos for dumbing down america, is comparing america now to america previously. That's why I pointed out that IQ in the US has been rising at 9-10 points per generation. If we were truly being dumbed down, we wouldn't have an average or slightly above average increase in intelligence per generation.

Small difference.

Ok?

Are you sure about that? Diverse how?

The sampling is more than a few thousand people per state. You only need a sample of about 2500 for even the most populous state.

Who says it is a good example of statistical sampling?

Math.

a reply to: Dfairlite
First off, fluoride and the rest was probably a bit tongue in cheek. Like swamp gas for UFOS.

Still, my point was that the maths can't be applied if you don't know who is taking the tests in the different states.

That few thousand per state doesn't identify where they are coming from and it doesn't speak for all the rest that didn't take the test.

a reply to: daskakik

This is the man who compiled the data and reported the study. He seems competent enough.

a reply to: Dfairlite
What study?

Is it this:
Estimating state IQ: Measurement challenges and preliminary correlates
Seems they used everything but actual IQ tests, which I thought they had. My bad.

An estimate of IQ based on things like "Percent receiving no prenatal care", "Percent Black in the state, percent Asian in the state, percent Hispanic in the state" and "Gross state product" seems flimsy although it might be accurate enough. Still, it is just an estimate and the numbers are pretty close.