Trump

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

Mensa Testing centers exist in Chicago , Toronto and Manhattan. I am located both in Toronto and Manhattan. What were your scores on the two mini tests that I sampled? In particular the Mensa workout since that is the organization that offers testing centers. If you scored 100 percent on the Mensa workout I don't see the point of the bet. It would be a "coin flip" bet. I liked the idea of your original bet where I was taking almost no risk. I gave you some data and even opined that on the basis of the data you are wasting your money. GMAT and LSAT do not interest me at all as I am not applying to go to Grad School or Law School. With the Mensa test at least I would join a new society as a reward for taking the test and doing well. Besides you should not underestimate Mavros and Vlad. I have no doubt that they would score similar to me on the basis of their chess ratings that do not appear that much different then mine or yours. Your USCF rating is separated by only 4 points compared to mine. That tells me that it is a coin flip bet.

I don't remember what my GMAT score was but it was good enough to attract the unsolicited offer of a scholarship for graduate studies at Wharton business school. It also (along with pretty good undergraduate grades) got me a fairly nice graduate scholarship here in Canada. I wrote the test back in 1987/88 or so. With regard to Ben Daswani, I don't negotiate with anti-Christian bigots or trolls. I have always done well on standardized tests like the MCAT and GMAT though I retired from taking such tests in 1987/88 or so. I have never seen an internet troll pay up on a lost bet or show up for anything. I have been called much worse things than Daswani's moronic claims of being a racist.

[Garvin Nunes]

Re: Trump

Trump's endorsement of Le Pen is strong evidence he hates France.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

I don't consider you as dumb as Whissel. You haven't displayed that you're a racist. The offer applies to Whissel and Drkulec, the two racists. I want to get their posts out of here.

But I might be willing to do this bet with you at even $1000 odds. Still interested? We'd have to decide on specifically what test to use, as there are many tests accredited by Mensa. It'd have to be one in which the same test is issued to different testing sites in Chicago and wherever you're located. The only tests (of which I know) in which that's the case are the LSAT and the GMAT. I'm admittedly biased, but I think the LSAT is a much better IQ test. All the answers are judged objectively; they're all multiple choice, while the GMAT has written sections. Additionally, it strictly tests logic and requires no outside knowledge, while the GMAT requires significant knowledge of basic math (algebra, geometry, etc.).

Mensa Testing centers exist in Chicago , Toronto and Manhattan. I am located both in Toronto and Manhattan. What were your scores on the two mini tests that I sampled? In particular the Mensa workout since that is the organization that offers testing centers. If you scored 100 percent on the Mensa workout I don't see the point of the bet. It would be a "coin flip" bet. I liked the idea of your original bet where I was taking almost no risk. I gave you some data and even opined that on the basis of the data you are wasting your money. GMAT and LSAT do not interest me at all as I am not applying to go to Grad School or Law School. With the Mensa test at least I would join a new society as a reward for taking the test and doing well. Besides you should not underestimate Mavros and Vlad. I have no doubt that they would score similar to me on the basis of their chess ratings that do not appear that much different then mine or yours. Your USCF rating is separated by only 4 points compared to mine. That tells me that it is a coin flip bet.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

Despite the fact that conservatives are, on the whole, stupid, some of them are intelligent.

In the following article, a conservative acutely breaks down Trump's ignorance: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...icy-ignorance/

To clarify, my comments in this thread should offend no rational person. I don't think all conservatives are stupid or literal pieces of human shit or anything. I can't say the same about all Trump supporters, however.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

Hey Ben if you consider me as dumb as Mavros or any other conservative I will take you up on your $1000.00 challenge. First try taking this short 20 question online IQ test and tell us what your score is. My result was 190 indicated by the screen shot I took of the test result below. Here is the link https://www.arealme.com/iq/en/ The questions start really easy and get progressively more difficult. Only one or two seemed really hard. I don't think these tests prove anything but lets see how we stack up. I have never tried an IQ test except in elementary school so it is a first for me. I also tried the half hour online mensa 30 question workout IQ test and scored 100 percent.http://www.mensa.org/workout/feedback So I feel very comfortable about doing a real accredited test if you really want to waste $1000.00

I don't consider you as dumb as Whissel. You haven't displayed that you're a racist. The offer applies to Whissel and Drkulec, the two racists. I want to get their posts out of here.

But I might be willing to do this bet with you at even $1000 odds. Still interested? We'd have to decide on specifically what test to use, as there are many tests accredited by Mensa. It'd have to be one in which the same test is issued to different testing sites in Chicago and wherever you're located. The only tests (of which I know) in which that's the case are the LSAT and the GMAT. I'm admittedly biased, but I think the LSAT is a much better IQ test. All the answers are judged objectively; they're all multiple choice, while the GMAT has written sections. Additionally, it strictly tests logic and requires no outside knowledge, while the GMAT requires significant knowledge of basic math (algebra, geometry, etc.).

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

Anyway, my first response is to ask: does the U.S. Constitution have any clause that specifically delineates between a theocracy and a religion? And if so, how does it distinguish them from each other?

Here is a good essay on the founding father's intent on specifically allowing freedom of Religion but at the same time making theocracies unconstitutional. The whole point of Separation of Church and State is indeed to prevent theocracies. So to answer your question Theocracies are not only not covered by the first amendment of Freedom of Religion but are deliberately and constitutionally prevented. Amending the constitution requires a referendum with 2/3 support of the American people so this will never change. As long as the constitution is in its current form those that prefer to swear their first allegiance to a theocracy are not welcome in the United States. Show me an example of any naturalized US citizen that refused the pledge of allegiance.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/ame...eedom-religion

Aug 23, 2016 // At University of Hartford
American Theocracy And Freedom Of Religion
Many Americans often misunderstand the purpose and power of the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment.
Micah Coons
M
Micah Coons

In Colonial times, the Anglican Church (the Church of England) had complete control over English society. They had the full support of the Crown behind them, the reigning Monarch being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Therefore, the smaller sects of Christianity had to escape to the New World in order to worship freely. The flock of religious settlers led to the colonization of America and the subsequent Revolution.

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights, they sought to ensure that this nation would never commit the authoritarian infringement of rights that England did. That is why we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to an attorney, the right to a quick and fair trial, and the freedom of religion.

The Freedom of Religion creates the concept of Separation of Church and State: meaning the government can not make any law in the eye of a specific church, create a sect of a church, or make a law that prohibits a certain religion from exercising their beliefs freely.

In recent years, many Evangelical Republicans have used the Freedom of Religion as a reason why governments should not allow Gay Marriage, Abortion, or force vaccines for their kids. The same voters often declare that Islam is a religion of violence and are among the supporters of Trump's ban on Muslim immigrants.

This practice is Sharia Law.

The church governing the people is a Theocracy, which is exactly the model of Sharia Law. Using religion to create laws is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. They may have been religious themselves, but they knew that the church and the government needed to remain entirely separate. They also knew that it was the right of every man to worship freely and that connecting the church to the state would make it hard for non-Christians to live freely in this country.

Christians claiming that Gay Marriage infringes upon their Freedom of Religion is ridiculous. It in no way affects them personally and does not change their ability to worship freely. If two men wish to be married, they can, and any church or minister has the absolute right to deny them their services on the basis of religion. That is Freedom of Religion.

For reference on how asinine this frame of thinking is: this same argument could be used during Lent, stating that because one religion can't eat meat on Fridays, no restaurant is allowed to serve any form of meat on Fridays during the long holiday.

That is clearly unfair to all those who are not Catholic or religious, and there is a clear way around it. A Catholic's form of worship is not in jeopardy due to the table next to them enjoying a plate of wings while they believe they should only be eating a fish fry today. And if the restaurant they are at that Friday doesn't offer a meat free option, then that person can easily just go to a place that does. This is Freedom of Religion.

Using religious beliefs to govern is irresponsible and unconstitutional. Look to Jimmy Carter, a Georgian Baptist is considered one of the most devout Presidents, yet he supported Gay Marriage and Abortion from a legal perspective, even though he spiritually disagreed with it. He knew that it was not his duty as President to push his religious beliefs, but to ensure every man, woman, and child, was free to live their life happily and freely. That is the real American Dream.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Trump

How Trump could get FIRED.

Finally the discussion is coming around to impeachment.
Trump is clearly not fit to be President, this should be obvious to all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdn_XvJWaw0

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

This is known as a theocracy, not a religion. Theocracies are not covered by the constitution. Sharia law calls for the execution of Gay people among other things. There is no instance under US law or the Constitution that this is allowed. What many propose is attacking not the religion, and not even Sharia, but the words and the intent and the specific preaching of the Islamic theocracy’s ultimate world domination law. And the tool they use is The Smith Act of 1940, as amended; the existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385, as follows:

§ 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

I submit that the Islamic theocracy cannot properly operate anywhere in America without violating this American law. Full enforcement of this act, if that were possible, might result in the elimination of the Islamic theocracy in America.

You must be a night owl like me, Sid!

Anyway, my first response is to ask: does the U.S. Constitution have any clause that specifically delineates between a theocracy and a religion? And if so, how does it distinguish them from each other?

My hypothetical example didn't mention use of violence or force. I specified that if there were such a mass conversion, the converted would elect a President and members of the Congress and the Senate in enough numbers to democratically replace the Constitution with Sharia law. So I still think (pending the answers to the above question I posed) this remains a possibility, however unlikely.

The more likely example is the one that seems to be underway right now, this mass conversion to the Trump religion of "Drain the Swamp" which can only truly be realized by changing the Constitution (imo). Freedoms would have to be much more limited in order to allow such dramatic changes to occur without violence or disruption or interference from the judicial branch (those "unelected judges" that Trump hates!)

Trump is getting more frustrated each day at the limitations to his power, and as this goes on, it becomes more likely that such a reshaping of American democracy will be attempted. Whether he succeeds will depend on how successfully he can get backing for the religion of "Drain the Swamp".

It has to be realized that if the swamp is really going to be drained, what will be left is..... Donald Trump, Supreme Dictator.

There is a historical precedent for this.... 1933, the German Reichstag.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump

Islam or some sect of Islam, has attached to it (inextricably linked to it) Sharia law

This is known as a theocracy, not a religion. Theocracies are not covered by the constitution. Sharia law calls for the execution of Gay people among other things. There is no instance under US law or the Constitution that this is allowed. What many propose is attacking not the religion, and not even Sharia, but the words and the intent and the specific preaching of the Islamic theocracy’s ultimate world domination law. And the tool they use is The Smith Act of 1940, as amended; the existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385, as follows:

§ 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

I submit that the Islamic theocracy cannot properly operate anywhere in America without violating this American law. Full enforcement of this act, if that were possible, might result in the elimination of the Islamic theocracy in America.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

Sharia Law is exactly that....a body of laws, not a religion. Theoretically America could vote to discard the constitution however that is not the reality nor will it be in the forseeable future. New refugees are expected to swear their first allegiance to the US Constitution. Sharia Law is a body of laws and not a religion so if a potential citizens first allegiance is to this system and not the US constitution they are not eliglble for citizenship. The last step in becoming a US citizen is the swearing in ceremony where this oath is part of the ceremony.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Sid, I'm not sure you are grasping my point, or else you are downplaying it.

Firstly, forget about whether Sharia law is a religion or not, that has no relevance. What matters is whether it is "part and parcel" of a religion. In other words, is there a sect of the Muslim faith for which Sharia law is inextricably linked to the faith -- the faith cannot be whole without it?

Now secondly, forget about the likelihood of some specific event occurring. Just think about it being possible.

If the U.S. Constitution allows for complete freedom of religion, and a specific religion, Islam or some sect of Islam, has attached to it (inextricably linked to it) Sharia law which as you say is incompatible with the Constitution, then IT IS POSSIBLE for the Constitution to be overthrown by that religion through the normal democratic process: enough people convert to that sect of Islam, they vote one of their own as President along with a majority of their own in the Congress and the Senate, and that President and Congress and Senate act together to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.

Ok, so it's possible, right? That means it is possible for any individual citizen of America to convert to that sect of Islam and NO LONGER want to be governed by the U.S. Constitution, because their sect is inextricably linked to Sharia law.

And that means that even if you limit immigrants to be only those who aren't members of that sect and don't want Sharia law (at the time of their immigration), once they become a citizen of the U.S., their oath is meaningless because now, under the Constitution, their right to convert to that sect and want Sharia law is PROTECTED by the Constitution. A citizen is a citizen, immigrant or not. All citizens are protected by the Constitution. The oath that they took as an immigrant is rendered null.

And this is what Mavros doesn't get (maybe you do get it, Sid, I'm not sure). Mavros talks about freedom and says immigrants who get the freedoms of their new home shouldn't "dump on" those freedoms. But built into those freedoms, at least in Canada and the U.S., is the FREEDOM TO REJECT THE FREEDOMS, by converting to a religion that is incompatible with the Constitution because of the inextricable link to Sharia law that is part of the faith.

And if it really is freedom we are talking about, then by definition, freedom must include the freedom to "reject" or just to "dump on" the freedom. If Mavros were to become President ( or Prime Minister) and pass a law preventing anyone from criticizing their freedom, he is limiting freedom and is a total hypocrite.

Now agreed, the likelihood of mass conversion to Islam and mass desire for Sharia law is small enough we don't need to stay awake at night worrying about it. BUT....

There has been in the U.S. a "mass conversion" to a religion of "Drain the Swamp", and this could be seen in a very similar light. Because if you take "Drain the Swamp" to its logical conclusion and its true meaning, you must somehow replace the U.S. Constitution, with something much more limiting in terms of human rights and freedoms, freedom of the press, etc.

And guess what? We have Donald Trump now talking about the U.S. Constitution being "archaic" and "bad for the country" because why? Because it limits what Donald Trump can do as President!

So we may not get Sharia law, but we may get "Trump Law" before everything settles. And the likelihood of all this was seen as miniscule back when Trump first announced he was running for President.

Mavros may not like people "dumping on" freedom, but when the freedom is actually being threatened by something it produced within, then it is time to JOIN THE RESISTANCE.

BTW, I believe a movie version of Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is coming soon. I remember reading that book decades ago and thinking it was a very possible foretelling of the future.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

I was also going to respond and use the word "reality" in my response.

What Lucas pointed out is part of what I call the "fake news phenomenon" of recent times. Basically, anything conservatives disagree with, no matter its source, is simply classed as fake news and disregarded.

But the problem with that strategy is that reality eventually sets in, and people get to see and experience what is real.

A few years ago, Drkulec chose to support Illusionov for FIDE President and claimed the CFC would get $80K in norm tournament support as a result. I posted that the CFC would never see all of the $80K, and Drkulec disagreed.... but now reality has set in. $20K and that's all she wrote.

I'm tending to think that all the things Trump has called fake news will become reality in a big way during his term and afterward. This includes the effects of global warming, and I'm really hoping it includes revelations of Russian connections sufficient to impeach. And if industry regulations get rolled back, it will also include many resulting "accidents" of spectacular nature.

Hi Paul. I particularly like your last paragraph. Trump is marching the U.S. backwards on so many things. Regarding climate, I recall reading somewhere that a sufficient number of countries has ratified the Paris Agreement to make it legally binding. I believe the effective date is 2020 (?). I don't know if the U.S. was a signatory but, regardless, with nearly 200 countries being parties to the Agreement you'd have to think there will be a day of reckoning somewhere down the road, maybe in the form of trade sanctions, for countries who are perceived to be foot-draggers. Eliminating protective regulations and gutting institutions like the EPA may have a medium term positive impact for American business but, over the long haul, I think the U.S. is shooting itself in the foot.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

Bill Clinton's crime which got him impeached and cost him his law license was not having sexual relations with an intern, it was lying about it under oath.

Yes, I realize that, but if he'd had the discipline to keep it in his pants then he wouldn't have been in a position to perjure himself (w.r.t. this matter at least; he might have 'found' other opportunities).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

I admire your writing style and your powerful grip on reality.

I was also going to respond and use the word "reality" in my response.

What Lucas pointed out is part of what I call the "fake news phenomenon" of recent times. Basically, anything conservatives disagree with, no matter its source, is simply classed as fake news and disregarded.

But the problem with that strategy is that reality eventually sets in, and people get to see and experience what is real.

A few years ago, Drkulec chose to support Illusionov for FIDE President and claimed the CFC would get $80K in norm tournament support as a result. I posted that the CFC would never see all of the $80K, and Drkulec disagreed.... but now reality has set in. $20K and that's all she wrote.

I'm tending to think that all the things Trump has called fake news will become reality in a big way during his term and afterward. This includes the effects of global warming, and I'm really hoping it includes revelations of Russian connections sufficient to impeach. And if industry regulations get rolled back, it will also include many resulting "accidents" of spectacular nature.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Trump

Hi Lucas, I think I might have played your brother... Noam? Maybe no relation. Can't remember his name exactly. Kapuskasing 2003. Very polite, cordial young fellow - well spoken too. The reason I do not read Ben's posts any longer is because they are loaded with angry insults and not real arguments. That's it. There's not even a coherent, substantiated argument coming out from him.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump

I've noticed a trend over the past few years of conservatives calling people trolls whenever they disagree on a topic, and then proceed to disregard everything they say on the basis of this claim. This is why Justin Trudeau won; because of people like you.

I've noticed a trend over the past few years when the trolls got in over their heads they sent for outside reinforcements or created virtual ones by creating sock puppets.