That’s pretty smart. You know he would never do it.
He’s just going to say “I’m the smartest person ever to be president, the doctor I paid said so. I took the test already: person, woman, man, camera, TV!”
Technically 4 words, woman is a derivitive of man in their minds. Well 3 because person is gender neutral and can’t have that either.
As if “person” wasn’t clearly a gendered word for regressives.
And he keeps talking about the tests if he just took it. Which either means he can’t really process the fact that it happened in the past anymore, or they really do have to test him often. Neither is a good look for anyone’s grandpa, much less a grandpa who wants to run the free world.
Grandpa who wants to end the free world, not run it.
It’d be smarter if they got him to actually do it, so I don’t see your point… The man genuinely has dementia.
I guess that depends on whether you think he’s narcissistic enough to believe his own lies?
It’s wild that such intense questions like “Can you identify a giraffe?”, “Can you draw a clock?”, “Can you count backwards by 7s?”, and “Who is the current president?” was apparently such a grueling ordeal for Donald that he’s still bragging about it years later.
“Who is the current president?”
Yeah that one might be an issue for him…
Can you count backwards by 7s
counting backwards in multiples of 7? i’d struggle with that and i consider myself at least average
0, -7, -14, -22… dangit
It’s probably like field sobriety tests, where how you struggle is relevant. If you miss one in a sequence, that says something different from repeatedly going up instead of down or counting backwards on your hands first.
I would need to use my hands or count out loud or do something after maybe two numbers if we are starting at 100.
Trying it out just now and the only way I can really effectively do it is by subbing 10 and adding three each time.
That’s literally what they taught my niece to do in math, so that’s not inherently a problem.
If this were the entire question, I’d be confused. Another comment suggested starting from 0 and going into negatives, but my initial response would be “starting from what?” expecting to start at 100 or 77 or something.
However, an elementary school teacher told me that negative numbers don’t exist, so that might be related …
So I’m not in debt??? What a relief!
Banks hate this simple trick
The teacher’s argument was that if you took seven pencils away from five pencils, you’d have negative two pencils, but negative pencils aren’t a thing.
You could try making the same argument to your bank, replacing “pencils” with your local currency.
Let me know how it goes!
I don’t think I’m a sovereign enough citizen to pull this off.
It’s a common test for concussion. Voice of experience.
Doing arithmetics quickly is a skill that is slowly dying out of the general population. When we all used cache we had this with us all the time, but now we just don’t use it that often, generally, on average
just as well, i always struggled with it.
And my teachers at school used to say “You wont always have a calculator on you”
Look at me now, i spend 7.5 hours a day paid to sit in front of an expensive calculator with two other expensive calculators in my pocket. after which i spend several hours on my own personal expensive calculator before going to bed and doom scrolling on one of the aforementioned… expensive calculators.
Anything more than the most basic mental arithmetic at school was a waste of time that would have been better spent teaching me how to code. would have saved me teaching myself a few years later after working a soul crushing call centre job for 4 years (in which i used a not very expensive and dog shit slow calculator)
New debate idea: instead of political questions, have the whole thing hosted by a panel of psychologists who give a thorough assessment to both candidates live on stage.
At the end, they collectively review all findings and conclude the event by making any diagnosis the data merits.
And their political affiliations would be somehow above questioning?
Have you met our Supreme Court?
Or ask them questions on elementary school level.
I feel don don will struggle with them.
Are You Smarter Than Fifth Grader: The Presidental Election Edition.
It has to be hosted by Muppets. Why? The Presidential election is now a game show. Might as well lean into the absurdity of it.
Fuzzy would make a great host. Waka, waka!
The scary newsreader blue bird should do it. Or Dave Grohl with Animal.
Just have them both take the Smarter Balanced Assessment
It must be wild being in her position, being so overwhelmingly more capable than her opponent, and having to find out how to get stubborn people to acknowledge that and care about it.
Hillary Clinton had joined the chat
Definitely! I honestly had never thought of that because I didn’t take Donald Trump seriously until he was projected to win on voting day. I was dumbfounded and blown away. It was a big wake up call for me about how I was out of touch with a large part of America.
Same in 2016. And I fell into the same exact trap this time around thinking ‘surely america has moved beyond that imbecile and his base is just weirdo alex Jones types. Surely america isn’t about to vote for a literal felon and rapist.’
And now I’m watching daily as he or his peeps say one awful thing or another at rallies and it doesn’t move the polling needle at all.
America is fucked regardless of who wins this election.
She should disguise this test, and throw in basic questions about US history and politics. Trump will fail so hard it won’t even be funny.
This is the guy who talked about the continental army in the 1700’s invading airports. He’s real fucking stupid.
No need to do that
The guy is struggling enough as it is
But you throw in questions about dictators and he’ll know the answers better than he knows what state he’s living in. It’s possible the only book he’s ever read is Mein kempf
I’ve been dreaming of a Trump IQ test forever. I’m almost certain he would be below average. Someone should trick him to do one by saying it’s the crypto bro club test that Harris failed or something.
What color crayon do you reckon he would use to fill in the form?
In fairness, “most” people his age would be below “average”.
Edit: oh, apparently it doesn’t work like that. 100 is supposed to be average regardless of age?
I feel like he’d lie and say he did the test already and he passed it
the same one she takes? so not the one that asked him to name a handful of things that conveniently happened to be around him when he talked about it to the press?
I’ve been wondering why she doesn’t invite both of them to take one.
These fucks blurt out all their motivations and weaknesses, you only need to aggressivey seize on them and hold their feet to the fire till they cry uncle
Challenge Trump to a foot race for President since his supporters going around burning ballot boxes.
Like with a TV Debate with Harris, he won’t agree to this, as he knows that he has no chance to win.
She shouldn’t even say this. Cognitive tests are for those showing signs of dementia. That trump took one at all is all that we need to know.
People do “cognitive tests” for all kinds of reasons. The kind for dementia is only one of a large variety of tests that fit in this very broad category.
Shit, I’ve taken cognitive tests after all of my concussions.
I want to see how they would perform on the SAT
SAT is too much, most Americans remember that as too hard. I would be impressed if Trump just got a passing score on the Smarter Balanced Assessment
i remember when we elected presidents who had phds in constitutional law
How about a high school civics test?
no that’s not good enough
It would be funny to see Trump fail it though. The only amendments he knows are 1,2, and 25.
CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CBS News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-interview-norah-odonnell-interview-cognitive-test/
Unfair. She could sober up before doing that. Which she won’t do while in office or on the campaign.
Trump idiot comment or tankie…
Harris is lucky to have Trump running
without Trump the Democrat’s whole campaign platform would crumble
I mean, with Trump running the race is still basically a dead heat, so I’m not sure how lucky they really are.
We’re not unlucky because trump is running necessarily. We’re unlucky because half the fucking country doesn’t see what an insane and horrific choice he is.
I’m really scared for future elections when the GOP has a candidate that is actually charismatic or articulate…
They’re kinda proving that those are unnecessary, though. They’re in uncanny valley and espousing literal Nazi ideology and still getting elected. At that point, why even buy lipstick for the pig in the first place? Their dog whistles have been packed up in boxes in the attic for years. Echo chambers that blame scapegoats, vilify opponents, and deify their candidates are all that is really necessary. They can literally get away with saying “well, Hitler had some good ideas too, though…” and the base will lap it up and show up to cast their ballots.
Charisma and articulation are off-putting to their uncharismatic and inarticulate voters anyway. That might actually do more harm than good. Because “talking good is gay” or something. It’s dumb but it’s how they feel, and their feelings don’t give a fuck about facts.
I think they do see it. They just think that’s a good thing.
Enough people think competence is ‘controlling’ and education is ‘pretentious’ that they want pathetic, stupid, harmful bullshit.
The purpose of the system is what it does, and the purpose of an ideology that discriminates is the people it chooses to harm, and the ways it finds to harm them.
She’s running against arguably the worst candidate in American history and it’s still a dead heat, what does that tell you?
Harris must be a nasty woman like Hillary Clinton. It can’t be because the other side has been propagandized until it went nuts.
Super healthy and helpful mindset /s
I’m guessing they were being sarcastic. Unfortunately a lot of people have yet to realize sarcasm is anything but obvious online, at least not in this day and age.
Guessing? That was obviously sarcastic.
I think I understood their sarcasm. They think I’m engaging in misogynistic tendencies and do actually think Trump voters are “nuts”.
Traitor voters are nuts. Why else would they be voting for America’s Hitler?
For the record, I don’t know if you personally judge Harris as a woman. I have no reason to think that’s true, and I don’t know if you hate Hillary, let alone your reason if you do.
But I think a lot of the hate for Hillary was misogynist, and many people made the argument that if Trump is awful, Hillary must have been worse to lose.
He might be the best candidate for hateful idiots though. The guy’s a chud whisperer. I’m not sure if any smarter more articulate Republican could hold together the same radical coalition.
You could have a cockroach running against a smoked cigarette that’s been hydrating in a coffee cup for a week and as long as the cockroach was a Democrat and the cigarette were a republican, it would still be a dead heat.
The alternative, if the republicans had a candidate that wasn’t a weird 80 year old billionaire, the democrats wouldn’t have a shot in hell, facilitating a genocide while endorsing 90% of republican policies from 2016 and promising what amounts to fuckall help to most people.
Kinda like how Trump’s whole campaign fell apart when Biden dropped out? Weird.
And people would vote for Jill Stein instead?
Pass me those drugs you’re doing LMAO
Yeah. I mean, after all… who would want to vote for someone to run a country who has spent their life practicing law /s
people who have been ate up by the justice system might have some hesitations
So instead they should be voting for the felon that screams to use the military against his political opponents and institute the death penalty for drug dealers…
Yeah… The hugely vast majority of those people are people who have done crime.
The problem isn’t the DOJ necessarily, but rather, the laws need to be refined. Having experience in courts can help with that because lawyers have more information from their clients, and know about things like coercive control. They’ve spoken to people affected.
They’ve seen which laws should be repealed and harm mostly innocent people such as weed laws regarding possession of small quantities.
And to identify corruption and fix it.
What America needs at the moment is someone who is 100% on top of the law, because it’s an open secret that Trump intends to try to exploit every law he can during the election, exploit every loophole and try to exploit corruption in the system. That’s why she’s perfect.
Whereas, I’m fairly sure Trump wouldn’t even be able to decipher any amendments (he’d need a summary)
And having Walz as VP is perfect too due to his extensive history in the military and equally valuable history as a school teacher (so he understands kids too)
abortion is illegal in most places so now there are women who are considered criminals who have committed a crime
are we including those women too as criminals?
the homeless sleeping outside are committing a crime too
should they be on this criminal list too?
Walz and Trump worked well together too but that does not mean they did something great
Resistance to the Line 3 pipeline expansion is led by Indigenous women and two-spirit people.[35] Ojibwe-led groups including Giniw Collective, Camp Migizi, Red Lake Treaty Camp, RISE Coalition, and Honor the Earth among others have been at the center of resistance.[36] Demonstrators and protesters organizing in opposition to the pipeline refer to themselves as “water protectors”[37] and follow a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience that includes direct actions.[38] Organizers aim to convince the Biden administration to revoke or suspend the pipeline project’s federal clean water permit.[23] Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has not taken a firm stance on the pipeline expansion, which received federal approval under the Trump administration.[18][23]
Your abortion argument actually supports my argument entirely.
Thanks for that
Oh yea! Because campaign platforms totally aren’t built around their opponent and don’t ever change and for sure aren’t strategic or anything!
Nothin but a lil troll account.
Are downvoters disagreeing even though the biggest slogan to come out of the DNC was “we are not going back” (plus the point of the stunt this article is about)? Or do they think any criticism whatsoever of democrats is bad? This shouldn’t be a controversial take.
Because 1) it’s the usual “I’m totally a leftist that hates Trump yet will always blame the Dems for everything for some completely mysterious and unknown reason” bullshit, and 2) it’s a goddamn stupid take. Of course running an anti-Trump campaign wouldn’t work against anyone but Trump. Harris’ campaign strategy (which is a continuation of Biden’s) is to singularly point out the threat Trump represents, not to paint the entire GOP as a threat. And as much as it might piss off actual progressives (people who are going to vote Dem anyway because they understand what’s at stake, unlike, you know, the poster you replied to) they’re trying to reach Republican voters who don’t want Trump but need to be reminded it’s okay to vote for the other party if they have better candidates.
-
As a leftist that totally hates Trump, I am voting for Harris because it’s not strategic for me to do otherwise. I still have the ability to recognize that the dems are doing their damndest to uphold a broken status quo that is actively harming everyone, especially children in Palestine.
-
Why shouldn’t they paint the entire GOP as a threat when they are the party America’s Hitler? The reason we have Trump in the first place is because the DNC wanted a bogeyman to get Hilary in in 2016, quickly found source from 2016. They shouldn’t be trying to court Republicans, they should be trying to motivate people with real progress. The reason Hilary lost was because people are sick of establishment politicians and she was the embodiment of that establishment.
People are sick and tired of having 2 bad choices and nothing else.
-
Criticism? Where did you find it? That was just a silly take with no substance whatsoever.
The criticism is that a large portion of voters wouldn’t support her if she wasn’t running against someone like Trump. I know that criticism has at least some substance because it applies to me.
Edit: more specifically her campaign is using Trump as a bogeyman more than she’s running on actual policy.
