Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[oskar]

https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...200329-10.html
This should redirect here.

[Savy]

Wrestlers court usually ends up in beer being bought as a punishment so that's a step in the right direction.

[oskar]

Just fired Agent Strzok,...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...37282676957185
wait, what?

Based on the fact that Strzok was in charge of the Witch Hunt, will it be dropped?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...36065158557701
huh?

[BananaStand]

huh?

You need a minimum IQ of 55 to decode these messages.

Here I'll translate.

Tweet 1 = Here's where Strozk was too nice on the target of his investigation. Let's do it over and just weigh the facts.

Tweet 2 - Here's where Strozk was overly biased against the target of his investigation. Let's do it over and just weigh the facts.....wait...wut?...there are no facts? Just wild media speculation? Oh ok, then drop it.

[Poopadoop]

I like that a lot of the media is beginning to ignore Trump's tweets as the babbling rants that they are.

[wufwugy]

I like that a lot of the media is beginning to ignore Trump's tweets as the babbling rants that they are.

Dude is a poet

[oskar]

Only the best people, huh?

You need a minimum IQ of 55 to decode these messages.

Here I'll translate.

Tweet 1 = Here's where Strozk was too nice on the target of his investigation. Let's do it over and just weigh the facts.

Tweet 2 - Here's where Strozk was overly biased against the target of his investigation. Let's do it over and just weigh the facts.....wait...wut?...there are no facts? Just wild media speculation? Oh ok, then drop it.

tweet 1: He can't fire Stroszek. It's not his call. For him to claim that he did is very confusing. And Stroszek hasn't been in charge of the investigation for a year.

"Crooked Hillary Clinton sham investigation" If it's a sham ivestigation does that mean all these people are innocent? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury
And why is it the Hillary sham investigation now? Because of the Steelie Dossier? Does he think: no Steelie Dossier, no investigation?

"Should be properly redone" What does that even mean?



tweet 2: "Based on the fact that Strzok was in charge of the Witch Hunt, will it be dropped?" HE WASN'T. If he means that if Stroszek was in charge of the investigation over a year ago and was just now fired over personal text messages (???) why in gods name would that mean the Witch Hunt would be dropped? You just falsely (pobably) incrimminated yourself of obstraction of justice - for the second time! This is a focal point of the investigation!

He literally said in those two tweets: I actively obstructed justice, can we stop investigating me for obstruction of justice now. The man is an absolute moron.

[oskar]

OH SHIT

I think I'm getting 4d chessed here. What if his lawyers told him to claim he fired people over the sham investigation when he demonstrably didn't, to mitigate him stating publicly that he fired Comey over the handling of the investigation and establish a pattern that he just claims firing people for bogus reasons all the time.

[BananaStand]

tweet 1: He can't fire Stroszek. It's not his call. For him to claim that he did is very confusing

Please tell me this is a troll? I fear it isn't and 4th grade grammar eludes you. "just fired agent strozk" - that entire phrase is the subject of the sentence. You're assuming the pronoun "I" is implied somehow. Not sure why. Must be easy to hate on a guy when you can literally put words in his mouth.

And Stroszek hasn't been in charge of the investigation for a year.

Corruption is corruption, whenever it happened. He was an integral part of the investigation for a long time. His corruption doesn't just disappear after he leaves. It doesn't dissolve after a year.

"Crooked Hillary Clinton sham investigation" If it's a sham ivestigation does that mean all these people are innocent? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury And why is it the Hillary sham investigation now? Because of the Steelie Dossier? Does he think: no Steelie Dossier, no investigation?

You're confusing investigations. I realize that when you're IQ is low and you have Trump Derangement Syndrome, it can be hard to comprehend the world and current events. And with your head buried in the vox echo chamber I'm not surprised that you don't know that Hillary Clinton was under FBI investigation for criminally mishandling classified information. Strozk worked on that investigation too. That's what the "sham" is referring to. It has nothing to do with Russia and Mueller. it's a completely separate thing that doesn't ever get talked about among people inside the socialist retard bubble.

"Should be properly redone" What does that even mean?

Strozk was provably bias in favor of a predetermined outcome exonerating Clinton. That's why that investigation (and not the Russia thing) was a "sham". I hope I don't have to explain what "properly redone" means now.

tweet 2: "Based on the fact that Strzok was in charge of the Witch Hunt, will it be dropped?" HE WASN'T. If he means that if Stroszek was in charge of the investigation over a year ago and was just now fired over personal text messages (???)

He was fired for allowing personal bias to influence an investigation, not for personal text messages. And see above. Corruption is corruption. You can't cut it out. You have to burn everything down.

He literally said in those two tweets: I actively obstructed justice, can we stop investigating me for obstruction of justice now. The man is an absolute moron.

There's that word-in-mouth power again! How do you do that??

[oskar]

You wanna do an IQ test? I've never done one. Maybe a 3rd party can pick one, we both do it and post the results. Whoever gets the higher score is always right from now on. Deal?

[BananaStand]

You wanna do an IQ test? I've never done one. Maybe a 3rd party can pick one, we both do it and post the results. Whoever gets the higher score is always right from now on. Deal?

I have taken IQ test.

You're on.

[oskar]

So it's a sham investigation if Hilary testifies in front of congress for 11 hours straight, but if Trump refuses to answer any questions in person, that's... you're right I probably have a really low IQ because I can't reconcile that.

[oskar]

I mean we should probably do the same one and have screenshots, right?

[oskar]

He was fired for allowing personal bias to influence an investigation, not for personal text messages. And see above. Corruption is corruption. You can't cut it out. You have to burn everything down.

source?

[OngBonga]

Hahaha IQ chest beating itt.

After you've done your silly little IQ test to decide who's the smartest out you both, I'll play the winner at chess. Let me remind you all I beat spoon, which means I'm better at poker than him too.

[Savy]

And I beat ong too

And I'm the only one who could solve a simple logic puzzle.

[OngBonga]

You beat me at chess? When?

[MadMojoMonkey]

And I'm the only one who could solve a simple logic puzzle.

You were the first to solve it. No conclusions can be drawn if anyone else could have solved it before you showed us all the solution.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hahaha IQ chest beating itt.

I love the implicit assertion that if everyone was just smart, we'd all agree on moral issues.
Or that whomever is better at solving puzzles must be better at understanding human behavior.
Or that smart people are never wrong about anything.

[OngBonga]

...smart people are never wrong about anything.

Yeah, because Newton was an idiot.

Also, it's worth noting that being smart doesn't make you a winner at life. Garry Kasparov once cheated to beat a 15 y/o girl. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn Hitler had a ridiculously high IQ.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah, because Newton was an idiot.

By all accounts, he was a very difficult man to get along with.
More so as he got older.

Seems not too many people that were close to him thought he was right about much aside from math and physics.

[OngBonga]

What else do you need to be right about?

[MadMojoMonkey]

[oskar]

It's a pretty well known fact that Isaac Newton was a religious nut and wrote some pretty dumb things. To his credit, during his time most people were what we would consider religious fanatics today. I don't think mmm has a "need" to be right. You just chose what is likely the worst possible example for the point you were trying to make.

Hahaha IQ chest beating itt.

After you've done your silly little IQ test to decide who's the smartest out you both, I'll play the winner at chess. Let me remind you all I beat spoon, which means I'm better at poker than him too.

I do not recognize the authority of chess as being the ultimate smart person game. I'd play you in a match of Starcraft though. And just for the record: Spoon couldn't beat low stakes post 2008. He did however think he was justified to ban Iopq for giving bad poker advice when that guy beat 10x the stakes he was playing, at literally 10x the rate. Spoon is good at math, not poker, not ever.

I think the IQ thing is incredibly silly, but if banana insists on calling me low IQ every single post, I think I can call him out. I genuinely do not know my IQ nor do I look forward to wasting my time on taking a test, but if banana thinks this is imoprtant, I'm game.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought he was saying, "What else [does Newton] need to be right about [aside from math and physics]."

[oskar]

I have 55 of them IQ's, man. Don't ask me!

[Savy]

You beat me at chess? When?

https://lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#65

You were the first to solve it. No conclusions can be drawn if anyone else could have solved it before you showed us all the solution.

And if you can see further it's because you stand on the shoulder of giants (i.e. me)

[Savy]

I have taken IQ test.

You're on.

The only way this is worth it's time is if you both get it done properly which would cost. I think you both send the money for the two tests to a third party, person with a bigger IQ gets sent both lots of money upon reveal.

Or ideally more than that for the lulz.

[oskar]

I like money.

[BananaStand]

I already have my WAIS III results.

Let me know when you're ready.

[oskar]

https://wechslertest.com/
Is this the one?

[oskar]

I guess not. This one is only grade school math questions and they want you to pay for the actual test. Can I get a link?
idk if this one is legit, but if it is I seriously question the usefulness. There are some questions that seem difficult at first, but after you figure it out you could answer similar questions after a second.

[oskar]

So I took this one because it's free:
https://testyourself.psychtests.com/testid/3109

Spoiler: Show

https://imgur.com/a/2rT0djG

Excuse me while I take my iq's and build me a house out of all of them iq's I got! And FUCK written math problems!

Also fuck IQ test, because I don't know much about psychology, but I know games, and I know a fucking game when I see one. I took this one which is half an hour and the shitty short one. This can be practiced and improved upon easily. I don't see how this isn't meaningless outside of the extremes.

[OngBonga]

https://lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#65

I forgot about that game. I assume that's blitz, because I didn't play very well. That said, I was comfortably in the lead but got too ambitious with my attack. 19... Rxf2 is terrible, until then I was crushing.

But yeah, legit brag.

He did however think he was justified to ban Iopq for giving bad poker advice

haha how the fuck did I never eat a ban?

[OngBonga]

until then I was crushing

Actually this isn't true. We both opened really badly and gave each other huge leads, then finally I blundered the rook and that was the last time the lead changed.

[OngBonga]

That was only two years ago? I'm embarrassed to play that badly in recent times.

[oskar]

btw I'm going to let you off the hook for that chess game, ong. I realize you'd run out of IQ's way before I would, so it wouldn't be a fair match.

I'll also have you know that I'm going to milk that exact same joke for at least 5 more posts. I didn't waste 30 min. for nothing.

[Savy]

Actually this isn't true. We both opened really badly and gave each other huge leads, then finally I blundered the rook and that was the last time the lead changed.

I mean if you look at the graph I'm a lot better for a lot of the game and I suck dick at chess.

[OngBonga]

I suck dick at blitz. If I played that badly with a day or more per move, I'd probably kill myself.

[BananaStand]

IQTEST.JPG

Cool test.

Whoever gets the higher score is always right from now on. Deal?

I'm not sure what you expected to happen when you laid down this challenge. It went exactly as I expected.

I'll let you be right 5% of the time if you agree to never denounce anyone or anything as racist ever again, ever. You clearly don't know what it means, so this will save you some embarrassment. It's really a win-win.

Deal?

[Savy]

I suck dick at blitz. If I played that badly with a day or more per move, I'd probably kill myself.

A move per day isn't chess though is it really.

[OngBonga]

A move per day isn't chess though is it really.

On the contrary, it's better chess. I don't see chess as sport, it's art. I play it because I enjoy playing it, and when I play a good game, I enjoy studying the game. It's no different to me painting a picture that I'd be proud of. I'd hang it on the wall and look at it. So taking my time to get it right, that's me trying to be an artist, rather than drawing a quick doodle for the sake of it.

[BananaStand]

So....back on topic for a minute...

How exactly is Mueller going to figuratively choke-slam the President?

[oskar]

IQTEST.JPG

Cool test.



I'm not sure what you expected to happen when you laid down this challenge. It went exactly as I expected.

I'll let you be right 5% of the time if you agree to never denounce anyone or anything as racist ever again, ever. You clearly don't know what it means, so this will save you some embarrassment. It's really a win-win.

Deal?

I was going to redo it because I know, at least this type of test can easily be improved on with practice, which defeats the point I think. Unfortunately this one has the exact same questions each time, so not only could I improve, anyone could ace it the second or third time around.

[oskar]

So....back on topic for a minute...

How exactly is Mueller going to figuratively choke-slam the President?

Is this a real question? Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You see any way that Trump wouldn't lie under oath if you question him for 11 hours?

[BananaStand]

anyone could ace it the second or third time around.

What are you implying? My results came from my first and only pass through the test.

Don't be a friggen baby

[BananaStand]

Is this a real question? Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You see any way that Trump wouldn't lie under oath if you question him for 11 hours?

When did Trump lie under oath?

[oskar]

I'm not implying anything, you're implying that I'm implying something.

When did Trump lie under oath?

??????????????

[BananaStand]

??????????????

What did you not understand about the question?

[oskar]

I don't understand how it relates to what I said.

[BananaStand]

I don't understand how it relates to what I said.

The question was...."how is Mueller going to get Trump...Undertaker style?"

Your answer was "by prosecuting him for lying under oath"

I'm asking you how that might happen?

[oskar]

He would have to contradict the things he is already on record for saying like claiming he fired Comey because "...this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." [sic]
You prod him long enough, he's going to either admit to obstruction of justice, or lie about something that Mueller can prove wrong.

[BananaStand]

He would have to contradict the things he is already on record for saying like claiming he fired Comey because "...this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story." [sic]
You prod him long enough, he's going to either admit to obstruction of justice, or lie about something that Mueller can prove wrong.

What do you think "justice" is?

Is it a possessed partisan prosecutor interrogating a sitting president until he fucks up so he can charge him with fucking up under interrogation?

You know that's exactly how Stalin filled the gulags, right?

Doesn't he need a pretense to conduct an interrogation in the first place? Doesn't that require evidence? Is there any evidence?

[Savy]

On the contrary, it's better chess. I don't see chess as sport, it's art. I play it because I enjoy playing it, and when I play a good game, I enjoy studying the game. It's no different to me painting a picture that I'd be proud of. I'd hang it on the wall and look at it. So taking my time to get it right, that's me trying to be an artist, rather than drawing a quick doodle for the sake of it.

Anyone who says something isn't something because they don't like it is an idiot. The issue is computers make that form of chess such an easy cheat that it can compeltely kill it.

[Savy]

I was going to redo it because I know, at least this type of test can easily be improved on with practice, which defeats the point I think. Unfortunately this one has the exact same questions each time, so not only could I improve, anyone could ace it the second or third time around.

If you aren't paying for it and doing it under proper conditions that are monitored it's all pointless.

[wufwugy]

Wait, Muh Russia is still a thing?

Fucking el oh el

[Jack Sawyer]

I was going to redo it because I know, at least this type of test can easily be improved on with practice, which defeats the point I think. Unfortunately this one has the exact same questions each time, so not only could I improve, anyone could ace it the second or third time around.

You got hit by another one of high-iq Banana's fallacies.

[OngBonga]

The issue is computers make that form of chess such an easy cheat that it can compeltely kill it.

Yet it doesn't. What does that tell you? That I'm not alone in treating chess like art.

[BananaStand]

You got hit by another one of high-iq Banana's fallacies.

Wow, alot of butt-hurt in this thread.

Let's not forget that it was not I who said "let's take a test".

I didn't choose this test.

And by the way, the link that Jack posted, isn't even relevant to this discussion. The headline makes it seem like it is. That's a dirty trick demagogues use to fool people. The article claims to debunk previous studies that found correlation between IQ and race/gender/class. It doesn't say anything about IQ being an ineffective measure of intelligence.

This is really pathetic Jack. Five paragraphs in the Independent doesn't suddenly override 100 years of scientific literature. There is no more dependable predictor of long-term success than IQ. That's not up for debate.

[Jack Sawyer]

Wow, alot of butt-hurt in this thread.

Butt-hurt? Why would I be butthurt? I just find it funny

Let's not forget that it was not I who said "let's take a test".

Yeah, he stepped into your fallacy hook, line and sinker. It is you who are the master of strawmen after all

I didn't choose this test.

Hahahahahahaha

And by the way, the link that Jack posted, isn't even relevant to this discussion. The headline makes it seem like it is. That's a dirty trick demagogues use to fool people. The article claims to debunk previous studies that found correlation between IQ and race/gender/class. It doesn't say anything about IQ being an ineffective measure of intelligence.

LOL

Nothing is relevant to anything Banana, until you strawman it into being so

This is really pathetic Jack. Five paragraphs in the Independent doesn't suddenly override 100 years of scientific literature. There is no more dependable predictor of long-term success than IQ. That's not up for debate.

Is popsci better a better source for you?

Too many of us use the terms “IQ” and “intelligence” as if they’re interchangeable. They’re not. An IQ score isn’t a magical signifier of smarts; it merely quantifies your ability to take a particular kind of test.

https://www.popsci.com/why-iq-is-flawed

They only measure a narrow range of intelligence, namely visuo-linguistic and mathematic

Some of them, like the WAIS-IV (the most respected, as Julie Gurner said), has a Verbal section that can be aced by anyone with an 800 in SAT Verbal.

it is a test, so if you are a bad test taker (you have anxiety or some type of mental block) then you simply won’t perform that well on it. I am a seasoned test taker and even I felt rushed.

it’s not predictive (despite what we used to believe), nor is it important or useful in real life.

If you’re a Ph.D doing research in something difficult like machine learning, and you get an IQ score that is lower than you would expect (not too low, but let’s say <130) then which is more important? Which is more difficult?

IQ tests can be practiced. No matter what anyone says, you can practice and become familiar with what they ask on IQ tests which will give you an advantage.

It isn’t flawed at all really.

The first question to ask oneself when adopting a belief, is “is this belief supported by evidence?”.

So I’ll now take you trough my though process about how IQ tests aren’t flawed.

The first question is “what is the purpose of IQ tests?”

The purpose of IQ tests are generally to find the kids in a school system who probably need extra help with learning something. Has humanity also found use for it in deciding which kids can advance trough the system? Yes, but we haven’t taken into account anything over 130 because the test wasn’t invented for that purpose.

So yes, it does work insofar as its real purpose demands.

Now to the perversion of IQ tests by humans… we use them to find the “brightest” kids… that mentality is flawed because of the difficulty in differentiating anything above 140…

Remeber, everyone has an IQ…

IQ tests are not flawed, they test what they are meant to test, your IQ. The reason why people think they are flawed are because they think IQ is the same as intelligence, it is not. Even though IQ means Intelligence Quotient and even has the word intelligence in it, it a idea of sorts, made by a french guy to test how well children would do in school. IQ tests do not perfectly demonstrate someones intelligence, but it is the best we got for now and IQ tests cannot be a perfect way to show someones intelligence because it was made by humans and is administered by humans which makes it inherently flawed and not perfect.

They aren’t flawed, just very limited.

The people that don’t realise how limited the tests are - they are flawed!

IQ tests can provide a useful metric, but it would be smart to realise how narrow a range of aspects of intelligence that they measure.

I have never been tested for IQ and could only guess what sort of score I would get based on the very limited information I received after sitting the Mensa culturally fair test. I can’t see that there would be much value for me in getting a proper IQ test or knowing some number that someone claims is my IQ score. most likely I’ll never bother to get tested.

https://www.quora.com/How-flawed-is-IQ-tests


But surely your high iq must have allowed you to reach the same proper conclusions long ago, right?

[BananaStand]

Maybe I'll read through this crap later this afternoon. But by skimming it I don't see where you're doing anything to debunk the claim that IQ is an enormously reliable predictor of long term success in life. All I'm seeing is crybaby whining from low-IQ people who are jealous and trying to pretend that it doesn't matter. IQ matters.

Too many of us use the terms “IQ” and “intelligence” as if they’re interchangeable. They’re not. An IQ score isn’t a magical signifier of smarts; it merely quantifies your ability to take a particular kind of test.

lol, "particular kind of test"

Translation: "the kind of complex problems encountered in life that you will be required to solve if you wish to succeed in a hierarchy of competence"

[BananaStand]

Just LOL at this whole discussion. IQ matters, and if you think otherwise, then you're just a butt-hurt idiot who wants to delude himself into thinking that all brains are equal.

The fact is, the realities on this subject make people uncomfortable. it's really a grim subject because IQ is is really 'luck of the draw', and if you got a low one, you're stuck with it. It undermines the notion that all men are created equal. Hence, no one ever wants to talk about this....either that or they're eager to debunk it as pseudo-science.

It's NOT psuedo-science. Not even close.

[Jack Sawyer]

Just LOL at this whole discussion. IQ matters, and if you think otherwise, then you're just a butt-hurt idiot who wants to delude himself into thinking that all brains are equal.

The fact is, the realities on this subject make people uncomfortable. it's really a grim subject because IQ is is really 'luck of the draw', and if you got a low one, you're stuck with it. It undermines the notion that all men are created equal. Hence, no one ever wants to talk about this....either that or they're eager to debunk it as pseudo-science.

It's NOT psuedo-science. Not even close.

IQ ≠ intelligence, high iq Banana

I see it's news for you

[MadMojoMonkey]

"So I’ll now take you trough my though process about how IQ tests aren’t flawed."

trough my though

How intelligent is it to avoid spellcheck and proof-reading?
Even if I agree with this person's points, I don't want them speaking for me.

[BananaStand]

IQ ≠ intelligence, high iq Banana

I see it's news for you

It's only news in the sense that yet another idiot with a low IQ is trying wordsmith his way into proving it doesn't matter.

You can play games around which words are synonymous with IQ and which words aren't. In the end though, you can't say that IQ is meaningless. My score is nearly 2 standard deviations higher than Oskars, and almost 3 standard deviations higher than the average.

What do you think that means?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you think that means?

... that if you weren't such a condescending loser, you could affect a whole lot of change in this world..?

[Jack Sawyer]

It's only news in the sense that yet another idiot with a low IQ is trying wordsmith his way into proving it doesn't matter.

You can play games around which words are synonymous with IQ and which words aren't. In the end though, you can't say that IQ is meaningless. My score is nearly 2 standard deviations higher than Oskars, and almost 3 standard deviations higher than the average.

What do you think that means?

I see you have a hard time understanding, so I'll try again.

IQ ≠ intelligence, high iq Banana

[BananaStand]

... you could affect a whole lot of change in this world..?

Who says I'm not?

[BananaStand]

I see you have a hard time understanding, so I'll try again.

IQ ≠ intelligence, high iq Banana

I see your low IQ is preventing you from even understanding the actual question.

If IQ is not equal to intelligence....then to what is IQ equal?

[Jack Sawyer]

I see your low IQ is preventing you from even understanding the actual question.

If IQ is not equal to intelligence....then to what is IQ equal?

Sigh.

Use your high IQ and read the post above and you might discover what it is equal to.

[BananaStand]

Sigh.

Use your high IQ and read the post above and you might discover what it is equal to.

Simple question jack...

What does IQ mean?

[Jack Sawyer]

Simple question jack...

What does IQ mean?

Insecurity quotient?

[BananaStand]

Insecurity quotient?

Deflect, dodge, deny, deceive, demagogue

Nice playbook

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who says I'm not?

You can't disagree with anyone without alienating them from any ambition to even want to agree with you.
Your, "always attack," attitude entrenches people (yourself included) to double down on whatever pre-conceived notions everyone started the conversation with.

How can you affect change in the world when you can't even change your own mind?

[BananaStand]

You can't disagree with anyone without alienating them from any ambition to even want to agree with you.
Your, "always attack," attitude entrenches people (yourself included) to double down on whatever pre-conceived notions everyone started the conversation with.

How can you affect change in the world when you can't even change your own mind?

Dude...you're a scientist. You should know that the words "pre-conceived notions" and "facts" are not interchangeable.