Gillibrand: If Lehman Brothers Were Lehman Sisters, We Might Not Have Had the Financial Collapse

Gillibrand sucks. She's a posturing, neoliberal stooge.

But she's much, much smarter than you.

The weird thing about going into politics is that 30% or so of the population will feel totally comfortable calling you stupid even if, like Gillibrand, you graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League college. "She might have sum book-larnin', but can she skin a possum? Moran!"
 
The weird thing about going into politics is that 30% or so of the population will feel totally comfortable calling you stupid even if, like Gillibrand, you graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League college. "She might have sum book-larnin', but can she skin a possum? Moran!"
She's an educated idiot as evidenced by the idiocy made by her in the vid despite her education.
 
Translation: She's extremely bright and well-educated but she's in a different party than the one you prefer.
How about she said something so idiotic that it betrays her education. Or are you willing to argue otherwise?
 
How about she said something so idiotic that it betrays her education. Or are you willing to argue otherwise?

I didn't see the video, but no one can plausibly argue that she is not exceptionally intelligent. People who call obviously highly intelligent people "morons" just because they have political disagreements just show themselves to be petty and unable to be objective.
 
The weird thing about going into politics is that 30% or so of the population will feel totally comfortable calling you stupid even if, like Gillibrand, you graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League college. "She might have sum book-larnin', but can she skin a possum? Moran!"

The intellectual deficit and corresponding blind spots are endlessly frustrating.

Like, there are political figures that I will say are actually stupid: Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Louie Gohmert, etc. But I would never think to call, say, Ted Cruz an idiot....because he's not. He's clearly a very smart person. Likewise, I wince to think that it would be appropriate to call other politicians of whom I am not fond (Gillibrand, Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker) unintelligent or intellectually inferior to myself or to the persons I hold in high esteem. Clinton is one that really gets me: I hold absolutely no love for the woman, but she is undeniably very, very smart. And to think that persons here, who realistically are probably of above average intelligence for Westerners but are very many strata removed from Clinton, would honestly think to themselves that she is stupid and that they know more about policy than she does is hard to understand. Sometimes I wish that I could just temporarily lobotomize myself for just a day or so to see if that would help me understand the thought process.
 
Because they'd be in the kitchen making sandwiches instead of running an investment bank?

I kid. I kid.


Or am I?
 
She's an educated idiot.

Do you consider yourself an uneducated genius?

Also, just for my personal interest, what do you imagine an Ivy League classroom to be like? Just professional testers lapping up dogma without thinking critically? Because I have to presume that there are a lot of concepts that are regularly accepted in academia (institutional racism, the silliness of objectivism, etc.) that you think are dumb and contrary to common sense.
 
Ivy league or not -- It's Dartmouth. Never witnessed anyone white knight that school before.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see the video, but no one can plausibly argue that she is not exceptionally intelligent. People who call obviously highly intelligent people "morons" just because they have political disagreements just show themselves to be petty and unable to be objective.
Watch the video and THEN speak of objectivity.
 
Reminds me of when Sally Fields gave a speech about how much better off the world would be if all world leaders were women, because they would all talk things out and never resort to armed conflict to resolve issues.
I can think of so many instances where she would be wrong, but hey it made her feel all superior so good for her.
 
Engineer = smart

Law students like most of our politicians are = not so much
 
Reminds me of when Sally Fields gave a speech about how much better off the world would be if all world leaders were women, because they would all talk things out and never resort to armed conflict to resolve issues.

{<jordan}

Amazing.
 
It's ranked 168th globally on QS and around 90 in Times.

Haven't seen that. But the ACT range of admitted students also ranks 11th. You can't seriously deny that it's an elite school or that it's highly selective.

Who is she?

Senator. Getting blitzed in the WR, which suggests that Breitbart or someone is starting a campaign against her, which in turn probably means that she's seen as a threat in 2020.
 
I hate this retarded thinking, that if only we let women run things then the world would be such a great place. Its such a naive and misplaced notion. The problem often isn't the individual people in these positions but the systems that they had to climb to get there which weeds out certain kinds of people and selects for others.

A woman who would rise to the top of a large, modern financial institution isn't going to be that different from her male colleagues so I doubt she'd bring a very different mindset.
 
I hate this retarded thinking, that if only we let women run things then the world would be such a great place. Its such a naive and misplaced notion. The problem often isn't the individual people in these positions but the systems that they had to climb to get there which weeds out certain kinds of people and selects for others.

A woman who would rise to the top of a large, modern financial institution isn't going to be that different from her male colleagues so I doubt she'd bring a very different mindset.

This is actually an argument made frequently about the "patriarchy" and patriarchal institutions. It's not just the people but the systems themselves and until you rebuild the systems, it won't matter who comes out of them.
 
This is actually an argument made frequently about the "patriarchy" and patriarchal institutions. It's not just the people but the systems themselves and until you rebuild the systems, it won't matter who comes out of them.
And I think there's truth to that argument. Corporations may say they want diversity but I suspect they want people who tick off certain boxes while nonetheless remaining compatible with the existing corporate culture and ethos. I suspect even that bare minimum level of diversity could have some effect but nothing really transformative. The essence remains the same.
 
Back
Top