Stephen Hawking was asked to explain the phenomenon of Trump, couldn’t
“He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”
When asked to explain the phenomenon of Donald Trump, he was stumped. “I can’t. He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator."
So I'm the lowest common denominator?
One of the most intelligent beings in the world is labeling people!
Seriously? I would expect an answer with more understanding and sophistication. But I guess even geniuses can't live up to that title.
Elitism…
I don't think it takes a genius to see how Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator. Just look at the statements he makes. They are the best statements. Great statements. The best thing about his statements is how great they are. BEST STATEMENT MAKER… Trump 2016!
+Paul Spoerry but that's not what a genius would say.
If one is truly wise he never makes a negative comment about another person.
God created the Universe, if he doesn't know.
+Thomas K I don't think you are the person to be saying who is truly wise, or not. Hawking is, without question, a genius. With that said, he was spot on correct about Trump, which would only affirm his intellect
Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist.
+Jason Newman True I'm not.
But in my opinion he shouldn't have said something rude.
It's true Steven Hawking is a genius. But there is a difference between being smart and intelligent. If you're smart you know many things. If you're intelligent you know many things and understand those many things. So at the end of the day in my opinion Hawking is just smart.
+Thomas K actually, by your definition, he is intelligent. He understands more than 99% of the population.. I would say that is definitely the qualifier.
+Jason Newman to judge someone? Hawking has no more right to judge someone than you and I do.
I'm sorry but that 1% is proven right here. He doesn't understand prudence, or he wouldn't have given that type of answer.
+Thomas K that's a bunch of nonsense you're spouting. He was spot on with what he said. That's too bad if you don't like it, doesn't make him any less
+Jason Newman why did he need to say that? Just because he may have been right doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
+Thomas K because it needs to be said. It's something that shows how low people are, to get behind a person like Trump.
+Jason Newman people are getting behind Clinton too. And she's just as low if not more. He could have said something about that too.
+Thomas K Clinton is a bad candidate, but Trump is much worse. Clinton still has a chance of not even getting the nomination. Which is what many are hoping will happen
+Thomas K No, Clinton is not remotely just as low. Not in the same bullpark. She potentially endanged security – likely via technical incompetence. And, like 99% of US politicians she has bias's towards superpacs that bribe her.
However, that is still NOTHING compared to a guy that wants kill family members of terrorists. Its NOTHING compared to a guy that wants to not only continue but expand and "fill up" the huge stain on due process and justice that is gitmo.
It is NOTHING compared to someone that wants to ban 1/4th of the worlds population from visiting america.
Its NOTHING compared to a guy that wants to construct a utterly pointless 16+billion dollar wall as his main policy
Its NOTHING compared to a guy that, either lies blantly about "crowds of thousands" of muslims dancing in newyork on 9/11…..or possibly is deluded enough to think it happened and yet no one recorded it.
(My money is just on pathological lier incidentally. Why else would he lie about being his own publist? Theres absolutely no point to that lie given he already owned up to it decades back)
And thats before we even get to how he was ring-leading the raciest waste of time that constituted the Birther movement. More lieing there too – remember "you wouldn't believe what we found" – well, he never shared did he?
Trump breaks the scale of bad. It takes huge leaps to excuse what he intends to do – what he has stated he wants to do. To somehow twist them being even remotely acceptable which is my only rational for why anyone would vote for him. They arnt voting for him, they are voting for a weird distortion of what he has said that only exists in their heads.
+Thomas Wrobel only thing I disagree with in your comment is that Hilary risked classified documents because of technical incompetence. She was repeatedly warned, and told she couldn't do it, but did it anyway because she thinks she's above the law.
To add to the things you've mentioned about Trump, let's not forget he also said that Muslim Americans should receive identifying tattoos… remind you of anyone?
+Thomas K Genius definition: "an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc." I think you're confusing intellect with wisdom. You're stating a false dilemma, with options presented as being exclusive opposites that aren't at all.
+Jason Newman Where was she "warned"? It's true she requested a secure messaging device; like the one Obama got a pass on using. Sadly, IT even at that level is woefully inept (sad given what the NSA/CIA can do.. but the Secretary of State… 4th from being Commander in Chief is shit really hit the fan, couldn't get a secure mobile device?). Even that would imply that she knowingly was communicating classified information and up to this point it looks to have been classified after the fact. So… dunno what they would have warned her about given it hadn't been given classification yet.