Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Low ratings.

Flat boring speech.

Low energy Don.

Smorbun wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

If he had no business being there neither did the looters. Let's stop justifying businesses being burned, livelihoods destroyed, and people's lives put in danger. Nothing about any of this is "peaceful." All of these riots are going to be blamed on you 'do nothing' democrats come election day.

You continue to show how big of a moron you are. Once again, the 13 keys clearly state that civil unrest goes against the party in power. You once embraced the keys until Lichtman has now predicted that Biden will win. You have no idea what you're talking about, and everything you mention as a reason Trump will win is disproved. Civil unrest, 13 keys, betting sites.

You still haven't answered what two extra states Trump will win that he didn't win in 2016. Hilarity. You are a raging idiot.

The two extra states for Trump will be NH & ME . (NM & MN are in play) I am predicting at least 313 electoral votes for Trump.

I am even more confident of a Trump victory this time around than at this point in 2016. Again, you might want to stop with the name calling as this is going to backfire on you.

Enjoy your loss.

KAG2020

Gina wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-pans-trumps-rnc-speech-far-too-long-surprisingly-flat-065846965.html

Low ratings.

Flat boring speech.

Low energy Don.

Still no active campaigning by basement dweller Dementia Joe. Another 10 days before he ventures out. LOL!!!

No energy

Phoning it in

Laziest campaigner ever

Enjoy your loss.

Trumps sister has his number, enjoy hearing her take.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/maryanne-trump-barry-ivanka-moron-eric-mary-trump-audio-recordings-050854003.html

Smorbun wrote:

You are incorrect though that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence. It most assuredly does.

No, I'm right. I just now asked an expert. My wife is a reading instructor with a masters degree in Educational Psychology and another masters in Learning Disorders. She confirmed that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence.

A better reader may have more potential to improve cognitive ability, but if you are talking about innate intelligence, there is no correlation.

Reading is a skill like being able to run fast. Some people are naturally better at it than others. And like running, you get better with practice no matter who you are. But natural reading ability doesn't correlate with raw intelligence any more than natural running ability.

Melania loves her step daughter so much.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/melania-trumps-expression-greeting-ivanka-082544618.html

Wow, you are an idiot. I've already called 334 for Biden. We will see who will be more right. Hint: it will be me.

Enjoy your loss, and thanks for playing.

Fat hurts wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

You are incorrect though that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence. It most assuredly does.

No, I'm right. I just now asked an expert. My wife is a reading instructor with a masters degree in Educational Psychology and another masters in Learning Disorders. She confirmed that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence.

A better reader may have more potential to improve cognitive ability, but if you are talking about innate intelligence, there is no correlation.

Reading is a skill like being able to run fast. Some people are naturally better at it than others. And like running, you get better with practice no matter who you are. But natural reading ability doesn't correlate with raw intelligence any more than natural running ability.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. People with Down Syndrome have a low IQ, and they can not read as well as a person with average or better intelligence. My daughter was reading at an 8th grade level before she entered kindergarten. The school district then tested her IQ in first grade to see is she qualified for the state's gifted program, and of course her IQ was super high and she entered the gifted program. The gifted teacher, who specialized in reading, said she knew my daughter would qualify because her reading level predicted it. Even beyond that as a predictor, you can find studies out there that show that children with a low IQ can get to a 1st grade reading level with "intensive instruction".

You are not correct. People with an IQ just above the bottom rung of 69 and below, so 70-79 have a much tougher time reading than those with 120 or above.

Sorry, but you are not correct here.

Fat hurts wrote:

Many dyslexics have genius level IQ's. Ability to read has no correlation at all with intelligence.

I think you mean to say that poor reading skills do not necessarily imply low intelligence (as with dyslexia). That's very different than saying the two are not correlated.

A person with a very low IQ has trouble mastering a lot of skills, so that's a red herring. Again, reading is a skill and not a sign of intelligence.

I can't tell you how many times my wife has told me about a parent who thinks her child is brilliant because they are able to read well at an early age. (Often, they are not actually good readers, but are instead just good at recognizing words.) The kid is no more likely to become a good student in later grades than anyone else, but the parent is always super-excited about it.

The research bears it out that early reading is not a sign of raw intelligence. It changes the way you approach reading instruction though, because the early reader already has some of the basic skills like decoding, so you don't need to concentrate on those.

The gifted program probably helped your daughter along by teaching her in a different way. She would benefit from that differentiated instruction, which is why the gifted teacher was so sure she would be admitted. Your daughter happened to have a high IQ, but that was just a coincidence.

I'll go with my expert, who helped me with my earlier response. She's constantly studying the research and understands reading on a much deeper level than either of us.

This executive order to defer payroll taxes is going to be a nightmare.

It starts Sep 1. That’s Tuesday.

Companies are still not set up to do it or know if they are going to do it.

They are allowed to defer the SS 6.2% tax for employees but don’t have to.

If Congress does not pass a law to forgive it, people have to start paying it back on Jan 1 with it all being due back by April.

So a bigger check for the next four months then a smaller than usual paycheck for the subsequent four months.

That’s just to try and buy some more votes for Nov 3rd.

Trump truly doesn’t care about the consequences after that date.

Your wife is wrong. You are wrong. Now, you are adding even more things that you are wrong about. Early reading is actually one of the signs of a high IQ. To go back to your inane running example, yes running is a skill, ad yes reading is a skill, but those who are innately better at running will be more skillful and therefore much faster than those who are not. Same is true for reading. Your IQ puts a limit on how well you can read, even as an adult. People with lower IQs have a harder time with bigger words, they have smaller vocabularies, they can't process the words as quickly, etc., all things necessary to be a good reader or not.

- early reading is #2.

Think about what you are saying. The lower the IQ person has, the more trouble they have with everything, to the point that they can't care for themselves. Somehow though, you say reading is magically immune to IQ level.

Just because she's your wife doesn't make her right, and she isn't.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Many dyslexics have genius level IQ's. Ability to read has no correlation at all with intelligence.

I think you mean to say that poor reading skills do not necessarily imply low intelligence (as with dyslexia). That's very different than saying the two are not correlated.

That is what a smart informed person would say. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and also agree that what you said is what he meant to say. What he did say is not correct.

Smorbun wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

I think you mean to say that poor reading skills do not necessarily imply low intelligence (as with dyslexia). That's very different than saying the two are not correlated.

That is what a smart informed person would say. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and also agree that what you said is what he meant to say. What he did say is not correct.

Monkeys phrased this correctly but both reading and correlation are complicated topics. Let's start with reading. The correlation between applying phonics to decode and identify words is significant but low. However reading is more than that and includes reading comprehension. The correlation between reading comprehension and intelligence is quite high. The misinformation here started because many thought reading disabled kids were all of low intelligence. Those working with LD kids to counteract that started the falsehood that reading does not correlate with intelligence.

There is also a difference between statistically valid correlation versus meaningful correlation.

L L wrote:

If Congress does not pass a law to forgive it, people have to start paying it back on Jan 1 with it all being due back by April.

So a bigger check for the next four months then a smaller than usual paycheck for the subsequent four months.

That’s just to try and buy some more votes for Nov 3rd.

Trump truly doesn’t care about the consequences after that date.

And it is assuredly the case that, if Trump should be defeated, the Senate--which remains GOP-controlled at least through January 1st--will do nothing at all to forgive the debt.

Because, after all, why should they do anything that might make a Democratic president look good? Party before country! That's the GOP way.

Fat hurts wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

You are incorrect though that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence. It most assuredly does.

No, I'm right. I just now asked an expert. My wife is a reading instructor with a masters degree in Educational Psychology and another masters in Learning Disorders. She confirmed that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence.

I suspect this boils down to people's different understandings of "correlation." Someone trained in statistics might say that there's a (positive) correlation between height and IQ--which, within a given ethnic group, there is. Someone who interprets correlation to mean *predictability* might say that, because there are smart short people and dumb tall ones, therefore there is "no correlation."

There *is* a (positive) correlation between reading ability and IQ, just as there is one between reading height and IQ. Each of those correlations is considerably less than 1.00; that doesn't mean it's zero.

Dementia Don.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-accidentally-says-u-pioneered-043039301.html

Dan Kahneman wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

That is what a smart informed person would say. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and also agree that what you said is what he meant to say. What he did say is not correct.

Monkeys phrased this correctly but both reading and correlation are complicated topics. Let's start with reading. The correlation between applying phonics to decode and identify words is significant but low. However reading is more than that and includes reading comprehension. The correlation between reading comprehension and intelligence is quite high. The misinformation here started because many thought reading disabled kids were all of low intelligence. Those working with LD kids to counteract that started the falsehood that reading does not correlate with intelligence.

There is also a difference between statistically valid correlation versus meaningful correlation.

This is correct, especially the part of your post that I bolded.

*ahem* wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

No, I'm right. I just now asked an expert. My wife is a reading instructor with a masters degree in Educational Psychology and another masters in Learning Disorders. She confirmed that ability to read has no correlation with intelligence.

I suspect this boils down to people's different understandings of "correlation." Someone trained in statistics might say that there's a (positive) correlation between height and IQ--which, within a given ethnic group, there is. Someone who interprets correlation to mean *predictability* might say that, because there are smart short people and dumb tall ones, therefore there is "no correlation."

There *is* a (positive) correlation between reading ability and IQ, just as there is one between reading height and IQ. Each of those correlations is considerably less than 1.00; that doesn't mean it's zero.

Ability to read well is much more significant with regard to IQ than you are implying.