No, America, Hillary Clinton Is Not A Bit Smarter Than Donald Trump

trumphillary1

I’ve said numerous times that I don’t think Donald Trump is a particularly smart guy. He has an intuitive street smart kind of cleverness but he’s not actually bright. If he hadn’t chosen a very wealthy family to be born into, he’d be running a ponzi scheme or scamming tourists in Times Square or pimping really awesome teenage prostitutes. Oddly enough, you don’t even find his supporters claiming he’s smart because it is obvious that intellect is not one of Trump’s strong points.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s supporters have long attributed a high level of intelligence to her. It is simply not so. Case in point:

This is not true in virtually every particular. Jefferson and Hamilton did not work together in any sense beyond them serving together for a period of time in Washington’s administration. They did not merely disagree, they actively disliked one another.

During the first term of the Washington administration, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were both serving on the Cabinet as the Treasurer and Secretary of State respectively. Their constant disagreements over fiscal policy, such as Hamilton’s proposal for a central bank, led to Jefferson’s resignation from the administration. President Washington would hold a grudge against Thomas Jefferson for the rest of his life after the latter formed an anti-administration party with James Madison. The factionalism caused by the Alexander Hamilton vs Thomas Jefferson rivalry would eventually lead to the formation of the country’s first political parties. Hamilton’s Federalists held the early advantage over Jefferson’s Republicans, later known as the Democratic-Republicans.

Jefferson was out of the country, as ambassador to France, during the Constitutional Convention and had a minor, if any, role in either its drafting or ratification. Jefferson’s contribution to the Constitution was advocating for a Bill of Rights. This is from Alexander Hamilton, via Federalist 84

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights.

In fact, Washington returned to this obliquely in his Farewell Address:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

So, they didn’t actually work together to create our system of government, they worked at cross-purposes at virtually every point and when Jefferson was elected president he set about trying to dismantle central bank and other accomplishments of the first two federalist presidents.

And whose vice president killed Hamilton in a duel?

This is high school history, people. And people are saying this cretinous hag is smarter than Trump?