On 9/15/2026 at 7:47 AM, Wingate said:

That is not what the Beatles sang. Trump is most definitely NOT all you need. Frankly, that is true for everything, from war to the economy to rational leadership, but in this instance, it's about the threat posed by artificial superintelligence.

I would be willing to bet Trump doesn't know how to change a light bulb or even turn on a computer. Certainly he is the farthest thing from knowledgeable about AI. Despite his total lack of knowledge, Trump again shows off his Dunning-Kreuger syndrome and claims that "the only control or "guardrails" that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ) PRESIDENT, and the USA has that, in spades!"

This would be embarrassing if it wasn't so dangerous. A willfully ignorant clown is saying he knows more than the people who actually write the code for AI.

Advertisement

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who may well be, in my opinion, the only AI lab CEO who is not a psychopath, penned a 3800 word missive asking for a slow down or moratorium on the ongoing development of ASI. His request was actually seconded by CEOs Sam Altman and Elon Musk.

Trump thinks he knows more than those men.

Senator Jon Ossoff, in a weekend speech, raised this issue and said we were confronted by "the crushing weakness of our politics against the massive stakes of our times. Tech titans dig bunkers, while warning us that the new intelligence they're creating risks human extinction."

I suspect MAGAs will do what they always do, and agree Trump "got everything right". Of course, risking MAGA extinction is no loss for humanity, but they have no right to stand in the way of the survival of decent human beings.

Advertisement

Industry insiders are hoping for the world to come together and pause the development of ASI, though none of them want to be first or the only one to stand down. With the little Speaker of the House Mike Johnson totally captured by Trump, the US Congress is unlikely to do its job and act. Already Speaker Johnson has groveled up to Trump and parroted the idiocy that spews daily from Trump's lopsided and gaping maw.

The Dems, or the Lincoln Project, or concerned citizens, should make a commercial to run during NFL football games and prime time TV that highlights the dangers of ASI and the idiocy and recklessness of Trump and Republicans. I've penned a short script that might be appropriate:

--

(Scene: close up of a man’s hands holding a revolver, opening the cylinder, and slowly placing a round in a chamber.)

 

Voice Over:  The CEOs of the major AI companies agree AI has a 20% chance of wiping out humanity. That’s 1 in 5, worse than a game of Russian Roulette. These CEOs are asking for a moratorium on AI development.

 

Trump says the AI fears are overblown, contradicting the very people who wrote the programs. Trump wants no regulation of AI. Trump is willing to give your child a 1 in 5 chance of dying horribly.

 

(Scene: The loaded gun is handed to a smiling little girl, who aims it at her own head while looking into the camera. Screen then goes blank and a shot is heard.)

 

Voice Over: Democrats and the AI CEOs themselves want regulation of AI so your child does not die. Republicans are more than happy to take a chance with your child’s life.

Advertisement

 

Vote Democrat in November.

--

This was Trump's Tweet today:

"I suspect MAGAs will do what they always do, and agree Trump "got everything right"." Well actually, yes, I do agree that President Trump has got everything right. It seems the left wing anarchists are are always crying about the "sky is falling, the sky is falling." If it is not Global Warming or Climate Change or DEI or some other left wing cause, now it is that AI will take over the world and kill the human race. It is always something with these people. Now they want to regulate AI development which enables China to far surpass the U.S. The Chinese do not believe in the nonsense that AI will take over the world. Perhaps the Chinese are feeding these left wing doomsayers to enable them to stay ahead.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Ok, interesting, so "mistake" isn't an option

In 1973, the New York Times posted

In 1988, in interview with New York magazine, when confronted by the claim, Trump responded

But he claimed nevertheless he had "the highest grades possible"

in 2018, he stated

indicating he was happy for people to misrepresent his academic abilities (and that he did not actually finish first).

In 2019, in interview with the MSNBC's Hardball, he stated

In 2015, in an interview with Morning Joe:

Earlier, in interview with the late Larry King:

We've established in this discussion that:

1. Trump likely did not finish near the bottom, due to lack of evidence

2. Trump did not finish top of his class

3. Trump was not awarded an honours degree

4. Trump gained the equivalent of a 3rd Class Pass Degree

5. Trump has claimed he finished top of his class

6. Trump has claimed he was an excellent student

7. Trump claimed he was the cleverest in his class

By your standards, anyone claiming without evidence that Trump finished near bottom is a liar, when in fact, you have no idea if its true or not.

But you don't believe Trump is a liar for claiming his finished at the top, when there is literal official evidence discrediting that. Or actually, you are willing to state, for the record, that you believe the President is a liar. Or paraphrase Holden Caulfield, "a big fat phoney".

But, hey, its worse when an anonymous guy on the internet makes something up.

1 hour ago

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

I was merely responding to your comment that you ask a forum member for the evidence to prove a widely pronounced claim, instead, correctly, taking the time to research the original source of the claim, and asking that person.

I think the claims about Mr Trump's standing originated because he has claimed, repeatedly, that he finished top of the class. Just the other day, he claimed no one understand Artificial Super Intelligence more than him, so I assume he is already in receipt of numerous job offers in coding etc for when he eventually leaves Public Office.

I have produced evidence, in the shape of a University document, that Mr Trump was awarded a Pass Degree. perhaps in your apparent world of manual labourers and kitchen staff, such an achievement is to be admired.

I think if you wish to further discuss the educational achievements of Biden, Harris, Hegseth, I would suggest that you start a fresh set of threads rather than further deflect to support your own personal worries about the world. I'm sure it will be an illuminating discussion

When you refer to the "Left", obviously it is impossible that you are addressing me, as you have read my repeated statements on my formal political affiliations, and I'm sure you have a sharp mind and powerful powers of recall.

The topic is about the President's statement that ASI does not need regulation, and that only his hand is needed to ensure our collective safety. However, it appears you are not so concerned about that, but you rather, discuss, to use your terminology, the "stupidity" (which can mean a number of things. I'm not sure if you have any formal post-18 education, but "stupidity" is a trait often independent of apparent academic achievement), alleged or otherwise, of the current President. That could be an entertaining discussion. You aren't sure that he is, because you are looking for the evidence to confirm that view, and are asking for help to secure that evidence.

We can though examine his statements and deeds to determine his understanding of them; you need though to frame your own definition of what would determine Mr Trump to be "stupid" or "not stupid".

He has a Pass Degree in economics. One of his repeated mantras is America imports more than it exports → America is losing money → tariffs make foreigners pay, along those lines/

The actual economics is considerably more complicated: tariffs are taxes collected domestically, importers initially bear them, prices and quantities adjust, exchange rates can change, foreign exporters can absorb some costs, and trade balances reflect broader saving and investment relationships. The empirical evidence from the 2025 tariffs confirms that U.S. importers bore most of the tariff-inclusive price increase.

On healthcare, he has made statements along the lines of “Healthcare is expensive → insurers are charging too much → make insurers charge less.”

However healthcare expenditure is generated throughout the system, including hospital prices, physician services, pharmaceuticals, administration and utilisation. It is not determined by the Insurers; they reimburse prices, and generally are not healthcare providers. They are healthcare payers.

In terms of engineering concepts, he has repeatedly claimed wind doesn't blow all the time → therefore wind cannot provide reliable electricity.

That skips the engineering question of how a mixed electrical grid incorporates variable generation through geographic diversity, storage, transmission, dispatchable generation and demand management.

In reference to climatology and how the scientific process works, he has referenced a scientific projection has changed → therefore scientists were wrong.

But scientific models are routinely updated as observations, assumptions and future scenarios change. The 2026 climate example is particularly useful because the updated scenarios did not constitute evidence that climate change had been disproved.

On virology, he made the observation that a substance kills a virus on a surface, so perhaps putting it inside the human body could kill the virus

That is precisely the kind of category error that scientific and medical training is intended to prevent: an effect observed outside an organism does not imply that the substance is safe or effective inside it. The 2020 disinfectant episode is therefore a particularly striking example, provided it is quoted accurately and without the exaggerated claim that Trump literally instructed people to inject bleach.

In history, he has displayed, on numerous occasions, a shaky understanding. In 2017, he wondered why Andrew Jackson was not able to prevent a Civil War. The problem is that Andrew Jackson died in 1845, sixteen years before the Civil War began. The American Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression, began in 1861. Trump's remarks appeared to conflate Jackson's response to the Nullification Crisis of 1832–33 with the later Civil War.

But returning to your original request for evidence on Trump finishing near last. Unfortunately, such evidence is not in the public domain, so I fear your quest to show that will be unfulfilled.

First, if the claim is specifically that Trump finished 364th out of 366, then yes: the evidence currently available does not establish that precise ranking. Penn does not publish his class rank, and there is no credible documentary evidence placing him 364th. What is documented is that Trump was not among the 56 students on the 1968 Wharton Dean's List, nor among the graduates receiving academic honours. Since there were 366 graduates, that establishes that he was outside the top 56, but it does not tell us whether he was 57th, 150th or 364th.

Second, nobody needs to prove that Trump is "stupid" to establish that the claim "Trump was a top student at Wharton" is unsupported. In fact, the surviving evidence points in the opposite direction: he received no academic honours, was not on the Dean's List, and the only thing we can establish about his average from the publicly available record is that it was sufficient to graduate.

Third, the comparison with Biden actually undermines your argument rather than strengthening it. Biden's mediocre academic record is not a secret, and there is exceptionally good documentation for it because Biden himself released his academic records. They showed that he graduated 76th of 85 at Syracuse Law, after ranking 80th of 100 in his first year and 79th of 87 in his second. His undergraduate record showed a C average and a rank of 506th out of 688. Biden also acknowledged publicly that some of his previous claims about his academic record were inaccurate.

Nor is Harris's record being accurately described as "flunking the bar." She failed her first attempt in California in 1989 and passed on her second attempt in February 1990, subsequently being admitted to the California bar. That's an ordinary factual distinction, but an important one if we're supposedly concerned with evidence rather than political caricature.

And the same principle applies to Hegseth and Vance. Their educational achievements can be discussed on their own terms; they don't become evidence that Trump was a poor or excellent student at Wharton.

Most importantly, you're changing the question. The original question was "Where is the evidence that Trump finished 364th?" The answer is: there isn't credible evidence establishing that number.

Fine.

But that does not establish the converse — that Trump was an academically distinguished student. The documented evidence establishes something considerably narrower: he graduated from Wharton, but there is no evidence that he graduated near the top, and there is evidence that he was not among the top 15% recognised by the Dean's List.

Finally, "Where is the evidence that Trump is stupid?" is a different proposition altogether. Class rank is not an IQ test, and poor academic performance is not synonymous with stupidity. If the objective is truth, the appropriate conclusion is simply that we don't know Trump's exact class rank or IQ from the public record.

That standard should apply equally to everyone. Biden's poor academic record doesn't prove he's stupid; Harris failing an exam on her first attempt doesn't prove she's stupid; Vance and Hegseth graduating with honours doesn't prove they're exceptionally intelligent; and Trump's lack of academic honours doesn't prove he's stupid.

What it does demonstrate is that claims about the academic records of all of these people should be based on what the evidence actually establishes, rather than on what either side would like the evidence to establish.

As for "the left" and "the right": that's a separate argument. If someone makes an unsupported claim about Biden, Harris, Vance or Hegseth, challenge it. If someone makes an unsupported claim about Trump, challenge that too. The answer to partisan misinformation isn't to reciprocate with different partisan misinformation.

So you are still not able to support the claim, but you still blather on.

I have never argued Trump was brilliant or well read.

On 9/17/2026 at 11:50 PM, Mr Awesome said:

We invite you to share your qualifications that empower you to provide insights on AI.

Unfortunately, a lot of the good sources to educate oneself about AI don't hand out certificates.

Not everybody wallows in the trash so conveniently delivered by the YouTube algorithm.