The fact that he was successful at everything he tried strongly suggests that he earned his way through the whole way. Whether by charisma, or intelligence, or whatever.
No, that just means just the opposite. Someone who earned their success always has failures. Someone with no failures means that someone else with lots of power was removing obstacles from his path.
Compare Obama to Elon Musk, or Donald Trump. Both have had plenty of failures. Musk blows up a new rocket every other week, and Trump had multiple million dollar ventures go under.
Where were Obama's failed campaigns? Where were Obama's failed companies?
Where were Obama's spectacular explosions?
He never earned shit.
Someone who earned their success always has failures. Someone with no failures means that someone else with lots of power was removing obstacles from his path.
Or it could just mean that he was extraordinarily lucky. Imagine the string of good luck that he had: historically bad and scandal-ridden opponents, charisma, his race.
Compare Obama to Elon Musk, or Donald Trump. Both have had plenty of failures. Musk blows up a new rocket every other week, and Trump had multiple million dollar ventures go under.
Trump, in my opinion, is not a terribly successful person, except in politics. If he had stuck all the money that he inherited into an index fund, he'd have more money now than he earned with his business dealings.
Where were Obama's failed campaigns? Where were Obama's failed companies?
Not failing enough is not an argument against someone. Let's say for a moment that someone truly extraordinary showed up, and I'm not saying Obama was that guy. And he managed to succeed at everything, because of his extreme talents. By your standard, you would be mistrustful of him, because he did not fail enough.
Let's say for a moment that someone truly extraordinary showed up, and I'm not saying Obama was that guy. And he managed to succeed at everything, because of his extreme talents. By your standard, you would be mistrustful of him, because he did not fail enough.
Correct.
The Law of Large Numbers is inviolable. There is no such thing as luck.
It is only your magical thinking that allows you to believe that Obama was legitimate in any way. And it truly is magical, because Chicago is the most corrupt city in America. It is legendary for its corruption.
How is that even applicable to people who win the presidency, which is a very small number.
I am aware that Chicago is corrupt. But until I see evidence that Obama was a stalking horse, I will continue to believe that it was his charisma and image that got him to the White House.
The first is the number of extremely improbable events that occurred to get a a stuttering awkward mulatto nobody into the Whitehouse. This is somewhat weak.
The second is one of those events had a probability of less than 1 in 10^3000. I'm going to make a separate effort post about this tomorrow, even though Antonio doesn't deserve it.
No, that just means just the opposite. Someone who earned their success always has failures. Someone with no failures means that someone else with lots of power was removing obstacles from his path.
Compare Obama to Elon Musk, or Donald Trump. Both have had plenty of failures. Musk blows up a new rocket every other week, and Trump had multiple million dollar ventures go under.
Where were Obama's failed campaigns? Where were Obama's failed companies?
Where were Obama's spectacular explosions? He never earned shit.
I thought Antonio was being sarcastic. Maybe just too much good faith for being on the internet
Or it could just mean that he was extraordinarily lucky. Imagine the string of good luck that he had: historically bad and scandal-ridden opponents, charisma, his race.
Trump, in my opinion, is not a terribly successful person, except in politics. If he had stuck all the money that he inherited into an index fund, he'd have more money now than he earned with his business dealings.
Not failing enough is not an argument against someone. Let's say for a moment that someone truly extraordinary showed up, and I'm not saying Obama was that guy. And he managed to succeed at everything, because of his extreme talents. By your standard, you would be mistrustful of him, because he did not fail enough.
Correct.
The Law of Large Numbers is inviolable. There is no such thing as luck.
It is only your magical thinking that allows you to believe that Obama was legitimate in any way. And it truly is magical, because Chicago is the most corrupt city in America. It is legendary for its corruption.
How is that even applicable to people who win the presidency, which is a very small number.
I am aware that Chicago is corrupt. But until I see evidence that Obama was a stalking horse, I will continue to believe that it was his charisma and image that got him to the White House.
Err, what law of large numbers has to do with it?
It has two things to do with it:
The first is the number of extremely improbable events that occurred to get a a stuttering awkward mulatto nobody into the Whitehouse. This is somewhat weak.
The second is one of those events had a probability of less than 1 in 10^3000. I'm going to make a separate effort post about this tomorrow, even though Antonio doesn't deserve it.