“The fact remains, you do not have those records, so you don’t know how she spent those 5 years, whether there were breaks for work, credit transfer problems, etc. It is an unsuitable basis for judging intellect. It would never work in a court of law because it can have so many different possible explanations; it amounts to no evidence at all.”
She majored in journalism. It is not a serious degree. The burden of proof lies on the one who wants to claim that she is some hidden genius because there is little evidence from her academic history, her public interviews or her very limited time spent as governor.
I’m not saying she’s stupid. Gosh, I agree with her on most issues. She has a good heart and strong sense of right and wrong. But we’re going to need someone who can handle some really difficult financial issues that won’t be solved simply by taking a line item veto and cutting out the “waste, fraud and abuse.”
Well, but that’s where the facts we DO have on the record suggest a superior intelligence at work. She did an excellent job in Alaska taking on complex issues and resolving them with solid solutions. That’s why, if you’ve listened to her much, you know she wants you to look at her record of accomplishment, not your typical placebo political rhetoric.
So I think she’s met her general burden of proof for intellect, many times over, and I won’t be drawn into repeating the evidence. But you started this all on an affirmative claim of poor academic performance. If you want to make an assertion like that, fine, but in so doing, it is you who takes on the burden of proving your adverse conclusion, and you have not done so. Your “evidence” is pure speculation. Even so, you seem unwilling to relinquish it. That’s your choice. But I grow weary of the circular chase, and seeing how late it is, I must bid you good night.
Peace,
SR