Trump Is a Genius

Q crumb drop 1
Would you believe they called the WH for comment prior to publishing?
Q
Reference forum post
http://beforeitsnews.com/…/qanon-posting-on-qresearch-this-…

Q crumb drop 2
https://www.nytimes.com/…/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory.html
Here we go.
Q
The Conspiracy Theory That Says Trump Is a Genius
Link Drop 3
https://www.forbes.com/…/why-donald-trump-has-experts-red…/…
The presidency of Donald Trump has forced Americans of every political stripe to rethink what the word “smart” means, and whether a successful leader needs that quality.

There's still nothing approaching consensus. Here’s a quick tally of a few Google queries about the president’s quality of mind:

"Is Trump smart"—78 million searches
"Is Trump crazy"—33 million searches
"Is Trump brilliant"—25 million searches
"Is Trump a genius"—20 million searches
"Is Trump dumb"—17 million searches
"Is Trump looney tunes"—500,000 searches
"Is Trump dumber than a bag of rocks"—109,000 searches
"Smart" has always been a portmanteau word (I may not even be using that word right, but let me try it in order to sound smart anyway). If a Brit tells you, “You look very smart today,” she isn’t necessarily predicting that you’ll be able to ace a standardized test or win on “Jeopardy.” She probably just means you’re dressed sharp. And, of course, sharp itself can be a synonym for smart, so we haven’t gotten anywhere yet.

The Eisner Principle

But let’s note that, in human organizations, there is a trait that sometimes passes for intelligence—and that’s forcefulness.

The quite-forceful Michael Eisner, when he was America’s top business icon a few decades ago, mused, “Around here, a strong POV [point of view] is worth about 80 IQ points.” Eisner meant that a forceful personality could get a lot more done at Disney than those who didn’t speak and act with the same sense of “certainty.”

Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times recently tried to make sense of it all by suggesting that Trump isn’t a genius in the conventional, intellectual sense, but that “Mr. Trump has a legitimate claim to three other kinds of 'genius': political genius, instinctive genius and evil genius.”

Because I try to be apolitical and nonpartisan on this blog, I’ll look at the notion of Trump as an instinctive or political genius, while sidestepping Rachman’s suggestion that the president is an “evil” genius. But Rachman seems to have a point: You cannot become president, triumphing over dozens of intelligent, pedigreed and well-organized candidates unless you’ve got some kind of edge “upstairs,” can you?

Yes and no.
Link Drop 4
https://www.politico.com/…/trumps-parade-is-political-geniu…
Trump's Parade Is Political Genius
Hours of free airtime that Democrats can't argue with? That's a pretty clever strategy.
The president’s State of the Union was pockmarked with so many tributes to American symbols—our flag, our motto, our anthem—that you almost expected him to bring out a freshly baked apple pie and start eating it midspeech. So much of what Trump does seem random, but all of this has a clear purpose. Trump understands, perhaps instinctively, that an appeal to national pride like calling for a gleaming, glorious military spectacle touches a nerve with many Americans.
At the same time, the president is overtly tying his administration to the most popular institution in our nation—perhaps the only popular institution left—the United States military. More to the point, he’s daring Democrats, and their allies in the media, to stand apart and oppose it. By doing so, Democratic leaders appear either as killjoys complaining about excessive costs (as if frugality were a Democratic Party hallmark) or as diminishing the achievements of the military or the need to publicly extol them. All in all, it’s a pretty clever trap.