Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

Following our conversation on "low information" voters,  I see that Trump does not bother which such niceties and just goes for "poorly educated" without apparently causing offence ;D  In one interview I saw, a woman said "He has the guts to say what we all feel", maybe that's the key to his success?

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)
------------------------------------
I don't think Trump is that calculating but has absolutely zero self-filtering going on, so he is just free associating with his mouth open.  He has actually toned it down a little recently, but has the classic fault of engaging his mouth before his brain is in gear.

This election has a strong anti-establishment component. Trump and Bernie too (some how?) are both running as Washington DC outsiders, while I don't know how Bernie gets away with ignoring his decades in political office there.

Whether Cruz is genuine or not, it does look like he had poor judgement in recruiting his campaign director, it does not look good for a Bible Basher to use dirty tricks in his campaign and he looks fatally wounded from here.

DaveP

In politics it isn't always what it seems. There is a sense of anything goes in hard ball politics, so they all can be tempted to bend the rules when the opportunity presents. The Cruz campaign was dirtier than most and he was caught in a series of questionable deceptions, pretty much at least once in every state so far. It finally reached a critical mass where he was being thought of as a cheater first and then a conservative candidate.

He probably forced a campaign underling to fall on his sword, to deflect blame. Even he had to know what was going on and probably blessed it if not explicitly, by not stopping it sooner.  I think Cruz may be a little too conservative for the real election  anyhow, and it doesn't look like anybody will be able to overcome Trump's early momentum. Interesting times.

We'll know a lot more in less than a week from now with super tuesday next week (I think Trump was leading in every super tuesday state but one, last I heard).  I expect the remaining weak sisters to drop out after that, if they don't at least carry their own home states or more. Some of these guys are already running for VP and even that isn't simple.

I remain as confused as ever about Trumps successes, and Bernie on the other side looks like he's about to run into the political machine that is supporting Hillary.  So far 2016 is the strangest presidential  campaign I recall, and it isn't over yet. We've always had joke candidates just not in serious contention (both sides?).

The world seems to be deteriorating before our eyes and we're fiddling to empty campaign promises... About the only candidate who isn't lying every time he opens his mouth is Ben Carson which is why he will be eliminated next week.  :'(

I apologize if I don't sound like my normal optimistic self. 

JR

 

 

[hitchhiker]

Quote "So far 2016 is the strangest presidential  campaign I recall, and it isn't over yet. We've always had joke candidates just not in serious contention (both sides? ....
I apologize if I don't sound like my normal optimistic self.  "

Are the USA voters in the same state of confusion/disbelief ?  I suspect yes but they get to watch so much more unfold before they have a say!

 

[lassoharp]

and just goes for "poorly educated" without apparently causing offence ;D 

Yes, because I think the term suggests that the implied stupidity was someone else's fault.

In one interview I saw, a woman said "He has the guts to say what we all feel", maybe that's the key to his success?

Yep.  And it's one thing to tell people it's ok to have negative, unhealthy feelings and another to tell them those beliefs and feelings are accurate and that they are doing the right thing.  Some will follow you right over a cliff for the latter.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Quote "So far 2016 is the strangest presidential  campaign I recall, and it isn't over yet. We've always had joke candidates just not in serious contention (both sides? ....
I apologize if I don't sound like my normal optimistic self.  "

Are the USA voters in the same state of confusion/disbelief ?  I suspect yes but they get to watch so much more unfold before they have a say!

Up until a couple decades ago I didn't pay attention to the federal government and politics except for once every 4 years when the presidential election is held. Many citizens don't vote in the mid term elections, and many still don't even vote for president.

So for much of the public these candidates were unknown except for Hillary for her previous stint as first lady, and Trump for his successful TV show. This gives them a huge benefit.

Politics is mainly about being good at arguing, which is why so many lawyers end up in politics. Trump honed the craft of verbal put downs through his TV show and his political style is 90% ad hominum, 10% substance. Unfortunately this works in politics.

I can't speak for the entire public, but there is a lot of anger against establishment politicians. Bernie is tapping into this anti-establishment anger on the left, and Trump on the right.  There are other outsider candidates but they lack the bombast that plays so well in sound bites and social media.

The sad part is the public should be more confused than they are, they are believing the BS fed them by both sides.

Of course this is just my opinion.

JR 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Quote "So far 2016 is the strangest presidential  campaign I recall, and it isn't over yet. We've always had joke candidates just not in serious contention (both sides? ....
I apologize if I don't sound like my normal optimistic self.  "

Are the USA voters in the same state of confusion/disbelief ?  I suspect yes but they get to watch so much more unfold before they have a say!

Well, remember though that a lot of Americans thought Sarah Palin was a valid good choice of vice president.

How long before we get a president Camacho?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

(I find that film worryingly accurate btw... or perhaps I'm just a grouchy old bitter fart)

 

[JohnRoberts]

Quote "So far 2016 is the strangest presidential  campaign I recall, and it isn't over yet. We've always had joke candidates just not in serious contention (both sides? ....
I apologize if I don't sound like my normal optimistic self.  "

Are the USA voters in the same state of confusion/disbelief ?  I suspect yes but they get to watch so much more unfold before they have a say!

Well, remember though that a lot of Americans thought Sarah Palin was a valid good choice of vice president.

How long before we get a president Camacho?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

(I find that film worryingly accurate btw... or perhaps I'm just a grouchy old bitter fart)

Yes idiocracy is coming true.

I suspect just like good propaganda people believe the popular attacks in media after a decade of repetition.  Sarah Palin was a successful governor but got dropped into the deep end of the political pool with inadequate preparation. SNL is still lampooning her today, because it's funny, even if mean and inaccurate.

Another thing I am noticing this time is that even late night talk shows are injecting themselves into the campaign.  For the bizarre list Stephen Colbert has lobbied Hillary in his monologue to be a better politician (liar) when asked if she lied. Her original answer was a very lawyerly wishy-washy "I sure don't think I ever lied" (not her actual quote which I am too lazy to look up). Her answer was widely interpreted as avoiding the question.

In a recent debate she was given a "mulligan" by the moderator where they showed the Colbert clip and gave her a second chance to answer the original question better, with a simple "no"  : . 

While it isn't exactly new for some debate moderators to be partisan. The low information fraction of the audience do not perceive the bias (or even watch the debates).

"electrolytes, because the plants crave it....."

JR

 

[lassoharp]

If it becomes too oppressing, might I add that the typical US voter is "Hope Smart" and "Fact Dumb" . . . . .

Maybe Einstein was correct.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Yes idiocracy is coming true.

I suspect just like good propaganda people believe the popular attacks in media after a decade of repetition.  Sarah Palin was a successful governor but got dropped into the deep end of the political pool with inadequate preparation. SNL is still lampooning her today, because it's funny, even if mean and inaccurate.

Another thing I am noticing this time is that even late night talk shows are injecting themselves into the campaign.  For the bizarre list Stephen Colbert has lobbied Hillary in his monologue to be a better politician (liar) when asked if she lied. Her original answer was a very lawyerly wishy-washy "I sure don't think I ever lied" (not her actual quote which I am too lazy to look up). Her answer was widely interpreted as avoiding the question.

In a recent debate she was given a "mulligan" by the moderator where they showed the Colbert clip and gave her a second chance to answer the original question better, with a simple "no"  : . 

While it isn't exactly new for some debate moderators to be partisan. The low information fraction of the audience do not perceive the bias (or even watch the debates).

"electrolytes, because the plants crave it....."

JR

I find it very bizarre that talk show hosts would get involved in a campaign. Or perhaps the term is "brave" or "ballsy". I'd think they'd have the potential to scare off a large part of their viewers unless they keep their banter close to purely non-political.

As for Palin I really do think that she lacked the prerequisites for not only having been a vp at the time but ever. I don't think she's smart enough, and I don't think she has the right mindset for it. I think it was obvious and it says something about her voters, or at least the media that (mis?)informed them.

PS: I do realize that she, like others, have been misrepresented in satire for the purpose of making a joke. That's something I ignore when I say she wasn't and never would be suitable as a vp, let alone potus.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes idiocracy is coming true.

I suspect just like good propaganda people believe the popular attacks in media after a decade of repetition.  Sarah Palin was a successful governor but got dropped into the deep end of the political pool with inadequate preparation. SNL is still lampooning her today, because it's funny, even if mean and inaccurate.

Another thing I am noticing this time is that even late night talk shows are injecting themselves into the campaign.  For the bizarre list Stephen Colbert has lobbied Hillary in his monologue to be a better politician (liar) when asked if she lied. Her original answer was a very lawyerly wishy-washy "I sure don't think I ever lied" (not her actual quote which I am too lazy to look up). Her answer was widely interpreted as avoiding the question.

In a recent debate she was given a "mulligan" by the moderator where they showed the Colbert clip and gave her a second chance to answer the original question better, with a simple "no"  : . 

While it isn't exactly new for some debate moderators to be partisan. The low information fraction of the audience do not perceive the bias (or even watch the debates).

"electrolytes, because the plants crave it....."

JR

I find it very bizarre that talk show hosts would get involved in a campaign. Or perhaps the term is "brave" or "ballsy". I'd think they'd have the potential to scare off a large part of their viewers unless they keep their banter close to purely non-political.

As for Palin I really do think that she lacked the prerequisites for not only having been a vp at the time but ever. I don't think she's smart enough, and I don't think she has the right mindset for it. I think it was obvious and it says something about her voters, or at least the media that (mis?)informed them.

PS: I do realize that she, like others, have been misrepresented in satire for the purpose of making a joke. That's something I ignore when I say she wasn't and never would be suitable as a vp, let alone potus.

Opinions vary... governors actually have executive experience in making budgets and working with a legislature, something that senators lack (their office budget is maybe $1M).

But elections are not really about what people can do, but how many people they can make believe that they can.

The best man, will rarely stoop to politics. Carson seems like a fish out of water in that group.

JR

PS: Perhaps years ago a political bias would be poisonous to ratings. Johnny Carson and Jay Leno walked the fine line to make jokes about politicians without being personally insulting. Jimmy Fallon is the least obnoxious of the current crowd... I just fast forward through the monologues (they all tell the same jokes anyhow). Mean spirited political humor is just mean, not funny. I feel like Letterman got a little too snarky near the end, but he was old and it was time to go.  Colbert seems to have picked up his march to advocate for one side.

 

[DaveP]

Are there two types of leader?

Those who realise their shortcomings and so they surround themselves with people whose judgement they trust, Like Ike.

And those who actually know stuff like where Uzbekistan is and who's the president.

I have always thought it strange in this day and age, that you need professional qualifications for every job in society except for President and property development.  Maybe that's the key ;D

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Are there two types of leader?

probably more than two

Those who realise their shortcomings and so they surround themselves with people whose judgement they trust, Like Ike.

Eisenhower was a successful army general tested during WWII. Any executive over a sufficiently large and complex operation  must defer to other's expertise and even delegate to subordinates or get overwhelmed by the volume of routine decisions that must be made.  President Carter was notorious for maintaing personal approval over the WH tennis court schedule. 

The military is a good filter to weed out incompetence (long before they make general) and inspire leadership. While military leaders can use rank to force you to follow orders, that is inefficient and great military leaders inspire you to follow them without using rank.

I thought General Colin Powell had the potential to be our first black president but he got tanged up by internal WH politics and got derailed. General Petraeus is a natural leader of men, but he got busted for a fairly minor mishandling of secret information, orders of magnitude less significant than Hillary's unfolding drama, but probably enough to keep him safely out of the political game. Coincidentally high level army generals must also be above average politicians to be effective dealing with congressional hearings.     

And those who actually know stuff like where Uzbekistan is and who's the president.

I don't know who is the president of Uzbekistan? Who is the president of Uzbekistan?

I have always thought it strange in this day and age, that you need professional qualifications for every job in society except for President and property development.  Maybe that's the key ;D

DaveP

I get that you are trying to make a joke, but "professional qualifications" are not addressed in the constitution. Age and where you were born appears the concerns for holding the office of president, and convincing hundreds of millions of voters to pick you over the other candidate.

There is an interesting question about Cruz (born in canada to a US citizen), but this will be moot if he loses TX.


JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have always thought it strange in this day and age, that you need professional qualifications for every job in society except for President and property development.  Maybe that's the key ;D

DaveP

I get the point, but putting my square humor-deficient hat on it's not that surprising in the US I think. Here, a lack of professional qualification isn't limited to politics and property development, in my opinion. A lot hinges upon just being assertive and impressing people. If you do that, half of the work is done. And then a lot has to do with just being a type-a personality so you have the drive to work.

 

[Krcwell]

The way I see it is Trump has put together a tremendously successful unconventional campaign apparatus. They have been able to steamroll over the best and brightest campaign managers and staff that Washington DC has to offer. They've leveraged Trump's persona and brand for an unprecedented amount of free valuable advertising by playing the media like fiddles. I highly doubt that is dumb luck. He's pitched himself as proficient at finding the right people for important jobs, and so far, that seems to be true. There's been so mich dirt thrown at him, and nothing sticks.

Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize the reality that Trump will almost certainly be the GOP nominee. A Trump/Clinton general election would be a bloody cagematch without doubt. He may just be the only person who could survive a Clinton machine thrashing and come out on top.

This will be an interesting election, that's for damn sure.

 

[DaveP]

I don't know who is the president of Uzbekistan? Who is the president of Uzbekistan?

Islam Karimov

But I was thinking of Sarah Palin over this, who had a problem with Paris once I recall.  So I was asking the question does it matter?

Ronald Reagan was an unlikely candidate too, but I thought he was a very successful President, particularly to grasp the opportunity to end the cold war.

If you are surrounded by lots of clever expert people (like Ike was before D Day) all you have to do is weigh up the pro's and con's and take the decision.  You don't have to know more than the experts. so even Sarah Palin could probably get by.

Trump has been successful because he has used the language of the common man and voiced their anti- establishment sentiments,  This has alienated those voters who are looking for a more intelligence led approach, but as krcwell said, you can't be stupid to connect with the voters and run a successful campaign.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

But I was thinking of Sarah Palin over this, who had a problem with Paris once I recall.  So I was asking the question does it matter?

Ronald Reagan was an unlikely candidate too, but I thought he was a very successful President, particularly to grasp the opportunity to end the cold war.

Reagan wasn't very successful, at least not using the metrics conservatives themselves use when criticizing liberals.

If you are surrounded by lots of clever expert people (like Ike was before D Day) all you have to do is weigh up the pro's and con's and take the decision.  You don't have to know more than the experts. so even Sarah Palin could probably get by.

The problem with that though is that you're then voting for a candidate whose experts are unknown, and if they're the intelligent ones presenting the solutions they're in practical control. One of the criticisms against Bush Jr's Iraq war was that the faulty intelligence was governed by his appointed "experts", i.e. Rumsfeld et al. Bush wasn't "smart" enough to bypass them and evaluate the intelligence himself and therefore got into trouble. Before him being elected he had stated clearly that he was against nation-building, whereas the very people he chose for his cabinet for years had been promoting the ousting of Saddam. The outcome was as inevitable as it was foreseeable... assuming one looked at what his cabinet members actually had said... which American voters most certainly did not do...

So that's a big problem.

I think I'd rather have more popular votes letting the population as a whole be the "dumb" component, and then have the representative be very intelligent and qualified for the job, rather than have an average leader with intelligent aides picked from the 'private sector' and subject to all sorts of lobbying... that is, if this is the sort of quasi-democratic system we're to have.

Trump has been successful because he has used the language of the common man and voiced their anti- establishment sentiments,  This has alienated those voters who are looking for a more intelligence led approach, but as krcwell said, you can't be stupid to connect with the voters and run a successful campaign.

DaveP

I think I agree, but I'd also add that it isn't just "anti-establishment sentiments" but also just pure anger and frustration he's feeding off of, and in doing so he's also voicing straight up xenophobic, racist and bigoted sentiments. As some have pointed out it's probably not that likely that he'll be as hard core as a president as he is during the campaign, but part of the damage is done by fueling this fire and promoting certain questionable values.

 

[mattiasNYC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRk0n1uMCpQ

 

[DaveP]

Yes, it was not the most edifying of debates, more heat than light.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't know who is the president of Uzbekistan? Who is the president of Uzbekistan?

Islam Karimov

But I was thinking of Sarah Palin over this, who had a problem with Paris once I recall.  So I was asking the question does it matter?

In the larger scheme it doesn't matter. Any president will have hundreds or thousands of people paid to know that stuff...But there are any number of campaign gaffs made by candidates from both sides of the isle.

One classic gaff was when then candidate Obama said that he had visited 57 states. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws This was quickly forgotten by a friendly media.  Palin OTOH sat down for an early interview with Couric for what was expected to be soft questions, and Katy Couric came loaded for bear (gotcha).  One often repeated Palin misquote was that she said she could see Russia from her house in AK... Amusing, but she didn't actually say that but after a decade of repetition by SNL people believe she said that.

I recall years ago a republican candidate got tripped up about the status of some former soviet block nations during a pre-election european visit (gotcha).  Then there's the exaggeration factor, Hillary once claimed that her helicopter landed under sniper fire while secretary of state (she didn't). A famous news anchor was demoted for claiming his helicopter was hit while he was traveling in Iraq.  I guess politicians get more of pass about stretching the truth than news anchors. I suspect some of Trump's foot dragging about publishing his tax returns may be related to claims he has made about his wealth or charity, or whatever. While he will surely be attacked for whatever wealth he actually has , like Romney was.

Ronald Reagan was an unlikely candidate too, but I thought he was a very successful President, particularly to grasp the opportunity to end the cold war.

If you are surrounded by lots of clever expert people (like Ike was before D Day) all you have to do is weigh up the pro's and con's and take the decision.  You don't have to know more than the experts. so even Sarah Palin could probably get by.

It isn't quite that easy, you need a strong BS filter to figure out which truth and advice is correct. Some top advisers will come with their own agendas. Once elected a president is supposed to represent all citizens, not just his or her partisans.  Then there is the quality of the intelligence and advice that presidents receive.

There is currently a congressional investigation into the apparent manipulation of intelligence reports about insurgent activity in the middle east being sent to POTUS, apparently toning down the reports to better agree with the public messaging (that ISIL was on the run, or terrorism had been defeated). It is just not logical for any leader to want his raw intelligence data to be tweaked, so this was probably underling helpers, helping too much and doing the wrong stuff.

Trump has been successful because he has used the language of the common man and voiced their anti- establishment sentiments,  This has alienated those voters who are looking for a more intelligence led approach, but as krcwell said, you can't be stupid to connect with the voters and run a successful campaign.

DaveP

I have been out of step with american voters for the last several elections so I have nothing constructive to add about what they might be thinking... We get the leaders we (they) deserve. 

The power of the constitution is that it protects the rights of individuals from the majority, or is supposed to.  We just lost a powerful SCOTUS justice who was an originalist (strict interpretation of the literal language of the constitution). President Obama has already announced he is looking for a justice who will interpret the law based on how people live today. Code for the exact opposite of the deceased justice. He is searching for a "republican" justice who will share his goal of being more flexible about interpreting the constitution.  If he can present a republican candidate this will play into his political strategy of painting republicans of being mindlessly obstructionist. This too simple to be accurate political argument will probably work with the low information voters who surely don't understand such subtleties. 

JR

 

[Krcwell]

I read a good piece by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal today that I think does a good job of delving into the Trump phenomenon. I highly recommend it. Sorry for the weird google link, direct link makes you have to subscribe to read. Just click on the top returned link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+and+the+Rise+of+the+Unprotected&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS507US507&oq=Trump+and+the+Rise+of+the+Unprotected&aqs=chrome..69i57.710j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

Peggy is a tremendous writer. Side note, I recently learned that she was a speechwriter for Reagan and wrote his address to the nation after the space shuttle Challenger explosion. That speech is one of the best examples of presidential leadership that I have ever read.

 

[DaveP]

Krcwell,

Thanks for that, she has got it in one.  The rise of the unprotected.

When I read it it was like a modern version of the French Revolution over again.

In Britain, an immigration act was attached to some legislation back in 1948 and it was designed to keep labour rates down.  Its effects had no impact on the elite but totally changed the lives of the British working class.  When they started to complain they were called racists to keep them in order, it all sounds very very familiar.

Successive governments have said, "We will decide who lives next to you, we will decide who will work for less than you and you will put up with it".  In Britain they are blaming the EU for immigration but the truth is that the damage was done long before the EU had an impact.  The sex ring scandals of Asian men in northern towns have done incredible damage to social cohesion in the UK and it appears the police turned a blind eye to avoid the racist tag.

It looks like the US, UK and EU are in line for a serious shake-up, Trump or not.

DaveP