Donald trump. what is your take on him?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Krcwell said:
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.
I didn't read that one yet, but I've been reading the WSJ daily since the 70s. The editorial page is mostly conservative with occasional liberal editorials (they printed an Obama editorial the other day).

Peggy is old school inside-politics, so smart with an interesting perspective.

JR

[edit]  I read my sat paper this morning... Peggy has just reframed the us/them class warfare debate more broadly, avoiding emotional buzz words.  I'm not sure there is anything new there, but she expands the over-class out beyond the 1%.

I still think Trump is explainable by the public's dissatisfaction with all establishment politicians.  Trump isn't establishment (except he is a crony businessman), and is very clearly a politician on the stump.  [/edit]

 
DaveP said:
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.
Bernie Sanders is actually calling for revolution, while few adults take him seriously, some kids probably do. 
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.
that's called history... If we don't study it we are doomed to repeat it. (George Santayana)

We already "fixed" immigration with amnesty and laws to punish illegal immigration, but congress and the executive branch dropped the ball by not doing the hard work to secure the border and police workplaces. The net result was millions more illegal immigrants here waiting for the next amnesty... In the real world people respond to what you do, not what you say.  We (our leaders ) caused our current problem.

Europe is more complicated and I watch it closely like the canary in the coal mine, while we have an ocean making it harder for EU immigrants to get here.  I won't insult you with a too simple answer but failing to wipe out ISIL when it was weak, and standing up to Assad when he was losing his civil war, could have prevented some ( much?) of the current immigration pressure there.  The camps in Calais are newsworthy, but just a symptom of the larger problem. 
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
The big lie in political campaigns is that government can do stuff. Government can't create jobs and new wealth, but if they didn't make those silly promises they wouldn't get elected.  The best government can do is get out of the way. Using government force to redistribute wealth is a less than zero sum game, resulting in less wealth.

I don't see voters getting smarter any time soon (I was a little optimistic about the tea party but not enough critical mass). So we will get more of the same, and have no one to blame but ourselves.

JR

PS: I am still suffering from an optimism deficit.
 
PS: I am still suffering from an optimism deficit.
So I see ;)

But cheer up, Donald is going to make America great again!

I presume he means the golden age from 1946 to 1966?  France had one too, "les trentes glorieuses", Unfortunately we never had one in the UK because we were still paying you lot back for all the "materiel" we bought from you to fight the war, we made the last payment in the year 2006!  We drained our Empire and coffers dry to spend in the USA, but that windfall won't be coming your way again, we are much diminished

I was just reading that his heroes were the WW2 generals MacArthur and Patton, that explains a lot.  He admits they were not pleasant, but they were winners and got the job done, expect a rough ride!

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
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.

What did Savile and the BBC do to social cohesion in the UK? Or is his race not important when he commits a crime compared to when "Asian men" do it? Or perhaps the social cohesion issue is more about religion, in which case we could ask ourselves why it, "social cohesion", hasn't been an issue when it comes to Catholic priests fondling kids.

Sometimes, pointing out that race is irrelevant when characterizing criminals is justified. That's not playing a race card, it's just pointing out what's arguably true. Similarly, pointing out what appears to be inconsistent standards by those criticizing religious people isn't about defending one religion against another, just pointing out that the bar is set differently, for some peculiar reason.
 
JohnRoberts said:
The big lie in political campaigns is that government can do stuff. Government can't create jobs and new wealth,

Governments can create jobs and new wealth exactly like a corporation can. I'm not sure why you think they can't.

JohnRoberts said:
Using government force to redistribute wealth is a less than zero sum game, resulting in less wealth.

The middle class losing out probably doesn't care if it's the government losing their money or people at the top consolidating it (which is also, by definition, a redistribution of wealth). Unless of course the issue is that the middle class would actually stand to gain from this redistribution. In that case we probably could ask ourselves if we're better off serving the many or the few (at the top).
 
What did Savile and the BBC do to social cohesion in the UK? Or is his race not important when he commits a crime compared to when "Asian men" do it? Or perhaps the social cohesion issue is more about religion, in which case we could ask ourselves why it, "social cohesion", hasn't been an issue when it comes to Catholic priests fondling kids.
I can see where you are trying to go with this, so I will explain the difference.

The Savile and the BBC debacle have finally made celebrities accountable and the bad  Catholic priests have done enormous damage to the reputation of the Church worldwide.  These crimes are just as bad but they have no cultural element to them, other than they thought they were above the law.  Celebrities and priests were not brought up in an alien culture, they should have known better.

What has happened in Rochdale and other places is different because it affects the  relationship between two races who have been living side by side, but not in an integrated way.  These Asian men of Pakistani dual nationality are Muslims who have decided that young white girls who have been in social care, (after family break-down) are fair game.  Although their religion prohibits child sexual exploitation, their culture, which they have brought with them, does not.  It is the clash of cultures rather than the actual race issue which is the problem.  One would have expected immigrants to have some respect for the host country, not exploit its most vulnerable people.  This abuse of hospitality is not just a cause for offence in the western world, it is an especially severe crime in Muslim/Arab cultures too.  You know this to be true.  The events in Cologne at the new year celebrations further show the  divide about how women are viewed in these cultures.


The problems in the USA are different because they seem more to do with race than culture.  People of African origin/slavery if you prefer, have been in the US for centuries and they are Christian, so the cultural divide is not so wide as it is in the UK.  The Islamic State issue has made the whole situation 10 times worse.

DaveP
 
mattiasNYC said:
JohnRoberts said:
The big lie in political campaigns is that government can do stuff. Government can't create jobs and new wealth,

Governments can create jobs and new wealth exactly like a corporation can. I'm not sure why you think they can't.
History...  Government central planners invariably very efficiently make unwanted stuff.  China is the more recent noble experiment in a managed economy. The amount of wealth they have created is notable, but as they say the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

China is notorious for over-capacity fueled by government lending and "help" for businesses.  I recently saw a stat that Chinese business debt is something like 150% of GDP.... The government is backing all this debt so it is not like private corporation debt over here.  Chinese "planning" has fueled urban development making whole cities where few want to live.

All that spending and activity looks good while the music is playing but at some point the music always stops. The Chinese government has some smart people pulling the levers so hopefully they will engineer a soft landing, but "Hong Kong lite" is not the same as Hong Kong, and they will figure that out, sooner or not.
JohnRoberts said:
Using government force to redistribute wealth is a less than zero sum game, resulting in less wealth.

The middle class losing out probably doesn't care if it's the government losing their money or people at the top consolidating it (which is also, by definition, a redistribution of wealth). Unless of course the issue is that the middle class would actually stand to gain from this redistribution. In that case we probably could ask ourselves if we're better off serving the many or the few (at the top).
I don't mind giving my money to rich people in exchange for something I want even more than the money. I object to giving the government even more money, because they think they can spend it smarter then me, for my own benefit.

Bernie Sanders claiming that all business is crooked is not only disingenuous, but it's downright dangerous. Hillary is mouthing some of the same phrases to beat Bernie, but most voters figure she's just lying again.

For the nth time.... Redistribution by government force destroys wealth. Our GDP is already growing at well below historical trend line, thanks to the current administration's "help".

Anybody on the right will be better for economic growth than anybody on the left. While I worry that we may have reached a critical mass of voters who believe that more free sh__ from the government is in their self interest, and actually free ("We'll just tax richey rich to pay for it all"). Maybe it works using common core math, but not the math I was taught as a kid. 

JR
 
DaveP said:
The problems in the USA are different because they seem more to do with race than culture.  People of African origin/slavery if you prefer, have been in the US for centuries and they are Christian, so the cultural divide is not so wide as it is in the UK.  The Islamic State issue has made the whole situation 10 times worse.

DaveP
Damn,, my browser erased my first answer but i recall some of the data.

The World has plenty of history with slavery to feel guilty about, including the slavery still going on.

In the US school integration and civil rights laws (in the 60's) made huge strides at reducing the divide.  That said the political class is not above mining the grievance industry for political advantage. While the police have been under attack, how about the Chicago death toll of 7,000+ between 2001 and 2015. Those white cops would have to be working overtime. Something like 59% of hate crime is perpetrated against jewish people.

To bring this back on topic (Trump), Rev Al Sharpton has threatened to leave if Trump wins (seriously). Further he said that Trump would probably deport him??? The irony in this is that Sharpton may have his passport revoked because he owes the government more than $4M in taxes.  ::)  I suspect he's just giving a fellow new Yorker a shout out, because some will vote for Trump just to see Rev Al leave.  8)

JR 

that's most of it...
 
Question to the group:

Trump is independantly wealthy, and the vast majority of said wealth is self made. He is a perpetual motion self-promotion machine. He is not beholden to anyone but himself. Who has power over Donald Trump? I would open for debate that nobody does.

Washington has become an inbred cesspool of cronyism, favors, and corruption, enabled by those at the top playing the same game, a perpetual motion inefficiency machine that will eventually destroy the country if not checked. Think of the wrench a Trump presidency would throw into the cogs of the cronyist, bloated federal government.

Maybe we need a president who likes (and is well known for) firing people? A one term slash and burn president to redefine American politics?
 
DaveP said:
I can see where you are trying to go with this, so I will explain the difference.

The Savile and the BBC debacle have finally made celebrities accountable and the bad  Catholic priests have done enormous damage to the reputation of the Church worldwide.  These crimes are just as bad but they have no cultural element to them, other than they thought they were above the law.  Celebrities and priests were not brought up in an alien culture, they should have known better.

Huh? Celebrities and entertainment and religion aren't part of what make up a culture? I have a hard time thinking of things that make a bigger difference, culturally. Food certainly doesn't qualify.

DaveP said:
What has happened in Rochdale and other places is different because it affects the  relationship between two races who have been living side by side, but not in an integrated way.

Yeah, it does, but it's everybody's choice whether or not to see that race. I don't. I don't think it's relevant. We all get to choose every time we meet a new person, or talk about someone; we can note the race and make a thing out of it, or we can ignore it.

DaveP said:
These Asian men of Pakistani dual nationality are Muslims who have decided that young white girls who have been in social care, (after family break-down) are fair game.  Although their religion prohibits child sexual exploitation, their culture, which they have brought with them, does not.

Yes, the culture of people who think they're above the law, and who think women and children are worth less than men, and who think they aren't going to get caught, and who are mentally ill (probably for physical reasons). And all of that applies to the Catholic priests and celebs who get away with it.

In addition, this culture you're talking about, does that include women and children as well? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I'm pretty sure it's isolated to these defective humans. Just like it is in our western society among ethnic westerners. It's a subset of the population consisting of disgusting, physically defective men, it's not even all men.

DaveP said:
It is the clash of cultures rather than the actual race issue which is the problem.

Fair enough. But the criticism against people pointing out race is that people point out race and then jump to talking about culture. The two aren't the same. And that's why I think a lot of time the criticism is justified. Look at Europe right now and you'll see plenty of criticism that quickly leaps to what is essentially actual racism.

For example, in Sweden the tone has hardened something crazy, and it certainly was anti-immigration in nature. Of course, the immigration that was resisted was that of those who weren't "like us". But the problem is that it starts out as "too expensive" or whatever, and then it quickly moves to lack of integration, but if you look at the root of the biggest anti-immigration party and their basic ideology it's clearly racist. They inevitably end up acknowledging that "Swedish" is a "thing". And, Jews for example, aren't. Neither are the people up north, the ones that were there before the more recent immigrants that became "real" Swedes. So, when people call them "racists" when they promote their agenda, it's for good reason. That was my point. Sometimes it's dressed up like a dog, but actually is a duck, and that's why it's called a duck, because we've seen it without its disguise many times.

DaveP said:
  One would have expected immigrants to have some respect for the host country, not exploit its most vulnerable people.  This abuse of hospitality is not just a cause for offence in the western world, it is an especially severe crime in Muslim/Arab cultures too.  You know this to be true.  The events in Cologne at the new year celebrations further show the  divide about how women are viewed in these cultures.

It's more than a bit of a stretch to expect people who are so screwed up they're raping women and/or children (or aiding in it) to respect a host country. They're already damaged. Know what I mean? I wouldn't expect it. I would expect them to be problematic, period. Perhaps it can be treated, perhaps not. What's more whatever part of this that isn't purely physical we'll quite frankly probably have to expect to get. War has an effect on people. People that suffered war that are now suffering from it bring that with them.

And of course I agree that the view of women is decades behind in the Mid East. I don't dispute that at all. But there's a difference between women being submissive / men running things and on the other hand panting an entire culture as being the cause of rapes.
 
JohnRoberts said:
History...  Government central planners invariably very efficiently make unwanted stuff.  China is the more recent noble experiment in a managed economy. The amount of wealth they have created is notable, but as they say the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

You appear to be missing the produciton by the Scandinavian governments.

JohnRoberts said:
I don't mind giving my money to rich people in exchange for something I want even more than the money. I object to giving the government even more money, because they think they can spend it smarter then me, for my own benefit.

Ok, well, good for you. Not everyone has the money to spend, and to them it's a problem. Look at what happens when people get sick in this country, and are brought to financial ruin because of the system.

JohnRoberts said:
Redistribution by government force destroys wealth.

Depends on how you define "wealth", at best. I honestly think you're just wrong about that.

JohnRoberts said:
Our GDP is already growing at well below historical trend line, thanks to the current administration's "help".

Anybody on the right will be better for economic growth than anybody on the left.

Well, in recent history it's been "the right" that's racked up debt due to budget deficits. And if I'm not mistaken W had the worst GDP rate in the past few decades. So why you're pointing fingers at the left I don't quite understand. What metrics are you looking at and from what sources? (I just looked at US GDP at the world bank site btw)
 
JohnRoberts said:
Something like 59% of hate crime is perpetrated against jewish people.

I think that's absurd. I don't see how anyone can come to such a figure.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/tables-and-data-declarations/4tabledatadecpdf/table_4_offenses_offense_type_by_bias_motivation_2012.xls

Not even close. Roughly 10%, with most of that being less serious offenses, i.e. not "aggravated assault" or worse.
 
100x696/1166 makes roughly 59%

also :
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final

 
mattiasNYC said:
JohnRoberts said:
History...  Government central planners invariably very efficiently make unwanted stuff.  China is the more recent noble experiment in a managed economy. The amount of wealth they have created is notable, but as they say the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

You appear to be missing the produciton by the Scandinavian governments.
We've been around this tree before, for one thing they are not as progressive as they once were, because they saw the writing on the wall and reversed course. If you want to emulate them (which is apples and oranges for our many differences) study exactly what they are doing. 
JohnRoberts said:
I don't mind giving my money to rich people in exchange for something I want even more than the money. I object to giving the government even more money, because they think they can spend it smarter then me, for my own benefit.

Ok, well, good for you. Not everyone has the money to spend, and to them it's a problem. Look at what happens when people get sick in this country, and are brought to financial ruin because of the system.
People get sick and die in all countries.  As I have stated many times, there is not enough money in the entire world, to give all the people in the entire world unlimited health care. So we must try to do the most we can do with what we have. The ACA is a train wreck of bad math and wishful thinking. We can do better, and will.

As I've shared recently France passed legislation allowing them to keep terminal patients permanently sedated and withdraw feeding tubes. France is just dealing with their present reality and the constantly improving end of life medicine will just make dying even more expensive. 
JohnRoberts said:
Redistribution by government force destroys wealth.

Depends on how you define "wealth", at best. I honestly think you're just wrong about that.
Wealth is how many beans you have.

Cuba, Venezuela, etc have proved the bad consequences of taking wealth by force.  History suggests that I am correct.
JohnRoberts said:
Our GDP is already growing at well below historical trend line, thanks to the current administration's "help".

Anybody on the right will be better for economic growth than anybody on the left.

Well, in recent history it's been "the right" that's racked up debt due to budget deficits. And if I'm not mistaken W had the worst GDP rate in the past few decades. So why you're pointing fingers at the left I don't quite understand. What metrics are you looking at and from what sources? (I just looked at US GDP at the world bank site btw)
united-states-gdp-growth-annual.png

Not a very smooth chart but the average over time is higher than the current 2% or so.  A rising tide lifts all boats... this is not trickle down but growing the pie larger to benefit all.

JR
 
For example, in Sweden the tone has hardened something crazy, and it certainly was anti-immigration in nature. Of course, the immigration that was resisted was that of those who weren't "like us". But the problem is that it starts out as "too expensive" or whatever, and then it quickly moves to lack of integration, but if you look at the root of the biggest anti-immigration party and their basic ideology it's clearly racist. They inevitably end up acknowledging that "Swedish" is a "thing". And, Jews for example, aren't. Neither are the people up north, the ones that were there before the more recent immigrants that became "real" Swedes. So, when people call them "racists" when they promote their agenda, it's for good reason. That was my point. Sometimes it's dressed up like a dog, but actually is a duck, and that's why it's called a duck, because we've seen it without its disguise many times.

Yes, I think every country has a hard core of racists, I don't know what the percentage is, but I would guess around 5-10%.

I can only speak about the UK and over the last 60 years I would say that the Indians and West Indians have integrated the most successfully, but tribal societies like those from Pakistan have done the worst.  This is because of the huge control the country of origin still has over the migrants, via the tribal structure.  As a result, girls have been tricked into getting married on visits to Pakistan, others have been murdered in so called "honour killings, they have been disfigured by acid in their faces, others have been kept in slavery.  The race of these people is irrelevant, because it is their cultural habits that are causing the problems.  In actual fact, Indians and Pakistanis are racially the same people, (before 1947  partition) but they are culturally different in the UK.

In general, all of these cultural problems that so jar in our western society, can be boiled down the the treatment and value of women and girls, that is also why the Asian gangs in Rochdale did what they did.  It is surely wrong to be racist, but it is also wrong to call people who object to these cultural practices racist as well.

DaveP
 
kambo said:
100x696/1166 makes roughly 59%

also :
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final

Go back and re-read what I was responding to. The statement was "59% of hate crime". Not 59% of some of the hate crime.

Total hate crimes listed aren't 1166 crimes, it's 6718.
 
By the way:

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

Making a few good points I think.
 
I watched 10 minutes of it.

I'd prefer a more serious analysis of his popularity.

He is such an easy target for the media, but he uses outrageous comments to keep the media running, symbiosis in action.

The media are in a difficult position, they instinctively loathe him but they have to respect the choice of his voters, without insinuating they are all morons.

Interesting times

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
For example, in Sweden the tone has hardened something crazy, and it certainly was anti-immigration in nature. Of course, the immigration that was resisted was that of those who weren't "like us". But the problem is that it starts out as "too expensive" or whatever, and then it quickly moves to lack of integration, but if you look at the root of the biggest anti-immigration party and their basic ideology it's clearly racist. They inevitably end up acknowledging that "Swedish" is a "thing". And, Jews for example, aren't. Neither are the people up north, the ones that were there before the more recent immigrants that became "real" Swedes. So, when people call them "racists" when they promote their agenda, it's for good reason. That was my point. Sometimes it's dressed up like a dog, but actually is a duck, and that's why it's called a duck, because we've seen it without its disguise many times.

Yes, I think every country has a hard core of racists, I don't know what the percentage is, but I would guess around 5-10%.
It is wired into our hunter-gatherer genes by evolution to be wary of strangers who are different than us. Civilization teaches us to overcome these visceral natural emotions.

In any large enough population there will be a small fraction that is bat sh__ crazy. These few often end up on the evening news after living out some delusional escapade.
I can only speak about the UK and over the last 60 years I would say that the Indians and West Indians have integrated the most successfully, but tribal societies like those from Pakistan have done the worst.  This is because of the huge control the country of origin still has over the migrants, via the tribal structure.  As a result, girls have been tricked into getting married on visits to Pakistan, others have been murdered in so called "honour killings, they have been disfigured by acid in their faces, others have been kept in slavery.  The race of these people is irrelevant, because it is their cultural habits that are causing the problems.  In actual fact, Indians and Pakistanis are racially the same people, (before 1947  partition) but they are culturally different in the UK.

In general, all of these cultural problems that so jar in our western society, can be boiled down the the treatment and value of women and girls, that is also why the Asian gangs in Rochdale did what they did.  It is surely wrong to be racist, but it is also wrong to call people who object to these cultural practices racist as well.

DaveP
Being called a racist is a modern knee jerk reaction to squelch thoughtful discussion of contentious issues. (see rules for radicals.. make people defend them selves to diffuse arguments ).

JR
 

Latest posts

Back
Top