Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

I often call strangers sir or maam.

In France we always call everyone Monsieur or Madame, they are a very polite race.  They even say Bonjour to everyone at large when entering a Doctor's waiting room, it quite threw us at first ???

I'm still waiting for JR to call me Sir in that smooth southern style they have down there, but I might have a long wait.
That was a joke Matt

DaveP

Yes sireee....  but what about greeting the tres belle mademoiselles?  ;D It's probably less forward and more polite to greet all women as if they are married until you know otherwise. If they want you to know they'll correct you.  ;D

I think I've shared this before, I lived in several parts of the US and they all have their different personalities. In the south there's a superficial politeness and faux friendliness that conceals the typical distrust of outsiders.

In the South there is even an odd passive-agressive game of waving to neighbors you don't really know personally. It's kind of like tag, they lose the exchange, unless they return the wave in a timely fashion. If you don't wave and they do, and make eye contact you lost that one.  Of course complete strangers from out of town, don't play, and don't wave... just like yankees. 

I recall visiting my parents up in PA while they were still alive. We were sitting out on their front porch and I just waved at every car that drove by, as is the practice down here in MS. Several slowed down and stared at me to try to figure out why I was waving to them.   While yankee neighbors can be brusque and cold fish, but if you ever really need help they'll be there for you. It seems the tighter they pack us into cities, the less neighborly we behave. I guess to pretend we have more personal space than we do.

Equally disconcerting when on a business trip somewhere outside the south, is when I say good morning to an elevator full of strangers, who just stare at me like I must be drunk... but since I'm saying good morning I'm obviously not drunk (yet).  8)

Yes sir...

I even say yes maam to the check out woman at Walmart...  "It's nice to be nice".

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Hollyweird has their own brand of politics

That's for true!

do you mean less racist and "less" conservative..?

I've met some (white) neighbor kids who didn't drop far from the proverbial tree (their parent's belief system). In general the (white) kids I met attending private schools are less liberal/progressive than kids in public schools which I attribute to desegregation exposing public school system kids to other races as individuals not stereotypes.

"yes", and "sounds likely", respectively...

FWIW I met some (black) kids at the gym that didn't know what to make of me.

Who does though?

It would make sense to have a jury that represents a wider range.

It still doesn't matter... It's friggin movies..!

vote by buying tickets, or not, the ultimate free market solution.

Then you get the Justin Bieber you complained about earlier! I actually do think one can at least get a reasonably narrow range judging art objectively. I know some disagree, but at least I agree with me.... ;-)

It's not about the trophy, but you knew that, didn't you?

I like several of his older movies, but I object to celebrities pontificating on subjects just because of their celebrity and wealth. Will and his wife have a family foundation that apparently is doing some good work,,, I applaud him for that, but not for attacking the academy that seems a little self serving (even if they deserve it).  I consider his work with poor kids in Africa far more important.

[edit] allow me to point out the irony (before someone else does) as I pontificate here....   [/edit]

Well now, I don't think that's entirely fair. It's not like we're talking about Will Smith talking as an authority on plumbing by virtue of being a celebrity. This issue we're discussing actually pertains to the field he works in. Surely he's far more aware of what goes on than we are, because he has actuall experienced the industry on the inside (I'm in post, but not on that level).

And I think we should also consider that the media wants to sell advertizing. So, it's not necessarily that he is making a huge effort to be perceived as an authority as much as it is the media playing his name up because they want to sell.

Satire has long been used as a medium for political or social criticism. I suspect Rock was trying to skewer some self important celebrities at least in general, but I wouldn't expect him to get too personal or too real in front of that crowd.

JR

I thought it was surprisingly "real". Just not very funny. And part of it inappropriate in a morbid sort of way.

 

[gato]

"Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics,"
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

He won't be elected, but his constituency scares me. Maybe I'm an activated authoritarian being activated by my fear of authoritarians. May all the bookshelves of the world fall onto them.

 

[gato]

I think I've shared this before, I lived in several parts of the US and they all have their different personalities. In the south there's a superficial politeness and faux friendliness that conceals the typical distrust of outsiders.

In the South there is even an odd passive-agressive game of waving to neighbors you don't really know personally. It's kind of like tag, they lose the exchange, unless they return the wave in a timely fashion. If you don't wave and they do, and make eye contact you lost that one.  Of course complete strangers from out of town, don't play, and don't wave... just like yankees. 
JR
[/quote]

I'm from Austin, Texas and I'd say the niceness is real. Back home I'd get into conversations with strangers all the time. In the country the wave is usually just a finger in the air above the steering wheel and a nod. I've never thought of it as passive-aggressive. They say southern hospitality developed because people in the south often lived in such isolated areas that passers through were a cherished occurrence. I think Henry Ward Beecher wrote something to that effect. Personally I've always taken the charge of hospitality quite seriously. Someday we'll have to have a gdiy Texas barbecue.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Austin is a good city, great live music scene, and micro brew pubs, and coffee roasters, and..... Not remotely like small town MS (or small town TX).

Perhaps my passive-agressive wave thing is imagined. I wave to everybody especially when riding my bike on back roads, and before when I could still jog... I always figured somebody who waved back was less likely to run  me over.  8)

JR

PS: When riding my bike I generally use the forefinger wave, without letting go of the handlebar.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hollyweird has their own brand of politics

That's for true!

do you mean less racist and "less" conservative..?

I've met some (white) neighbor kids who didn't drop far from the proverbial tree (their parent's belief system). In general the (white) kids I met attending private schools are less liberal/progressive than kids in public schools which I attribute to desegregation exposing public school system kids to other races as individuals not stereotypes.

"yes", and "sounds likely", respectively...

FWIW I met some (black) kids at the gym that didn't know what to make of me.

Who does though?

It would make sense to have a jury that represents a wider range.

It still doesn't matter... It's friggin movies..!

vote by buying tickets, or not, the ultimate free market solution.

Then you get the Justin Bieber you complained about earlier! I actually do think one can at least get a reasonably narrow range judging art objectively. I know some disagree, but at least I agree with me.... ;-)

Except I wouldn't buy a ticket to see him, and don't care if others do.

It's not about the trophy, but you knew that, didn't you?

I like several of his older movies, but I object to celebrities pontificating on subjects just because of their celebrity and wealth. Will and his wife have a family foundation that apparently is doing some good work,,, I applaud him for that, but not for attacking the academy that seems a little self serving (even if they deserve it).  I consider his work with poor kids in Africa far more important.

[edit] allow me to point out the irony (before someone else does) as I pontificate here....   [/edit]

Well now, I don't think that's entirely fair. It's not like we're talking about Will Smith talking as an authority on plumbing by virtue of being a celebrity. This issue we're discussing actually pertains to the field he works in. Surely he's far more aware of what goes on than we are, because he has actuall experienced the industry on the inside (I'm in post, but not on that level).

I already defended his right to protest, boycott or whatever..

I didn't watch his concussion movie but expect it was crafted to "teach" the public about dangers of football..and tell a feel good story about the doctor who connected the dots. The public apparently didn't embrace it, and informed people already know.  The NFL and sports operations in schools have been wrestling with this issue for decades.

His protest would have been far more powerful, if he waited to be nominated then boycotted the show. Marlon Brando made a powerful statement the year he had a native american accept his award. Boycotting a year when you weren't nominated seems personal.

And I think we should also consider that the media wants to sell advertizing. So, it's not necessarily that he is making a huge effort to be perceived as an authority as much as it is the media playing his name up because they want to sell.

yes the award show is a blatant marketing exercise to promote the movies. The TV show ratings were down this year.

Satire has long been used as a medium for political or social criticism. I suspect Rock was trying to skewer some self important celebrities at least in general, but I wouldn't expect him to get too personal or too real in front of that crowd.

JR

I thought it was surprisingly "real". Just not very funny. And part of it inappropriate in a morbid sort of way.

I had made a counter point about the people being killed in Chicago. From yesterday's newspaper, homicides and shootings have doubled the first two months of this year compared to 2015. 95 homicides vs 48, 406 shootings vs 180 the same two month period in 2015.  This is as much an economic issue as race, the killings are not in the wealthy part of town.

Coincidentally police have seized less illegal guns, leading to a speculation that police have become less aggressive in the aftermath of a sensational shooting video released last fall (held by the mayor until after elections) and the ongoing federal probe of the police force. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm sure the police will be blamed for this too.

JR

PS: I just heard that the mayor in NYC has stopped police from enforcing public drinking, and urination on the street laws.  (make your own joke). I though the "broken windows" strategy was proved to work, but he seem bent on undoing it.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I though the "broken windows" strategy was proved to work, but he seem bent on undoing it.

In NYC? What areas?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I though the "broken windows" strategy was proved to work, but he seem bent on undoing it.

In NYC? What areas?

I ASSume all boroughs. The mayor and city council are telling police to only issue summons (fines) for things like open drinking in public and public urination (and more "quality of life crimes"). Apparently some believe that crimes that are committed disproportionately by minorities (like these) must be racist.  Maybe they could give the police quotas and when they reach their monthly quota of arrests for a given minority, the rest of that minority committing crimes get a free pass  . (joke)

Times square used to be like the wild west before Mayor Giuliani (and Disney) cleaned it up. Mayor DeBlasio is making Mike Bloomberg look like a hard ass...  DeBlasio will definitely win the pan-handler vote.

Time will tell how this ends up... an interesting sociology experiment.

JR

 

[dmp]

Apparently some believe that crimes that are committed disproportionately by minorities (like these) must be racist.

This is a typical kind of distortion of the argument.  You are confusing  equal opportunity with equal outcomes. 
If you were identifiable as part of a group that had a higher probability of crime, would you be cool with being pulled over by police on your way to work once or twice a week? Would you like being stopped and frisked while out walking your dog? Would you like your door kicked in because the police thought your 2nd cousin talked to the wrong person? This happens to people and that is what the issue is about.  Giuliani implemented police tactics that would never have flown with any group of people except the extremely poor and unpowerful.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Apparently some believe that crimes that are committed disproportionately by minorities (like these) must be racist.

This is a typical kind of distortion of the argument.  You are confusing  equal opportunity with equal outcomes. 
If you were identifiable as part of a group that had a higher probability of crime, would you be cool with being pulled over by police on your way to work once or twice a week?

When I was a kid driving my beat up hot rod with loud exhaust, I was stopped by police much too frequently without doing anything wrong.  One time a cop stopped me and asked me why I was driving so slow? I answered because he was following right behind me. I routinely got released without a ticket, because I didn't do anything illegal, but I didn't hassle or disrespect the police officers like so many do today.  One time after stopping me and letting me go, the cop followed me to my driveway and stopped me again. This time he told me to rev up my motor, he said he liked cars too and just wanted to hear it. I stopped at about 3,000 rpm before it gets really loud (the glass pack mufflers would resonate above there getting twice as loud or more), he smiled and drove away.

One time I got pulled over for speeding because I was driving a friend's car home for him. The police recognized his car and wanted to hassle him.  My friend had gotten lucky at the bar that night so he was driving the girl's car home, and asked me to drive his car home for him since I was a designated drinker*** that night. I didn't know he had a small town police department looking for him.

I was doubly unlucky since I wasn't planning on driving that night, I had left my license at home in my wallet. When the cops pulled me over and asked for license and registration I was unable to satisfy their request (I think I just shrugged my shoulders). I had no idea where the registration was, and my license was miles away.  So to the police station we went for interrogation. The police figured they had hit the jackpot by catching a car thief in the act.

The police had such a desire to bust this car's owner they passed two of my friends cars, driving behind me in our group, all traveling at exactly the same speed, just so they could pull me over.  While I was sitting alone in the interrogation room, my brother sneaked in and asked me what was going on. I told him my license was home in my wallet, so my brother went home, got it, and sneaked it back in to me.

So a couple hours after being held in the police station I magically "found" my driver's license. The police officers were not amused by this, but released me with only the speeding ticket. I went to court and pled not guilty as it was clearly selective enforcement. The judge was not sympathetic at all. I was probably over the speed limit, I don't think Jack's car had a working speedometer, so I was going the same speed as the three other cars in our group.

The judge was on a first name basis with the cop who wrote the ticket. I was a young puke with a scraggly beard (only hippies and beatniks had beards back in the '60s).  I paid the fine proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished.

In hindsight I was guilty but so were all the others who weren't ticketed.  ???

Would you like being stopped and frisked while out walking your dog? Would you like your door kicked in because the police thought your 2nd cousin talked to the wrong person? This happens to people and that is what the issue is about.

People are entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Homes provide extra protections that predate the constitution (a man's home is his castle).

Stop and frisk is not about a presumption of guilt, but a kind of PR or marketing campaign, to make bad guys leave their guns at home because they fear they "might" get caught. The play is not to stop and frisk everybody, just enough highly visible people to keep the bad guys afraid to carry. People complaining about it should help it work better with fewer actual stops.  I have wondered why the police didn't employ sensitive magnetometers that could detect massive metal objects (like guns) from some distance (like in the bad science fiction movies), but that is also arguably an invasion of personal privacy and illegal search.

Stop and Frisk disproportionately inconveniences people in the very areas that benefit most from getting guns off the street. I wonder how the Chicago relatives of victims of the doubling in murders and shootings, feel about the police relaxing illegal gun enforcement there ? 

Giuliani implemented police tactics that would never have flown with any group of people except the extremely poor and unpowerful.

Giuliana also cleaned up organized crime in NYC, breaking their control of labor unions and several service industries (garbage collection, cement trucks, etc). Doing trade shows in NYC was night and day better after he cleaned up the unions there who would extort cash from companies displaying at trade shows. 


JR

*** My car profiling brouhaha occurred in the 60's a much simpler time. Today I probably would have been popped for DUI that night too. We were all returning from a night of drinking in NY state. Back then the police would more likely try to help you get home safely than bust you for drinking . 

 

[mattiasNYC]

 

[DaveP]

The BBC ran some articles today entitled, "How radical is Sanders?" and another, "How extreme is Trump".  You don't have to be mind reader to see how the editor wants you to regard them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35760148

To me, both of them are at the extremes of their respective parties and both of them are offering radical solutions.

I don't like being told what to think.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

The BBC ran some articles today entitled, "How radical is Sanders?" and another, "How extreme is Trump".  You don't have to be mind reader to see how the editor wants you to regard them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35760148

To me, both of them are at the extremes of their respective parties and both of them are offering radical solutions.

Both are extreme populists while appealing to different populist trends.  Bernie is kind of beyond being an extreme democrat, as a self-described socialist.  It is the nature of primaries for the more mainstream candidates to be pulled toward their party extremes by less successful candidates making more extreme arguments or promises. Comparing Bernie to Hillary today during the primary, is not the same Hillary we expect to see in the general election when she tacks back to the center hoping to get elected.

On the republican side Trump is not the most republican. Cruz is more conservative, and Kasich is the most establishment, while the men behind the curtain have been pulling for Rubio to win, rather unsuccessfully. A lot of conventional wisdom has been turned on it's head this time.  Bush had the most money and established organization but went nowhere. A field full of good candidates that never gained traction and have been whittled down to only a few. 

Cruz held his home state of TX so lives to fight another day. Next week primaries in FL and OH will test Rubio and Kasich. If Trump upsets them in their home states they're toast.

Trump won MS yesterday without my help. So my record of not picking winners is intact. 

I don't like being told what to think.

DaveP

There is a remarkable anti-trump campaign being waged by the republican establishment and others. One has to ask what are they afraid of..? He may be the one candidate to upend the joint republican-democratic bureaucracy sharing power in DC. The more that these shadowy forces work to stop Trump, the more attractive he looks to many.

This election is one for the history books, while it is likely to turn on voters voting for more free sh__. Once we pass that tipping point it's downhill until we run out of borrowing capability, but that could take decades.

JR 

 

[DaveP]

The more that these shadowy forces work to stop Trump, the more attractive he looks to many.

I couldn't agree more.
They would get more traction by first apologising to the American people for losing the plot!

They just come across as arrogant by denouncing him, because that is interpreted as  "you are too stupid to know who to vote for, vote for our boy"!

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

it is likely to turn on voters voting for more free sh__. Once we pass that tipping point it's downhill until we run out of borrowing capability, but that could take decades.

JR

But who has borrowed more historically? Is it these fringe candidates? No, because they've never been elected. So is it Democrats or Republicans? It's Republicans, right? Looking at budget deficit increases/decreases for the past 30 years or so that's at least what I recall. But perhaps that's not the kind of "borrowing" you talk about. And perhaps we should clarify whether it's congress or POTUS that's the problem regarding "borrowing".

On a moderately related note, there's a somewhat amusing video out.... I'll just post the link. The vary last part is perhaps not the same thing, but the other two are interesting;

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

 

[JohnRoberts]

it is likely to turn on voters voting for more free sh__. Once we pass that tipping point it's downhill until we run out of borrowing capability, but that could take decades.

JR

But who has borrowed more historically? Is it these fringe candidates? No, because they've never been elected. So is it Democrats or Republicans? It's Republicans, right? Looking at budget deficit increases/decreases for the past 30 years or so that's at least what I recall. But perhaps that's not the kind of "borrowing" you talk about. And perhaps we should clarify whether it's congress or POTUS that's the problem regarding "borrowing".

Sorry I don't feel like playing "blame game 2016".

The potus presents a budget but congress ultimately is responsible for approving spending.

Both parties are guilty of spending largess, and I don't expect much frugality in an election year. I perceive some tightening in budgets (like sequester), but entitlements have not been adequately addressed IMO. Things like retirement age need to be raised to reflect modern life expectancy.

Bernie is not likely to win the nomination so his extreme spending promises are mostly campaign noise but it does draw Hillary in that direction to perform better in competitive state primaries, and she could possibly win the general election, if my record of voting for losers remains intact. 

My comment was offered en passe since I don't expect a thoughtful discussion of entitlements in an election year.

There have been a few thoughtful suggestions made by candidates about tax reform and the need for higher GDP growth, to support the spending orgy that hasn't adjusted for the reduced GDP growth tax revenue reality since 2008.  Of course those thoughtful candidates are already long gone, because voters don't grok that this is important, or care.

JR

On a moderately related note, there's a somewhat amusing video out.... I'll just post the link. The vary last part is perhaps not the same thing, but the other two are interesting;

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

 

[DaveP]

I love these two
http://news.sky.com/video/1658766/listen-democrat-sisters-love-trump

The media is finally doing their job and finding out why Trump is doing so well, instead of assuming people are dummies.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I love these two
http://news.sky.com/video/1658766/listen-democrat-sisters-love-trump

The media is finally doing their job and finding out why Trump is doing so well, instead of assuming people are dummies.

DaveP

The news cycle here probably should have been about Trump receiving an important (IMO) endorsement from Carson, but instead it's about Sanders(?) supporters blocking a Trump rally (in IL) that Trump then cancelled to avoid a possible violent confrontation between large numbers of opposing supporters.

As often happens the media seems complicit in adding energy to such demonstrations in the guise of reporting the news. If they bring more lights, cameras, and give more publicity to such efforts we will likely see more of the same.

I can't imagine any candidate supporting such mob mentality. The protesters declared victory on the spot which makes me expect more such attempts. 

People can be smart, mobs of people not so much.  The blame game is already in full swing. Police generally try to keep opposition protestors some safe distance away and out of contact with attendees of such scheduled events.  This was on a college campus and Trump expected and got a large turn-out of supporters, but modern college campuses are not exactly bastions of free speech these days.

I'll try not to second guess decisions using hindsight. Stand by for more of anything but discussion about the real issues.

JR

 

[DaveP]

We have the same situation with students over here, protesting about 200 year old statues in an attempt to change the past.  I think every university is a left wing nursery because they are full of left wing tutors.  I preferred the time when students were taught to think for themselves rather than be subjects of indoctrination.

I have no problem with protesters standing outside with banners, but they should respect the right to free speech of others.

It will be no victory as they think because it will just motivate the people that he appeals to to get out and vote in protest at their actions.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

instead it's about Sanders(?) supporters blocking a Trump rally (in IL) that Trump then cancelled to avoid a possible violent confrontation between large numbers of opposing supporters.

I've seen nothing in the press saying the protesters were affiliated with Sanders.
Trump has alienated and attacked a lot of people with his rhetoric. It is not surprising that people would show up to protest.  A hispanic man was holding a sign saying "I am not a rapist" while Trump supports swarmed around him like wasps.
The reason Trump is taking a drubbing on it is because he's been making statements inciting violence at his rallies - I saw a segment of clips where he is saying things like a person protesting should be beat up and have to be carried out - if not for the PC crowd they could bust faces....
There's a pretty amazing coalition of people uniting against Trump now,  across the political spectrum. If only Germany had this in the late 1930s.  ;D