Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

Bernie Sanders isn't going for corporate interests either, and he has the benefit of not being a raving fantasist...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ says it all, to me.

I love it when a web site declares themselves non-partisan... we all have biases (even moi).

Regarding their hit list;
#1 yes, Trump screwed up his commercial with some incorrect stock footage. He tends toward hyperbole.
He was also caught in another high profile misstatement. He claimed that after 9/11 he saw (hundreds/thousands?) of muslims celebrating in the street in NJ. As i recall back then there was news footage of street celebrations in the middle east. While there may have been isolated support in Jersey City, no street celebrations. Trump apparently conflated or mis-remembered events. Trump can be fast and loose with information, not a trusted historian.  8) But no politician is, while most are better vetted. Trump speaking extemporaneously often gives ammunition to his detractors, while some voters like that (I don't).

#2 Putin... A bad man (ex-KGB), but people tend to respect strength... I wouldn't buy his perfume. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-06/vladimir-putin-inspires-new-fragrance-leaders-number-one/7069912

#3 Hillary... I'm shocked  : . She should actually know better, but then again she thinks Benghazi was caused by a video..

#4 While Trump is overstating the "terrorist's girlfriends" connection,  I recall the state department approving a charter flight including some of OBL's distant relatives from the US back to Saudi Arabia (?) in the days after the attack..  OBL was part of a very large and very wealthy family.  http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp  Not a secret flight, and not known terrorists, but there was one or more charter flights immediately after the flight ban was lifted. Perhaps they were apprehensive about the kind of backlash that occurs in most other countries they were familiar with.

#5 Terrorists don't deserve Geneva protections (not a nation so didn't sign the treaty). While ISIS is trying hard to be a nation (caliphate).  I can't imagine them signing the Geneva convention, based on their routine use of human shields and other abuse of innocent civilians.  Of course it is never OK to kill innocents.

===================
It is very hard to take Trump literally, while I've never seen a politician do exactly what they promised to do in their campaigns. It is unlikely he would be able to do a fraction of what he says he would do, even if elected.

Bernie is just a raving socialist.... while no one takes him seriously (except for the thousands of kids).

JR

 

[lassoharp]

At the beginning Trump was a breath of fresh air in some ways mostly because he was so independent and really didn't fit the mold for typical GOP or Democratic candidates.  But of late he has become a disturbing magnet for the anger, hatred and fear crowd.  I'm also not sure he's fully aware of the effect he has on people.  Not good in a nation already boiling over with gun violence and racial tension.  I keep waiting for him to show some restraint but he seems to be going in the opposite direction.  I think he will have to show some level of calm sensibility if he expects to have a chance.  Whatever the case this should be one of the more interesting elections in a long, long time . . . . .


Gut predictions anyone?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Gut predictions anyone?

I predict that once again, what I prefer won't matter for the primary decision.  :'(

The general election will probably be a lesser evils choice, and for the last several election cycles my neighbors have voted in agreement with my sentiment, but unlike the majority.

This could be yet another disappointment.  Especially as the elections start to resemble reality TV.

JR

 

[dmp]

Bernie is just a raving socialist.... while no one takes him seriously (except for the thousands of kids).

Actually this is not true - but there is a lot of mud slinging from "raving" conservatives to that effect.  I find Bernie's statements to be substantial and often spot on.  I don't think he is a strong all around candidate, but he is a valuable voice to have in the dialog.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Compare his statements to Trump and it is very enlightening. I don't think Trump contributes anything of value to the dialog.

 

[miszt]

Trump manages to combine all the worst features of humanity into one gigantic ignorant fool.

But Trump himself is not what disturbs me most, its the fact that so many people lap up his foolishness and praise him as "honest".


He is not honest. He came to my country and cut off the water to an old ladies home, because he wanted to build a golf course. He hounded and harassed another resident because he refused to move.

He is as dishonest and dishonourable as humans come.

I'm looking forward to the government debate on whether or not to ban Trump from entering the UK ever again (he wont be banned, but the fact the gov has to discuss it is brilliant imo)

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't think Trump contributes anything of value to the dialog.

We agree again... about trump

If we apply Freudian analysis, Trump is like the "id" of the uninformed electorate, but lacking a functional ego and super ego, to moderate his unfiltered comments. Kind of like how we don't need to say everything that comes to mind at family gatherings. 

Trump is just a different variant of populism while dramatically anti-establishment his poll numbers suggest that he is saying what many people think, for better and worse (mostly worse IMO as it reflects poorly on the supporters).

I keep waiting for him to announce that he was just kidding and this is a new reality show, but my prognostication skills about election outcomes are not very reliable.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."  H.L. Menken. 1926

JR

 

[dfuruta]

Sanders isn't much of a leftist on immigration or foreign policy, and is a moderate on guns.  His economic positions are left-wing now, but not really radical...

If you look at how he's polling, people are listening - far more than the mainstream media wants to show.

Trump, to me, seems in many ways like a classic Third Positionist;  if you look at how that's played out historically and the people involved, it's a little scary.

 

[JohnRoberts]

As we approach the Iowa caucus (primary), an actual policy difference emerged. Trump has expressed his support for bio-fuels (code for supporting corn ethanol) while Cruz has stated his opposition to federal mandated ethanol and plans to phase it out by 2022.  It will be interesting to see if Iowans rise above simple self interest. Most of the other candidates mischaracterize ethanol and a done deal until 2022 but the mandate amount is set yearly by congress (The original mandates were impossible to meet as total gasoline consumption dropped. Increasing the percentage of ethanol in gas causes other problems. Even the gas station pumps would have to be replaced. )

Trump has received an endorsement from Sarah Palin, for better and/or worse. She still has support from some conservatives and tea party faction.

Trump is starting too look more like a politician.

JR

PS: The brouhaha in Great Britain about blocking Trumps ability to visit the country seems to have died down.  :

 

[rob_gould]

PS: The brouhaha in Great Britain about blocking Trumps ability to visit the country seems to have died down.  :

Yes, the irony of blocking someone from entering the country because he wanted to block a certain group from entering a different country seemed lost on a large group of people who ought to have known better.

 

[dmp]

Yes, the irony of blocking someone from entering the country because he wanted to block a certain group from entering a different country seemed lost on a large group of people who ought to have known better.

Big difference between blocking an entire group of people vs blocking an individual.
ie. the difference between blocking all Muslims vs blocking Bin Ladin
ie. the difference between blocking everyone who inherited great wealth vs blocking Donald Trump

 

[miszt]

^^ exactly - the difference is very important, people have and are still being treated with prejudice every day... banning a man for being a prejudiced bafoon, is not prejudice.

(he never was going to be banned anyway, but that was never really the point, i'm glad the statement against him was made loudly and clearly)

 

[JohnRoberts]

PS: The brouhaha in Great Britain about blocking Trumps ability to visit the country seems to have died down.  :

Yes, the irony of blocking someone from entering the country because he wanted to block a certain group from entering a different country seemed lost on a large group of people who ought to have known better.

Reminds me of the American university students complaining about free speech and the 1st amendment.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

^^ exactly - the difference is very important, people have and are still being treated with prejudice every day... banning a man for being a prejudiced bafoon, is not prejudice.

(he never was going to be banned anyway, but that was never really the point, i'm glad the statement against him was made loudly and clearly)

I really don't like being put in the position to defend the Donald and he does look a little like a bafoon.

There's a humorous discussion about him on the WWW about not paying a sound company for bad sound, but he still pays his barber for that hair cut.  :

Congrats... free speech is alive and well in UK and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect Trump's position is both reducto ad absurdia for digestion by low information voters, and engineered to be populist, not unlike all the promises of free sh__ from the other side (they can't deliver). He is aiming to hit every hot button he can press and the imperfect vetting of Syrian refugees is an easy low hanging target to hit. Even administration spokespeople admit they have inadequate data on Syrian refugees. 

Fear of terrorism is a little like the lottery odds, but just like people still buy lottery tickets because they think they could win, people actually fear terrorism (in the west) where the odds are vanishingly small. 

One data point about trump that doesn't square with the pejorative characterization is how few ex-employees are around bad mouthing him (but maybe they are afraid of lawsuits). 

I still don't plan to vote for him unless my only other choice is somebody like Bernie or Hillary. I've been voting for the lesser evil for multiple election cycles.  Anybody worth a sh__ doesn't enter politics.  It's all about who can argue better, which is why so many lawyers enter politics.

JR

PS: Many of the statements made by Trump are literally impossible to accomplish, so either he is an idiot, or pandering to voters .  "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (HL Mencken ) I suspect he is just pandering, like all the other politicians.

 

[hitchhiker]

quote ;

I still don't plan to vote for him unless my only other choice is somebody like Bernie or Hillary. I've been voting for the lesser evil for multiple election cycles.  Anybody worth a sh__ doesn't enter politics.  It's all about who can argue better, which is why so many lawyers enter politics.

JR

  Are you saying here you would in some situation that you  find unattractive for choices  , for whatever dynamics ??? ,  that you would really give  your vote to Trump?

 

[Winetree]

deleted

 

[miszt]

Congrats... free speech is alive and well in UK and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect Trump's position is both reducto ad absurdia for digestion by low information voters, and engineered to be populist, not unlike all the promises of free sh__ from the other side (they can't deliver). He is aiming to hit every hot button he can press and the imperfect vetting of Syrian refugees is an easy low hanging target to hit. Even administration spokespeople admit they have inadequate data on Syrian refugees. 

free speech is not the same in the UK as it is in the US, you are not free to speak hate or prejudice; and despite being extremely liberal in my views, i think that is a sensible approach.

"free sh__ (they cant deliver)" ...well, the whole of the EU provides the highest level of health care to every single citizen, regardless of their income; and has done for many generations now, at an average cost far below what US citizens have to pay for private insurance.

Socialism has worked wonders in Europe, pretty much every problem in EU society can be traced back to right-wing economic policy, including inequality, crime & poverty.

the only reason the UK's NHS is now under massive pressure for eg, is because the current right-wing government has deliberately made it so as part of their drive for privatization (right wing economic policy)

 

[mattiasNYC]

free speech is not the same in the UK as it is in the US, you are not free to speak hate or prejudice; and despite being extremely liberal in my views, i think that is a sensible approach.

I don't think that's necessarily all that sensible. If you go around asking people about it I'm sure you'll find a majority who will draw the line at some point. However,  I'm equally sure that line will float over a pretty wide range.

That's all well and fine, as it's just people's opinions. The problem is when you have a nation-state that legislates and enforces something like that. With the nation-state drawing the line, is it not sensible to worry about just the motivations are for its decisions and what the effects are?

Not only that, but I think it is a bit illogical to allow people to voice their religious views freely, but then not allow the criticism of religion. If we can agree - and I think we have to if we are moderately intelligent and intellectually honest - that god's existence/non-existence hasn't been proven either way then it seems entirely reasonable to lump beliefs in god into the category "beliefs", i.e. "opinions". As such, why should it have any special status when compared to political views?  We're after all free to call a neo-Nazi a fascist a-hole moronic tit - because of his opinions. We can call Trump a prejudiced, racist, tupee-wearing twat - again because of his opinions.

It would seem entirely appropriate then that voicing bigoted views should be allowed regardless of whether or not they're based on political views or religious views. But I haven't seen too many calls for not allowing religious figures entering the UK because they're essentially spouting homophobia. And that's because religion is a "protected class" in the realm of opinions. In other words; why shouldn't we ban homophobic bigots from entering nation X if we're banning anti-religious bigots?

Don't get me wrong, I too see a problem when you have a political demagogue spouting hatred and proposing policies that would negatively discriminate against groups that don't deserve it, but that politician's vehicle is the state, and the state needs its powers kept in check, and that in my opinion necessitates a very large leeway on free speech. I think the possible cases where a line might be justifiable to be drawn is "yelling fire" as well as actively advocating breaking laws with very severe consequences, but even in the latter case I think it's debatable.

 

[miszt]

the UK does not prevent criticism of religion, or anything else for that matter, we have very specific Hate laws, that is all.


...as does the EU, considering the very wide range of societies within the EU, how on earth did we manage to reach consensus on Hate crimes?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I still dislike being an apologist for Trump but people seem to be extrapolating or fleshing out a full caricature from a few headline hyperbolic sound bites. That's the nature of modern media and politics, but Trump has written several books (I didn't and wouldn't read) and has been quoted many times, sometimes arguing both sides of some issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm This looks like a pretty comprehensive collection of his utterances. Many from his last failed campaign run. I still think a lot of what he promises is either impractical or impossible, but low information voters eat that stuff up.

Looking at Bernie Sanders' page, he is calling for political revolution (millions of people vs the few billionaires). He looks harmless but eschews some radical ideas.

One thing I'll say for both candidates they seem to say what they think, while what they think may lack substance. Some other candidates are more clever about what they say and gain less popular support from a public that is very angry about politics as usual, and embraces anti-establishment rants from either far right or far left. Hopefully after the primaries the political discussion will become more centrist. 

Complex subjects rarely have simple answers but that's all we ever get from political candidates on the campaign trail, because voters would never sit still long enough to digest thoughtful answers.

JR

 

[dfuruta]

Looking at Bernie Sanders' page, he is calling for political revolution (millions of people vs the few billionaires). He looks harmless but eschews some radical ideas.

Bernie's dilute democratic socialism is going too far, but Trump saying he'd deport 11 million people and ban all members of a particular religion from entering the country isn't?  The rhetoric Trump is using at some of his rallies about Latinos and Muslims is the same way that leaders have historically talked in the early stages of the run-ups to genocides...

The guy is terrifying.