News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Dembadon]

I'd love to hear why. He's looking like the Republican candidate for president, yet he hasn't mobilized the Republicans?

"Mobilizing the Republicans" in this context is so general it isn't really worth saying outside of a sly attempt to assign values or preferences to parts of the Republican base to whom they don't belong.

Maybe we have different definitions of "mobilize," but he's done something.

It's not really our definitions of "mobilize" that don't agree, it's that you've chosen to use it so generally it isn't really worth saying.

Do you think it's ridiculous to say that he's saying things that Republicans want to hear, or do I have to qualify it as "enough Republicans to make him a serious contender for president?"

Qualifiers are good, otherwise people might think you're trying to be inflammatory and ask you to clarify. Given your current explanation, every single Republican candidate ever has "mobilized the Republicans". Do you think that's really worth saying?

 

[Tobias Funke]

"Mobilizing the Republicans" in this context is so general it isn't really worth saying outside of a sly attempt to assign values or preferences to parts of the Republican base to whom they don't belong...

Qualifiers are good, otherwise people might think you're trying to be inflammatory and ask you to clarify. Given your current explanation, every single Republican candidate ever has "mobilized the Republicans". Do you think that's really worth saying?

I think it's much closer to the truth than to pretend that he only has the support of virulent racists and not "real" Republicans. People have been trying to say that for what, a year, now? I know that you didn't say it, btw, and I don't even think Dirac is a Republican if I remember correctly, so it's not like he's trying to cover for them or something. Anyway, Trump is the Republican front-runner and he has been for some time. Like it or not, he reflects Republican values as much as anybody else at this point.

 

[DiracPool]

@DiracPool: a lot of your post #289 boils down to you saying "I can't understand how a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore Trump is not serious."

Is that what you got from my post #289? Ok, let me rephrase it like this, then, "I do not think that a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore, I do not think that Trump is serious." Is that better?

 

[Dembadon]

Anyway, Trump is the Republican front-runner and he has been for some time. Like it or not, he reflects Republican values as much as anybody else at this point.

This statement is logically irreversible.

It also ignores the fact that the approval/disapproval of how a candidate is behaving during the primary implies the acceptance/rejection of the Republican party's platform. Just because someone disapproves of how Trump is behaving does not mean they are rejecting the core values or current platform of the party.

There are too many variables involved in choosing and supporting a candidate. There are differences between:

1) Values that have been established and documented by the Republican party's platform
2) Values that someone who registered and voted as a Republican actually hold
3) The methods each candidate intends to employ in an effort to uphold those values

That is not an exhaustive list, but it should be enough to understand why painting with a broad brush is bad when it comes to defining a party's base.

 

[Tobias Funke]

This statement is logically irreversible.

I have no idea what this means. It seems like some kind of computing term but I've never seen it before.

That is not an exhaustive list, but it should be enough to understand why painting with a broad brush is bad when it comes to defining a party's base.

Well, there has to be some generalizing. I'll give you that Trump "mobilizing" the Republicans may be too strong a statement, but Trump leading this far in the race says something about Republicans--their beliefs, their values, however you want to phrase it. To say otherwise is borderline absurd, but you seem heavily invested in denying it. I don't think I should have to explicitly state that I don't literally mean every single Repubican, either, and I think that it's clear enough what "the" Republicans means in context. But if not, we might as well just say that there are 320 million political parties in the country and no candidate is representative of any group of people.

 

[Dembadon]

Trump leading this far in the race says something about Republicans

mheslep had a fine explanation, in post #301, for why it doesn't say much.

I don't think I should have to explicitly state that I don't literally mean every single Repubican, either, and I think that it's clear enough what "the" Republicans means in context.

You wanted people to move from "mobilizing [a portion of the Republican base]" to "the Republicans." What other context is there in your request to indicate something other than "some" to "all"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is that what you got from my post #289? Ok, let me rephrase it like this, then, "I do not think that a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore, I do not think that Trump is serious." Is that better?

Yes, that's better.

Let me ask you, though, why don't you think a serious candidate would do X? What assumptions are you making about 1.) your serious candidate detection powers, and 2.)serious candidates?

 

[DiracPool]

Let me ask you, though, why don't you think a serious candidate would do X?

Because doing X is superfluous and counterproductive, as I agonizingly detailed out in my post#289 and others.

What assumptions are you making about 1.) your serious candidate detection powers

You answered your own question there; I'm assuming I have serious (and superior) candidate detection powers. While you're looking for a logical fallacy to blast that statement, let me just say my assumption is stipulating a first principle, so good luck there.

What assumptions are you making about 2.)serious candidates?

I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today. Now he's scared, he doesn't know what to do. It wasn't supposed to go this far but there's no way out. He's in it too deep. He can't just drop out. But what CAN he do? Yes, he can just blow it all up by causing race riots at his assemblies. That's a good one. It's either that or he simply doesn't have any other game plan than to be confrontative and provocative. So that's why I'm saying he's not serious. What do you think?

Either way, in 24 hours we will have a good prospect on how this is all going to play out...

 

[Tobias Funke]

mheslep had a fine explanation, in post #301, for why it doesn't say much.

Not really. Of course if less people voted for him he'd be in a different position, and of course if people stop voting for him he won't be the nominee. That doesn't really say anything at all. Averaging around a third of the vote is a much better point, but then again, it's enough to put him in the lead.

You wanted people to move from "mobilizing [a portion of the Republican base]" to "the Republicans." What other context is there in your request to indicate something other than "some" to "all"?

I already said I'll take back my mobilizing comment (it's not really essential), but you're still trivializing that "portion" of the Republican base. I don't think the difference between "he represents the Republicans right now" and "he represents enough Republicans to make him the likely candidate" is really essential, or that anyone could take it as literally as you are unless they make a real effort. But we're getting nowhere, so I'll agree to disagree. If Trump ends up not being the nominee, I'll return and gladly post that he doesn't represent modern Republicans.

 

[mheslep]

Also, wrt who Trump represents:
Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump

 

[zoobyshoe]

Because doing X is superfluous and counterproductive, as I agonizingly detailed out in my post#289 and others.
You answered your own question there; I'm assuming I have serious (and superior) candidate detection powers. While you're looking for a logical fallacy to blast that statement, let me just say my assumption is stipulating a first principle, so good luck there.
I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today. Now he's scared, he doesn't know what to do. It wasn't supposed to go this far but there's no way out. He's in it too deep. He can't just drop out. But what CAN he do? Yes, he just blow it all up by causing race riots at his assemblies. That's a good one. It's either that or he simply doesn't have any other game plan than to be confrontative and provocative. So that's why I'm saying he's not serious. What do you think?

Where I was going with the second question, "What assumptions are you making about serious candidates?" is that you're assuming they are rational. I thought you might know about von Neuman's game theory. He thought he had it all worked out. But when he tested it on people, people didn't act according to his expectations. His theory about how games should turn out fell apart, he realized, when the players are not rational. So, he declared his theory a success, but only on the condition that both players were rational.

Trump may not be serious, or, it could be he's just not rational. The sociopathic list I posted gives some possible motivations for things he does that seem to be counterproductive. If, for example, a person has a grandiose sense of self, he may assume all his decisions are perfect, and not vet them. A person who is callous and lacking empathy may have no idea how to properly fein those qualities and appear absurdly, even humorously, blunt, when he's actually quite serious.

 

[WWGD]

Also, wrt who Trump represents:
Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump

Then based on back-of-envelope calculations from data in the article, assuming same number of liberal as conservative voters
would give trump a national victory since around 14% of Conservatives would vote for hillary.

 

[DiracPool]

Trump may not be serious, or, it could be he's just not rational.

Well, that's kind of what our tete-a-tete here is all about, isn't it. I'm making the argument that he is not serious. Are you making the counter argument that he is just not rational? You could even say it's a bit of both or none at all. I outlined above in some detail my current take on the situation:

I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today.

I'll say it again, what do YOU think?

Let me add to that...I don't think he was initially serious about becoming president. I think he's as serious as f#%$ now wondering what the hell he got himself into. So maybe the cult of personality had overtaken him at some point and now he's a (even more delusional) megalomaniac. That could explain his reckless behavior also...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, that's kind of what our tete-a-tete here is all about, isn't it. I'm making the argument that he is not serious. Are you making the counter argument that he is just not rational?

Pretty much, yeah, in the sense a sociopath is not ultimately rational: grandiose, impulsive, irresponsible. All the things you initially saw as "not serious" look to me like the tell tales of a sociopath:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Here Trump simultaneously flatters his blue-collar white audience "...they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. (i.e., 'the best')," and demonizes the invaders: criminals, drug addicts, and rapists, who have been "sent" (The Great Mexican Conspiracy? What's he talking about, "sent"?) into the US. But he shows his generous fairness at the end by allowing that some are good people. Hence:

GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARMThe tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

PATHOLOGICAL LYING — Can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

You name the outrageous thing he said, and when I heard it I didn't think, "Not serious." I thought, "Wow. Sociopath!" So many of his "classics" are so due to his being, "not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything," combined with "deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest," etc elements.

Let me add to that...I don't think he was initially serious about becoming president. I think he's as serious as f#%$ now wondering what the hell he got himself into. So maybe the cult of personality had overtaken him at some point and now he's a (even more delusional) megalomaniac. That could explain his reckless behavior also...

He was reckless out of the starting gate, though, wasn't he? On the other hand, as for wondering what he got himself into, I think the protester thing was a turn of events he didn't anticipate, and it has rattled him. Between the huge protester crowd in Chicago and the guy who rushed the platform at the one after that, I would assume he's now pondering that he could be killed. I'm not sure how he's going to proceed with that in mind. But I'm thinking he's realized he got people too angry for his own good.

 

[WWGD]

Still, the degree of alienation of his followers seems itself worrisome, a lesson to be remembered.

 

[Dembadon]

Not really. Of course if less people voted for him he'd be in a different position, and of course if people stop voting for him he won't be the nominee. That doesn't really say anything at all. Averaging around a third of the vote is a much better point, but then again, it's enough to put him in the lead.

That's not the point his post was making. It showed that not enough people have weighed in yet, so "enough to put him in the lead" isn't a particularly worthwhile measurement.

I already said I'll take back my mobilizing comment (it's not really essential), but you're still trivializing that "portion" of the Republican base. I don't think the difference between "he represents the Republicans right now" and "he represents enough Republicans to make him the likely candidate" is really essential, or that anyone could take it as literally as you are unless they make a real effort. But we're getting nowhere, so I'll agree to disagree. If Trump ends up not being the nominee, I'll return and gladly post that he doesn't represent modern Republicans.

If you're taking back the mobilizing comment, then I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. I agree though, we should probably drop it for now.

 

[Dembadon]

Regarding Trump's fuel: I believe a large factor in what's keep him going is all the attention he's getting, not that this is new information to anyone, but I think it's something that needs to be addressed by the media.

I'm extremely disappointed that he gets so much coverage in the media. Almost every single major media outlet writes multiple stories on what happens in his campaign, whether it's rioting at his rallies or his ludicrous behavior on social media. They increase the level of attention and extend their coverage of each event asking other candidates about him in their interviews.

[wishful thinking]
I wish we'd stop covering him. Ignore him. I wish other candidates would refuse to answer questions about him unless it specifically relates to his position on a relevant issue. Don't answer questions about the ancillary events surrounding his campaign. If asked, respond with "I would rather not comment on that. He's getting enough attention, but I'd be happy to tell you about how I plan to..."
[/wishful thinking]

If the media and other candidates were to start acting like he doesn't exist (within reason), I think it would take some air out of his sails; when a cursing toddler no longer gets a reaction from the adults in the room, they usually move on to other things.

 

[gleem]

It was revealed on the national news that about 25 % of republican would not vote for any of the current candidates if nominated. So 25% of the republicans will sit it out. Looks good for the democratic candidate.

 

[Evo]

It was revealed on the national news that about 25 % of republican would not vote for any of the current candidates if nominated. So 25% of the republicans will sit it out. Looks good for the democratic candidate.

Did they say how many Democrats won't vote?

 

[mheslep]

Kasich wins GOP Ohio, ~9pts. Here comes the brokered convention. Last one was, umm...

 

[russ_watters]

Well, that's kind of what our tete-a-tete here is all about, isn't it. I'm making the argument that he is not serious...

That's been my perception as well.

Let me add to that...I don't think he was initially serious about becoming president. I think he's as serious as f#%$ now wondering what the hell he got himself into.

And that. His flip flop on the issue of bombing terrorists' families breaks the mold of the never-apologize bombast and implies to me he's starting to wonder if he should try to be serious.

 

[russ_watters]

Kasich wins GOP Ohio, ~9pts. Here comes the brokered convention. Last one was, umm...

Rubio dropped out. My concern remains that the more "establishment" republicans split that vote and Trump still comes out on top. I guess I'll need to look into more how the brokered convention works, though...

 

[mheslep]

Regarding Trump's fuel: I believe a large factor in what's keep him going is all the attention he's getting, not that this is new information to anyone, but I think it's something that needs to be addressed by the media...

If the media and other candidates were to start acting like he doesn't exist (within reason), I think it would take some air out of his sails; when a cursing toddler no longer gets a reaction from the adults in the room, they usually move on to other things.

Exactly, but it's not going to happen. Couple weeks ago, chairman of CBS, Moonves:

"The money’s rolling in and this is fun, ... I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”By contrast, the Democrats will have to drag the networks kicking and screaming to cover the droll Clinton corronation.

 

[russ_watters]

By contrast, the Democrats will have to drag the networks at gunpoint to get them cover the droll Clinton coronation.

Except when starting out a debate by saying: So, Ms Clinton, what do you think of Trump...?

 

[mheslep]

Rubio dropped out. My concern remains that the more "establishment" republicans split that vote and Trump still comes out on top. I guess I'll need to look into more how the brokered convention works, though...

Well, there goes my recent pick, after another one dropped out some time ago.

I guess that the core of the anti trump GOP lies with Rubio, if it's at all like me. The stand up QnA press conference Rubio gave a couple days ago was the best anti Trump communication I've seen yet. If so, I think Rubio's support goes anywhere but Trump, if for no other reason than Trump's the least likely to beat Clinton.

 

[mheslep]

Except when starting out a debate by saying: So, Ms Clinton, what do you think of Trump...?

Perhaps while split screening this ...

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/i...7781438806851.jpg?uuid=Xge46juxEeWI0-YhMKzJdQ

 

[Dotini]

Rubio dropped out.

Goodbye Rubio Tuesday!

(apologies to the Rolling Stones)

 

[Astronuc]

Kasich wins GOP Ohio, ~9pts. Here comes the brokered convention. Last one was, umm...

According to RealClearPolitics.com, the last brokered conventions were in the Democratic Convention of 1952 when it took three ballots to nominate Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, and four years earlier in the Republican Convention of 1948, in which New York Governor Thomas Dewey won that one, also after three ballots.

Similar information is published on sever sites. I was going to use the Wikipedia article on brokered/contested conventions, but it apparently contains some inaccuracies. I checked the rules for the GOP convention this year, and they didn't seem to match with a quote about the rules in the Wikipedia article.

Democratic convention 1952
http://time.com/4252345/brokered-convention-graphic/

Here's What Would Happen in a Brokered G.O.P. Convention
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/trump-contested-convention

The Vanity Fair article is interesting.

From various news sources, Rubio 'suspended' his campaign, but did not 'drop out' or 'withdraw', so he would enter the convention with those delegates. I heard tonight that his delegates are bound to him through the first ballot. He could of course, give them to Cruz or Kasich, or otherwise, they'd at some point become free.

 

[Dotini]

I'm old, wealthy, happy in every way and no candidate's victory is going to affect my life in any practical way. For the previous six presidential elections I've voted my conscience - which has been something other than a Democrat or Republican. However, in the present election we are confronted with the imminent destruction of the Republican party, and US citizens have a real choice: For stasis (more of the same) vote Democrat, presumably Hillary if she's not indicted, and let the Republicans fix their problems in the wilderness. For change, vote Republican - Cruz or Trump, whoever is ahead, and throw the party and the nation into the crucible of transformative change. A Trump/Cruz ticket or a Trump/Kasich ticket might well win the general election against the damaged Clinton, and provide a thrill ride for a new generation seeking the repatriation of jobs and monies both parties have been sending abroad since GATT, WTO, NAFTA and ensuing trade deals begun decades ago.

 

[jim hardy]

The Vanity Fair article is interesting.

Very interesting indeed.
So is the Chuck Todd interview it links to
here's the Dimassimo video that Todd declared a hoax

you decide,,,
and there's this about Dimassimo
http://stop-hate-crimes.com/2016/03/14/perp-who-charged-donald-trump-co-wrote-and-starred-in-race-war-film/
hard to believe there is such a film but check imdb

Vanity Fair's author wrote:

They varied widely in their politics. But what united them was a feeling that powerful people would do as they liked, regardless of who was in office.

In my circles which are not high-brow that is just what's behind the Trump movement. Astute journalist.

Maybe it's decades of movies, literature and punditry portraying evil cabals running things behind the scenes that's made so many people so receptive. Hoffer says in "True Believer" that

Mass movements begin with "men of words" or "fault-finding intellectuals" such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (such as Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, and Lenin).

He wrote that in 1951, well before Star Wars, Taylor Caldwell, Michael Moore and Fox News.
Even that innocent love story "Titanic" hinted at class warfare:
DiCaprio's dinner in First Class was a snooty backbiting affair ,
compare that scene's mood to the dance in steerage -
the not too subliminal message is "high-brow bad, low-brow good".

Vanity Fair observed

They tended to have missed the latest New York Times editorial-board memos on race and gender propriety.

They're more likely to have read
http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpdanger.html
One man's propaganda is another man's gospel.

I'm not advocating that rense piece
i'm just saying Trump is a natural product of the cultural cynicism we've sown .
That cynicism set in place place a powderkeg for drastic change .

How will it go ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer (but i really recommend the book)

Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. He gives examples of how the same forces that give rise to true believer mass movements can be channelled in more positive ways:

There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man's hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause; but unlike a Hitler, a Stalin, or even a Luther and a Calvin, they are not tempted to use the slime of frustrated souls as mortar in the building of a new world... They know that no one can be honorable unless he honors mankind".

— p.147

The Lady or the Tiger ?

Hang on to your hat.

old jim