News Donald Trump Running for President

[Czcibor]

Marketing discontent seems to work for certain denizens of Fox News , FSTV and RT networks, and much of the internet blogosphere.
I noticed i feel better since i quit watching them.

In my country such insanity explosion happened after Smoleńsk air crash in 2010. I can't blame RT or other people (like internet trolls) on Putin's payroll, because they started their intensive work around 2013, after Maidan.

I see insanity in media, but to be honest I'm not sure whether it already existed in latent form before Internet. As someone noticed in my country we almost elected in first free election in 1990 one populist who dodged draft using document from psychiatrist and lived mostly in South America (making some of the Communist Party activists vote in panic for Solidarity candidate - priceless :D ).

Any idea how to measure such insanity in political discourse and voting? Because I'm always worried about speaking about mythical good old days, where we forgot freaks from the past.

 

[jtbell]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

 

[jim hardy]

I see insanity in media, but to be honest I'm not sure whether it already existed in latent form before Internet...
Any idea how to measure such insanity in political discourse and voting?

Hmmm now THERE's a thought - put a number on it.

About ten years ago i re-read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer", his classic study of the psychology behind mass movements and fanaticism. People can be 'herded'.
It changed how i watch the news, with an eye toward " is this presented to inform , or for crowd control ? "
Hoffer published the book in 1952. It could be an instruction manual for how to tap into that latent insanity.

So i think yes it's nothing new, but it's certainly more in our face nowadays.
And with the information explosion , the news industry itself is more susceptible to "herding" .

A measure of it. hmmmmm.. media volatility index... i'd wager it's an already established science someplace.

food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

The title should be "Donald Trump grabs free publicity by faking a run for President." And the idea that somehow this can be used to embarrass the eventual Republican nominee is laughable. Nobody is going to say "I was going to vote for [insert GOP nominee here]. But I remember that a year and a half ago Donald Trump once polled at 12% - so therefore all Republicans are as crazy as he is, and therefore I will vote for [insert Democratic nominee here]."

 

[russ_watters]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

Very good possibility. When no one is really campaigning, it is easy to be a flash-in-the-pan if you do something that gets you noticed.

 

[Czcibor]

Hmmm now THERE's a thought - put a number on it.

I think so. It's a science forum after all. ;)

And more seriously - without such numbers we don't know whether the phenomena is really increasing or we're just annoyed.

About ten years ago i re-read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer", his classic study of the psychology behind mass movements and fanaticism. People can be 'herded'.
It changed how i watch the news, with an eye toward " is this presented to inform , or for crowd control ? "
Hoffer published the book in 1952. It could be an instruction manual for how to tap into that latent insanity.

So i think yes it's nothing new, but it's certainly more in our face nowadays.
And with the information explosion , the news industry itself is more susceptible to "herding" .

A measure of it. hmmmmm.. media volatility index... i'd wager it's an already established science someplace.

food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html

Honestly? It may be a good description of mass society guided by mass media, but I'm not convinced at all of explanatory power for individualistic societies that uses personalized TV/internet.

How for example (from USA) it fits idea of "starve the beast" libertarianism? Or survivalist that hoard ammo and gold? Its an exact opposition of classical mass movements.

Or from Poland how it explains phenomena of protest parties? A group of distrusted voters annoyed with mainstream politicians, who would vote any freak each election? And soon feel not amused, start to perceive the person as part of mainstream and throw it away like a broken toy?

Or what about people in my country who were outraged that the EU forbade ineffective bulbs? They love freedom... to waste some electricity.

Escape from freedom? Or maybe just loving freedom in the irresponsible way?

 

[WWGD]

I think so. It's a science forum after all. ;)
<Snip>

Escape from freedom? Or maybe just loving freedom in the irresponsible way?

Indeed. Have you seen anyone protesting for obligations to go along with their rights?

 

[lisab]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

The title should be "Donald Trump grabs free publicity by faking a run for President." And the idea that somehow this can be used to embarrass the eventual Republican nominee is laughable. Nobody is going to say "I was going to vote for [insert GOP nominee here]. But I remember that a year and a half ago Donald Trump once polled at 12% - so therefore all Republicans are as crazy as he is, and therefore I will vote for [insert Democratic nominee here]."

I think you're missing the point. We're equating Trump with wackos, which I strongly believe is legitimate. And while we realize there have always been wackos, we're wondering if there are more now than in previous years.

Trump may or may not embarrass the Republican nominee in the future - I don't think that's even relevant. But look at gleem's post #46 where a Business Insider poll puts him polling first in that large circus candidate pool - and he's sure embarrassing the party now, IMO. He didn't buy that poll result.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump is a distraction, and for some it's disturbing that he would poll with such fractions of various populations sampled, but those fractions are not the majority of the GOP. Some of his points/positions may appeal to varying numbers of GOP, but that may be the case with others.

However, consider his business history - Fourth Time's A Charm: How Donald Trump Made Bankruptcy Work For Him
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ow-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

First things first: Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of http://www.trumpcasinos.com/ . He has never filed for personal bankruptcy — an important distinction when considering his ability to emerge relatively unscathed, at least financially.

He makes bad decisions, pays himself well, and leaves others (investors/creditors) holding the bag. Not very credible as a leader.

"Trump has never apologized for using Chapter 11 as a business tool". Oh, really?

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're missing the point. We're equating Trump with wackos, which I strongly believe is legitimate. And while we realize there have always been wackos, we're wondering if there are more now than in previous years.

PFers are always talking about how worse the Republican party (and the economy) is getting. Based on the number of threads talking about it's death, I'm forced to conclude the republican party is a cat.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

Haha Herman Cain --

 

[lisab]

PFers are always talking about how worse the Republican party (and the economy) is getting. Based on the number of threads talking about it's death, I'm forced to conclude the republican party is a cat.

But both parties go through cycles of crazy. The Ds were a mess in the 60s, culminating with the disastrous chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

For the Ds at that time and apparently the Rs now, the folks at the fringes were allowed to have too much power , IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

But both parties go through cycles of crazy. The Ds were a mess in the 60s, culminating with the disastrous chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

For the Ds at that time and apparently the Rs now, the folks at the fringes were allowed to have too much power , IMO.

I think it's a problem of too many soap boxes, or too many demagogues being given a platform.

 

[mheslep]

Recall how close John Edwards came to the WH without endless speculation on his representation of all Democrats. But come the spectacle of The Donald and he's distraction from a realistic consideration of the other candidates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/06/krauthammer_on_trump_we_have_the_best_republican_field_in_35_years_and_were_talking_about_this_rodeo_clown.html (who per Trump is "over rated"):

This is the strongest field of Republican candidates in 35 years. You could pick a dozen of them at random and have the strongest cabinet America's had in our lifetime and instead all of our time is spent discussing this rodeo clown...

 

[jim hardy]

reaching back a page

Honestly? It may be a good description of mass society guided by mass media, but I'm not convinced at all of explanatory power for individualistic societies that uses personalized TV/internet.

How for example (from USA) it fits idea of "starve the beast" libertarianism? Or survivalist that hoard ammo and gold? Its an exact opposition of classical mass movements.

Eric Hoffer aside, I've had militia type friends.
There exists a US Army field manual for how to start insurrections.
The introductory chapter says to effect (please excuse the approximation , it's been decades and memory for detail fades)
'There is in any population about ten percent who are suggestible and can be used to your ends.'

The information age enables anyone so inclined to jump on an electronic soapbox and find a following from among that ten percent.
Our extremists of all stripes do not lack for outlets tailored to their particular mindsets, often selling gold or ammo or just stroking egos.
I think maybe that's a good thing for it keeps them fragmented.

Mass movements begin with "men of words" or "fault-finding intellectuals" such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (e.g., Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, Lenin). These men of words feel unjustly excluded from, or mocked and oppressed by, the existing powers in society, and relentlessly criticize or denigrate present-day institutions. While invariably speaking out in the name of disadvantaged commoners, the man of words is actually motivated by a deep personal grievance. The man of words relentlessly attempts to "discredit the prevailing creeds" and creates a "hunger for faith" which is then fed by "doctrines and slogans of the new faith".[19] A cadre of devotees gradually develops around the man of words, leading to the next stage in a mass movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer , part 4

Hitler was a mesmerizing speaker. But what if he'd had to compete with thousands of other mesmerizers on the internet ?

I'm immediately suspect of anybody peddling discontent. As Huckleberry Finn said, "I been there."

old jim

 

[cellurl]

Donald Trump is nothing more than a carnival barker who is stoking his ego and engaging in the type of shameless self-promotion that has been his gimmick over the years (no doubt enhancing his visibility and thus his bottom line along the way). There is no chance whatsoever that Mr. Trump can possibly win the nomination or else be elected President, and I'm surprised that anyone takes this man or his run for the nomination seriously.

I liken it more to post WWI. Conservatives are so tired of being ignored, that they are willing to accept an unusual contender. This is similar to why people in MN voted for Jessie Ventura. (I asked some!) At first I was amused as you are with Trump, but I am starting to pay attention.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Trump now getting the attention of el chapo. Not smart.

 

[Bystander]

Another endless year of this crap? Nnnnnoooooooooooooo ------

 

[WWGD]

Trump has softened his original position on Mexicans, which may mean he is serious.

EDIT: Or maybe as Greg suggested, Trump is trying to soothe El Chapo. To his credit, Trump was

roasted a few days back, so he seems to be willing to laugh at himself.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Trump now getting the attention of el chapo. Not smart.

If you're referring to the tweets purportedly originating from El Chapo threatening Trump, I wouldn't put too much credence to this. First of all, no one has been able to attribute those tweets to El Chapo or even his associates in the drug cartels. Second, I find it highly unlikely that a fugitive drug lord of such reputation would even think of going on Twitter of all places to comment on what Trump utters out of his mouth.

My take is that Trump is softening his original position on Mexicans either because he's realized that he looks like a fool (the most charitable interpretation), or (perhaps more likely) that being dumped by NBC and Univision (and potentially other business partners as well, particularly his investors in his real-estate holdings) is really bad for business.

 

[Borg]

Speaking of tweets...

Trump campaign mistakenly tweets star-spangled Nazis

I'm sure that it won't affect his image.

 

[StatGuy2000]

If you're referring to the tweets purportedly originating from El Chapo threatening Trump, I wouldn't put too much credence to this. First of all, no one has been able to attribute those tweets to El Chapo or even his associates in the drug cartels. Second, I find it highly unlikely that a fugitive drug lord of such reputation would even think of going on Twitter of all places to comment on what Trump utters out of his mouth.

My take is that Trump is softening his original position on Mexicans either because he's realized that he looks like a fool (the most charitable interpretation), or (perhaps more likely) that being dumped by NBC and Univision (and potentially other business partners as well, particularly his investors in his real-estate holdings) is really bad for business.

OK, according to news reports, it was the son of El Chapo (not El Chapo himself) who had purportedly/allegedly sent the threatening tweets to Trump. However, my statements above still stand, as I find it highly unlikely that the drug cartels care at all what Trump has to say about Mexicans.

 

[mr166]

What people outside of the US don't realize is that the current group of Republicans are so afraid of not getting reelected that they will never take anything but a politically correct stand. Thus they stand for nothing. Trump is refreshing in that he is willing to stick his neck out for what he believes and this resonates with much of the country.

 

[WWGD]

What people outside of the US don't realize is that the current group of Republicans are so afraid of not getting reelected that they will never take anything but a politically correct stand. Thus they stand for nothing. Trump is refreshing in that he is willing to stick his neck out for what he believes and this resonates with much of the country.

But he is wasting that in insulting Mexicans? If it is not genuine, people will ultimate will see through it, like many have with Christie in NJ, who was
trying to pass rudeness and bluster for honesty.

 

[mheslep]

Trump is refreshing in that he is willing to stick his neck out for what he believes

Since Trump has taken the opposite position in years past, how do you know now what he believes as opposed to what he might say to focus anger and gain approval?

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/07/12/hes-an-egotistical-guy-but-i-love-an-egotistical-guy-in-this-case/

You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Since Trump has taken the opposite position in years past, how do you know now what he believes as opposed to what he might say to focus anger and gain approval?

And it would be refreshing only if it were a comedy central special.

 

[Bystander]

... so, he now shoots himself down ... (vis a vis McCain) ... weirder and weirder.

 

[phinds]

I'm REALLY looking forward to the Republican debates (assuming his candidacy has not imploded before then).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

... so, he now shoots himself down ... (vis a vis McCain) ... weirder and weirder.

Either he has some master plan or he has just flat out gotten bored with life and gets kicks out of trolling us now.

 

[mheslep]

... so, he now shoots himself down ... (vis a vis McCain) ... weirder and weirder.

Which he does from the powerful position of four student deferments in the '60s.

There are some similarities to physicist Bill Shockley in his later years and his paranoid eugenics compulsion. Replace noble laureate with billionaire and the similarities are strong:

...
The end

He was vilified, ridiculed, humiliated, and eventually forgotten. His reputation in tatters, he retreated to his home ..., sending out an occasional blast of anger, completely estranged from all but his loyal wife, ... He had few friends. He hadn't seen one son in more than ... years, rarely spoke with the other, and only occasionally spoke to his daughter.

...died of ... His children read about it in the newspapers.

I vaguely recall reading there's a defined disorder for what ailed Shockley, some form of paranoia, and that senior males are most susceptible, a warning to, um, some of us. The Madness of King George? At least in the film they managed to lock up G for a time while he was babbling; Trump runs amuck.

 

[jim hardy]

He's having fun. Remember Lady and the Tramp "Ever chased chickens ?"

 

[Bystander]

what ailed Shockley

... and, George III, and Howard Hughes. Could be.

 

[lisab]

Huffington Post, which leans strongly left, just made the decision to move coverage of Trump's campaign to their Entertainment section:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...nald-trumps-campaign_55a8fc9ce4b0896514d0fd66

After watching and listening to Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president, we have decided we won't report on Trump's campaign as part of The Huffington Post's political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: Trump's campaign is a sideshow. We won't take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you'll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.

Nice move .

 

[Astronuc]

Rush Limbaugh defends Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...h-rallies-listeners-to-donald-trumps-defense/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Rush Limbaugh defends Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...h-rallies-listeners-to-donald-trumps-defense/

“They have not seen an embattled public figure stand up for himself, double down and tell everybody to go to hell.”

Yeah that is a great presidential skill...

 

[Bystander]

"24%?" Beyond weird. Great big ugly bug in the software?

 

[phinds]

Yeah that is a great presidential skill...

Exactly. He's be a great negotiator with foreign rulers. We'd probably end up in WWIII in no time.

 

[Borg]

I was at a party this weekend with three other couples. The four of us guys spent most of the time discussing Trump. Two of them really like Trump and are especially looking forward to the debates in August. They're mostly looking forward to what nonsense will come out of his mouth and how the other candidates will react to his statements (I have to admit that I might watch just to see that). They have both expressed a complete lack of enthusiasm with any of the other Republicans. They don't seem to believe that Trump will actually win. It's more like they see him as a cattle prod for the others. Whoever can handle the raving lunatic the best will probably get their vote.

 

[jim hardy]

I think he's doing the political environment a great service - like Jon Stewart , pointing out folly.
Medieval position of Court Jester was created for a reason.

It's more like they see him as a cattle prod for the others.

Pretty good analogy.

 

[Borg]

I think he's doing the political environment a great service - like Jon Stewart , pointing out folly.
Medieval position of Court Jester was created for a reason.

Let's just hope that we don't find out what happens if the court jester becomes king.

 

[mr166]

"They don't seem to believe that Trump will actually win. It's more like they see him as a cattle prod for the others."
If there is one group of politicians that needs a working cattle prod shoved where the sun doesn't shine it is the Republicans. They stand for nothing other than getting reelected.

I might not agree with the position of the Democrats but at least they tell you what they stand for and actually try to accomplish it. The Republicans, on the other hand, are so afraid of alienating any group that they wind up alienating everyone.

 

[Borg]

I might not agree with the position of the Democrats but at least they tell you what they stand for and actually try to accomplish it.

It's funny that you should say this. One of the guys at the party said that he thinks that the race will come down to Bush and Clinton. He then went on to say that IF he was forced to vote, he would vote for Clinton because she was the devil he knew. He is such a die-hard Democrat hater that I knew that I had been thrown into an alternate universe.

 

[WWGD]

I agree with mr166:I think ultimately people respect those without the ultra-slick , ultra-managed/researched campaigns, and want some authenticity, which the major candidates, Clinton and most Republicans lack. While many may disagree with Trump, at least they like his honesty, his willingness to deviate from the PC , expected positions. That's why Warren and Sanders on the left are popular, though I don't know how far they can go before crashing (Warren says she will not run).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

While many may disagree with Trump, at least they like his honesty

What makes you think he is being honest? Remember, he's a salesman.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-cell-phone/index.html

In my mind his campaign is designed to troll us. Do whatever, say whatever that will get you in the news.

 

[mr166]

"What makes you think he is being honest? Remember, he's a salesman."
Well at least he is trying to sell me a car that I would like to own like a Corvette and not a Chevy Volt like the rest of the Republicans.

"News flash, that Corvette is cardboard. Get it?"

That well may be true but B. Sanders will have me pulling someone in a rickshaw! And Hillary will steal my key's saying "What does it matter anyway.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

"What makes you think he is being honest? Remember, he's a salesman."
Well at least he is trying to sell me a car that I would like to own like a Corvette and not a Chevy Volt.

News flash, that Corvette is cardboard. Get it?

 

[WWGD]

What makes you think he is being honest? Remember, he's a salesman.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-cell-phone/index.html

In my mind his campaign is designed to troll us. Do whatever, say whatever that will get you in the news.

Yes, I should have said he is trying to _appear_ honest, just like Clinton and Christie have tried; Christie has been more successful than Clinton at selling this appearance of frankness, but I think many are seeing through the façade.

 

[russ_watters]

If there is one group of politicians that needs a working cattle prod shoved where the sun doesn't shine it is the Republicans. They stand for nothing other than getting reelected.

I might not agree with the position of the Democrats but at least they tell you what they stand for and actually try to accomplish it. The Republicans, on the other hand, are so afraid of alienating any group that they wind up alienating everyone.

Nonsense. Any politician's primary job is getting re/elected and all will flip-flop or waffle as needed to accomplish that. While there are exceptions to that, they are rare and rarely prominent/successful. Since we're talking about Presidents, Obama has made some enormous and remarkable flip-flops.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I should have said he is trying to _appear_ honest...

I think I dislike a dishonest person trying to appear honest even more than I dislike a dishonest person being honest about it.

 

[Bystander]

I think I dislike a dishonest person trying to appear honest even more than I dislike a dishonest person being honest about it.

Is it even an attempt? Or, the usual imposition on people's manners --- "They'll never call me on it in public."