News Donald Trump Running for President

[WWGD]

yes, but one leads to the other - this is not an opinion - it is an observation of what I have seen in my lifetime.

Especially if you are trying NOT to offend the greatest number of people.

what you think is wishy washy, other people think is polite

Well, PC , AFAIK, has no actual theoretical basis to support it; in this respect it I mushy and wishy-washy. The other methods do at least have a foundation (which one may disagree with) based on commonalities in human psychology at the "right level of generality". It is a skill, and not an easy one to acquire, and it takes a long time to become really good at it: address actual issues in a way that you do not make the other party defensive, do your best to allow them to save face and keep their dignity intact, etc. This is a general methodology to be adapted to the situation at hand.

 

[WWGD]

But no matter what you do without destroying the message, it won't be successful all the time. And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets mic'd up by the media.

No matter what you do, there is no guarantee on anything working all the time. Your best bet is optimizing. And , yes, we do have a dysfunctional system, which will remain so for a while, and , definitely this has to be taken into account. I don't live in la-la land of make believe.

 

[DiracPool]

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch

And this is exactly the reason that Trump will never become president. As "colorful" as he is, most Americans don't want a hot head in the white house, me included. I don't think a summit meeting with Putin or the Chinese premier ending with Trump saying "YOU'RE FIRED," is going to go over very well with the American public.

 

[Finny]

because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ).

I'm not advocating this, but when you can get the other person upset, they are thrown off guard. Those who are insecure, maybe personally, maybe because they don't have facts to back up their positions, are especially easy to disarm in such a way.

there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

I know what you intended here, I think, but I do not see politically correct behavior as constructive. It's basically ridiculous. Politically correct behavior seems to cater to any class of the aggrieved who might be offended even though they hold an untenable position.

Perhaps the greatest: Al Sharpton. Has he interviewed Trump?? THAT would be a hoot. I'd even watch MSNBC or wherever he resides.

the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

so true. so sad. Shame there are so many politicians in politics.

 

[russ_watters]

No matter what you do, there is no guarantee on anything working all the time. Your best bet is optimizing.

Of course, but that's not the point of PC. PC shuts off the message completely, because that IS the one/only way to be 100% sure you won't offend anyone.

And , yes, we do have a dysfunctional system, which will remain so for a while, and , definitely this has to be taken into account. I don't live in la-la land of make believe.

Well, with all do respect, your focus on optimizing the message misses the point, so I'm not sure you recognize the existence of the problem being discussed.

 

[WWGD]

And this is exactly the reason that Trump will never become president. As "colorful" as he is, most Americans don't want a hot head in the white house, me included. I don't think a summit meeting with Putin or the Chinese premier ending with Trump saying "YOU'RE FIRED," is going to go over very well with the American public.

Hopefully people will realize that choosing someone only on the basis that "my enemy's (mainstream) enemy (Trump) is my friend".

 

[WWGD]

Of course, but that's not the point of PC. PC shuts off the message completely, because that IS the one/only way to be 100% sure you won't offend anyone.

Well, with all do respect, your focus on optimizing the message misses the point, so I'm not sure you recognize the existence of the problem being discussed.

Do you mean the prevalence of PC? EDIT :I reallyhave no idea of what you mean here. Have I endorsed
or argued in favor of PC? No, I suggested an alternative to the two extremes, while acknowledging that a full implementation in the short run ( if at all) was not plausible. So please explain what you mean here, because I am pretty confused.

 

[StatGuy2000]

All else being equal though, I'd rather have an honest a-hole than a nice fraud.

First of all, I don't think the word "nice" would apply to many of the Republican presidential candidates -- certainly not to the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum, at any rate.

Second, Donald Trump is certainly an a-hole, but "honest" isn't really accurate -- uninhibited and boorish most definitely, but I still contend (as I have from the beginning) that his entire presidential run is an act of dishonesty since I don't believe that he is seriously interested in becoming president of the US, but is using this run to stoke his ego and resort in the shameless self-promotion that drums up new business for him.

BTW, I completely agree with you that Trump also has no substance as a political candidate.

 

[Dembadon]

Trump is easily provoked into rants, which is perhaps what Kelly was trying to do: poke the lion and see how long it takes before it roars. If Trump can't seem to swallow comments about his hair, I think he's revealing a weakness that opponents should be capitalizing on. Playing the victim card is usually a sign of desperation and/or emotional immaturity.

I prefer a President to display composure and be able to assert themselves with factual counter-arguments that are devoid of histrionic rhetoric or knee-jerk, sweeping insults¹. I find it hard to believe that he actually cares what people think about his hair, in which case the professional and honest response would be, "I really don't care what people think about my hair." If he actually does care about what people say about his hair, then I'm not sure which scenario is worse.

¹ Diplomacy is important, especially with other nations. One doesn't have to be an a-hole to avoid being weak.

 

[Finny]

Good grief...I post a humorous comment about Trump/Reagan being perceived as too volatile...
and look what pops up next...

 

[russ_watters]

Do you mean the prevalence of PC?

I mean the meaning/in practice result of PC; what is required of us. You're saying that if you optimize your language properly, you can say anything. I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

 

[WWGD]

I mean the meaning/in practice result of PC; what is required of us. You're saying that if you optimize your language properly, you can say anything. I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

No, my claim is that the method I suggest will allow you to address the highest possible number of delicate topics. It was designed with this goal in mind. I can only attest that I have been able to communicate more effectively when I have used it, and I am pretty far from being an expert on the field. So, while you may not be able to address just any topic, you will likely be able to constructively address more with this method than with the two other extremes I don't have any actual data to back this up, but, believe me, I do not live a charmed life in an illusory world; I have been unemployed for a long while, fought with my landlords , etc. Not to cry you a river, just to point out that I am not just quoting a book

 

[russ_watters]

No, my claim is that the method I suggest will allow you to address the highest possible number of delicate topics. It was designed with this goal in mind. I can only attest that I have been able to communicate more effectively when I have used it, and I am pretty far from being an expert on the field. So, while you may not be able to address just any topic, you will likely be able to constructively address more with this method than with the two other extremes...
[Emphasis added]

Fair enough. I get that that's true, but I consider the bolded part to be a really big problem for a society that supposedly values free speech/political discourse.

 

[WWGD]

Fair enough. I get that that's true, but I consider the bolded part to be a really big problem for a society that supposedly values free speech/political discourse.

Totally agree. Hey, we agreed on one thing. And it only took around 500 back-and-forth posts. High five!

 

[William White]

I disagree: I think some subjects are just plain off limits. "All lives matter", for example: not allowed to say it.

well, it should be off limits, if only because it is trite and meaningless platitude.

 

[russ_watters]

well, it should be off limits, if only because it is trite and meaningless platitude.

Whether one agrees or disagrees (and I disagree) that it is a trite and meaningless platitude, no one should be shouted-down and forced to apologize for saying it.

 

[William White]

Whether one agrees or disagrees (and I disagree) that it is a trite and meaningless platitude, no one should be shouted-down and forced to apologize for saying it.

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

That's why its a platitude. People all around the world are dying in the most horrible circumstances and due to injustice and we don't really care. Their lives don't matter a bit to us. They certainly don't matter if it means an inconvenience in our lives.Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

 

[russ_watters]

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

Well, that's not only not true, but it is also not relevant (a misrepresentation in the opposite direction). That's part of the problem with such PC: people make assumptions about what others think, while shouting them down, instead of listening to what they actually believe.

Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

That is a one-way street, only allowing the one with the loudest voice to speak. That's exactly the problem! It makes discourse impossible!

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

The details of this particular incidents with this slogan are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-disrupted-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/
and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/bernie-sanders-netroots-nation-black-lives-matter/

 

[Evo]

We've gone WAAAY off topic here, let's get back to discussing Trump, or is this thread over? I can split off all of the off topic posts into a free for all thread if you want.

 

[WWGD]

Let's try to be an example and

well, you favour the death penalty, so not ALL lives matter; just the ones you think are worthy.

That's why its a platitude. People all around the world are dying in the most horrible circumstances and due to injustice and we don't really care. Their lives don't matter a bit to us. They certainly don't matter if it means an inconvenience in our lives.Nobody should be shouted down for saying something? WHY? If you want freedom to voice something, you got to give freedom to those with a voice that want to shout you down. Its not a one way street.

Forced to apologise. Who is doing the forcing and to whom?

Still, if you want to go beyond getting things out of your system, find a way of optimizing the odds of the other party listening to you. Believe me, I am no saint and I feel
like insulting plenty of people, and have done so. But at some point it comes down to deciding whether you just want to vent out or if you want to find a way of communicating constructively with those you disagree with, which may feel about your beliefs the same way you do about theirs. So, what does you getting angry and your ideological opponents getting angry get you? You both raise your guards and refuse to even consider the other's view. So, do you want the comfort of being right , trashing your opponents and having the problem persist, or do you want to find a way to talk while maintaining your dignity , which will give you , while not a guarantee of results, a higher probability of finding solutions than just fighting your opponents.

Again, I am not preaching, I feel the same way you do, but ultimately you (same goes for me ) whether we want to vent out or we want to find a solution.

 

[Evo]

PM me and we'll vote on splitting off the off topic posts into another thread where you can discuss whatever it is you are discussing. Russ, do you have a suggestion for a thread title? You can post here Russ if you want.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting comments in the associated interview with Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of RedState.com.

As Trump pushes ahead with an establishment-bucking campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, the real estate developer and former reality TV star's decidedly unconventional approach to politics includes forgoing — so far — any substantive discussion of public policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/trumps-policy-approach-mystery-amid-lack-detail-071738128--election.html

According to NBC News/Survey Monkey Poll Aug 7-2

Trump is at 23%
Ted Cruz, 13%
Ben Carson, 11%
Carly Fiorina, 8%
Marco Rubio, 8%

In the article:

Ex-Trump adviser Roger Stone, who quit the campaign over the weekend (Trump maintains he fired him) is said to have clashed with others on Trump's team over the lack of specifics offered by the campaign. Among other frustrations was the fact that a detailed job creation plan, along with issue papers on other major topics inspired by the candidate, had been left to sit on the shelf, unreleased, according to two people familiar with the campaign dynamics, who spoke independently to the AP on the condition of anonymity to avoid clashing with Trump.

Meanwhile - Steven Colbert is lighting candles for Donald Trump.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/stephen-colbert-cbs-tca-late-show-jon-stewart-126382808900.html

 

[Evo]

It seems no one wishes to continue the off topic arguments, so the Donald Trump Thread is open for discussion of Trump.

 

[phinds]

It seems no one wishes to continue the off topic arguments, so the Donald Trump Thread is open for discussion of Trump.

Ugh! What a depressing topic. How about something more cheerful like assisted suicide?

 

[Astronuc]

Trump says he'll release policy specifics soon
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-returns-fox-news-flap-112901449--election.html

It was Trump's first appearance as a presidential candidate in Michigan, where he decried China's decision to devalue its currency and Ford Motor Co.'s planned $2.5 billion investment in Mexico. He told reporters in Birch Run, north of Flint, that he would announce policy specifics over the next two weeks, but cautioned: "You really have to be flexible on jobs and everything else."

At his appearance in Michigan, I didn't hear any substantive policy statements. OK, so Carl Icahn is a great negotiator, deal-maker and apparent friend, and Trump suggested that Icahn could handle Japan and China, ostensibly as an ambassador. What is the policy on trade?

So we wait.

Meanwhile - an interesting article in The Atlantic by Conor Friedersdorf
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...umps-rise-fox-news-reaps-what-it-sows/400973/

I’d watched the debate. For most of it, I thought that Donald Trump would emerge as popular as ever: I don’t understand his appeal, but his performance was completely in keeping with the style and substance of his campaign to that point. Why did the handpicked Republicans disagree? Had I been in the room with them, I’d have asked, “If you came here as a Donald Trump supporter, how could you possibly be disappointed by tonight’s anger, bombast, blatant question-skirting, and a lack of specifics? When have you known the man to act differently?”

Meanwhile, hasn’t Fox News spent years conditioning viewers to believe that journalists belong to a condescending class of decadent elites which engages in barely-concealed conspiracies to destroy anyone who tells it like it is to real Americans? For years, Roger Ailes broadcast everything that Glenn Beck wrote on a chalk board! Surveying America for individuals whose insights he would broadcast to the masses, he settled on Sarah Palin as a person whose analysis he would amplify. It is no accident that a chunk of the Fox News audience is now inclined to side with Trump over Kelly. With Trump’s rise, the network is reaping what it has sown.

Basically, FOX news is experiencing 'blowback'.

I agree with Friedersdorf's assessment of Trump

Trump is unfit to be president because he has no experience in government; because he cynically stokes xenophobia for political gain; because he has given voters every reason to believe that he would put his own selfish interests above the country’s interests; because he has demonstrated no firm grasp of public policy in any area; and because his boastfulness, bombast, and petty insults are signs of insecurity, not confidence. It would be dangerous to put such an apparently insecure man in a position of power.

 

[dragoneyes001]

I'm inclined to think Trump running for office is a GOP ploy to remove scrutiny from all the other candidates. He's such a clown he takes all the spotlight away from the problems the GOP has to deal with in their never ending contradictions to just about every issue. all the polls showing Trump with a lead are polled from 748-1100 GOP leaning people they don't bother stating which district they polled because that small a sample is unlikely to be over more than one or two districts much less across states.

 

[bballwaterboy]

Does Trump know anything about national security?

 

[dragoneyes001]

Does Trump know anything about national security?

Not Much if anything. he has a business background so he has to have some clue as to basic security but how it applies to a nation I'd be very surprised if he could form a coherent statement on it

 

[bballwaterboy]

Not Much if anything. he has a business background so he has to have some clue as to basic security but how it applies to a nation I'd be very surprised if he could form a coherent statement on it

I feel like that area could do him in when the field narrows. I wonder if he could match Sarah Palin's ignorance on the subject.

What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

 

[dragoneyes001]

I feel like that area could do him in when the field narrows. I wonder if he could match Sarah Palin's ignorance on the subject.

What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

like i said he's a distraction from the other candidates. what's very likely to happen is some event will suddenly pop up where one candidate will show great leadership and advance in the polls passing Trump and the field will be cut down to a few runners at which point Trump will be made that persons vice presidential candidate. they will be taking his popularity and removing him from the leadership at the same time. as much as this reads like a horrible novel its likely to be how they will play it.

 

[phinds]

What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

Yes, the problem is not that The Donald is SUCH a terrific rabble rouser, it's that we have so much rabble.

 

[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.

Wanna bet some money?

 

[mheslep]

...
What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

I thought similarly in '08 about John "Silk Pony" Edwards, who came close, Al Sharpton in '04, and now avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, though for different reasons. In hindsight we have actual vote counts for those guys; nobody has cast a single ballot yet for Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Most relevant poll at this point I think would be Iowa, where Gov. Walker has been ahead at ~18% for months until Trump came from the near the bottom and took the lead a couple weeks ago. I think Walker comes out on top come voting day, given his long time on top indicates he's doing his due diligence campaigning in Iowa.

 

[phinds]

Wanna bet some money?

The Republicans might be nutso enough to nominate him, but I've got $1,000 that says he won't be president. Even odds and we'll get Greg to hold the money.

 

[jim hardy]

What's surprising to me is just how much anger must be out there.

Somebody said 'Fox reaped what they sowed', i think in that article Astronuc linked.
I'd say both left and right manufacture discontent aplenty

The opposite of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter is not Thom Hartman and Noam Chomsky , they're all extreme poop-stirrers
the opposite of extremist is , to borrow Eric Hoffer's phrase, a gentle cynic who doesn't really care

we have two generations now raised on dissent.
60's seem to me like yesterday... I think i'll just enjoy the fracas !

 

[WWGD]

Not Much if anything. he has a business background so he has to have some clue as to basic security but how it applies to a nation I'd be very surprised if he could form a coherent statement on it

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

 

[Bystander]

how much anger

60's seem to me like yesterday

"Anger?" Or just the usual infantile temper tantrums from both extremes?

 

[dragoneyes001]

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

problem with Trump in that regard is would he be able to make intelligent responses to a good adviser?

if his track record like the miss america pageant fiasco is any indication i'd say its unlikely.

 

[Dembadon]

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

One should actually get input from more than one advisor. If one gets three different opinions, how does one evaluate them without sufficient knowledge? Of course expert knowledge isn't necessary, but one needs enough knowledge to weight the options and make an intelligent decision.

 

[WWGD]

One should actually get input from more than one advisor. If one gets three different opinions, how does one evaluate them without sufficient knowledge? Of course expert knowledge isn't necessary, but one needs enough knowledge to weight the options and make an intelligent decision.

Agree, good points.

Trying to be fair with Trump, I do respect his stance on Planned Parenthood, but seeing his attacks at other candidates (like those at Bush and at Paul) and seeing him describe the bible as (paraphrase) being so much better than any of the books he has written http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-trump-reveals-his-two-favorite-books-and-theyre-simultaneously-surprising-and-not-surprising/
make him look like your everyday mainstream politician. Maybe he is being sucked into the establishment way of thinking like I imagine many formerly idealistic , authentic politicians have been. Too much pressure to conform.

 

[William White]

Of course he has to praise the bible.

he's wants to run for office in one of the most religiously conservative nations on Earth (where a sizable chunk can only be desribed as fundamentalist)

How many out atheists are there in congress?

 

[Astronuc]

Matt Bai on Trump's appeal - Trumpmania?
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-myth-of-trumps-angry-legions-trumpmania-may-126536356526.html

 

[phinds]

Wanna bet some money?

The Republicans might be nutso enough to nominate him, but I've got $1,000 that says he won't be president. Even odds and we'll get Greg to hold the money.

Well, @celluri, are you going to put your money where your mouth is or were you just blowing hot air?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Wanna bet some money?

Absolutely. I am willing to bet $100 that Trump will not be elected President (he may end up winning the nomination, although I think even with his current poll numbers that this is highly unlikely -- Trump is enjoying current highs in popularity as a protest against supposed safe candidates, much like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich did back in the previous Republican presidential nomination race, but will ultimately flame out like those other two).

BTW, I'm not exactly sure how we'll agree to collect the money depending on who wins the bet.

[As an aside, I'm not a gambling man, so I never bet more than $100 on anything.]

 

[phinds]

[As an aside, I'm not a gambling man, so I never bet more than $100 on anything.]

Neither am I. This is not a gamble, it a sure way to double your money in less than a year. Very good deal. Now if cellurl would just stand up for what he said. I expect him to wimp out.

 

[Astronuc]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is outlining a foreign policy
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-money-mideast-countries-supported-us-130027587.html

Well, at least it's a start.Donald Trump discussed on NBC's Meet the Press
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/compressed-donald-trumps-run-for-president-506208323567

 

[Astronuc]

Trump providing some details - https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-deport-criminal-aliens-126838527651.html

According to a Fox News national poll released Sunday, Trump (25 percent) has a 13-point lead over Ben Carson (12 percent) among likely Republican primary and caucus voters:

• Donald Trump - 25%
• Ben Carson - 12%
• Ted Cruz - 10%
• Jeb Bush - 9%
• Mike Huckabee - 6%
• Scott Walker - 6%
• Carly Fiorina - 5%
• John Kasich - 4%
• Marco Rubio - 4%
• Rand Paul - 3%
• Chris Christie - 3%
• Rick Santorum - 1%
• Rick Perry - 1%
• Bobby Jindal - 1%
• George Pataki - 1%

 

[Bystander]

Brings up the question, "What percentage of the voting population is 'the likely primary and caucus voting/participation' group?"

 

[Evo]

thread's open