I’ve been following the current round of US primaries with some interest. Not ever having visited the US, I have no business criticizing the system or the candidates but I must admit to being fascinated by the progress of Donald Trump and the seemingly growing possibility that he may become the Republican presidential candidate. Presumably, there is also the possibility that he could become the next President of the United States.
I see that Vladimir Putin encouraged the Russian media to talk up his candidacy whereas the leaders and media of the Chinese Republic have taken to mocking him. Donald Trump does seem to be able to divide and polarize opinion. We are living in interesting times.
It seems widely accepted that a presidential candidate who openly espoused atheism would stand no chance of being elected. But what about a candidate with a comb-over? Can Donald Trump’s hair get elected? Inquiring minds need to know. I see arguments from political commentators that Trump is only popular with a small majority of republican voters and unpopular with most democrat voters, so Trump has no chance of becoming president. What do our US TSZ members think? Should the World be worried?
PS I’m committed to a project this summer and will have to relinquish admin duties as soon as Lizzie finds a replacement and won’t have time for more than the odd comment from now on. Lizzie welcomes contributions from anyone sharing her aims on free, open discussion. So please anyone who would like to publish an OP who doesn’t already have author status, just ask.
Let’s make this an open thread!
Probably quite similar to being on Kim Jong Un’s cabinet, except perhaps for the life-expectancy.
walto:
walto,
People who “meet a relatively low bar of intelligence”, as you put it, know that if you want to support a claim that someone whitewashed Trump, you need to supply evidence of that person whitewashing Trump.
Do you not understand what whitewashing is or do you not understand what evidence is? For the former simply look up ‘whitewashing’. For the latter, please note the links I have provided. They are EVIDENCE of Trump’s uselessness as a candidate. Now, trying to keep both of those in mind, read patrick’s assessment of Trump. If you cannot see that that is a whitewashing, either repeat steps one and two, perhaps trying a different dictionary, or go back to simply protecting the world from vomit-spewing baddies. We’re all terribly indebted to you for you service in that vital area.
Patrick, erik made claims which he would not back up upon questioning. In the libertarianism thread you made claims about the merits of that perspective that YOU would not back up upon questioning by (I believe) cubist. That erik was more specific and you were more vague in your claims cuts both ways. Neither sin was mortal, IMO, but you were both being evasive. The real difference was that you continued badgering erik for months and cubist was decent about the matter.
As for evidence for your whitewashing of Trump, please see my response to keiths above. Those directions should work for you too. If not, read up more about Trump and evidence and what constitutes whitewashing and report back in a week or two. In the meantime, I’ll try to think of some other lessons that might help you understand these things..
This isn’t that difficult, walto.
The entire conversation is preserved in amber. If Patrick whitewashed Trump, then simply point to exactly where he did so. Quotes and links.
Once you’ve done that we can evaluate the truth of your accusation, taking the actual evidence into account.
And that’s why French is our national language. 🙄
OK, you want to be spoon-fed, keithsicle, here are the claims that Patrick made on behalf of Trump that I consider whitewashing. (As for the link to his two posts above, you can play with that later when you’re alone.)
1. No more nation building in the middle east (Clinton is much more hawkish than Trump)
2. Some form of universal health care
3. Elimination of super PAC and special interest group funding (definitely not something Clinton supports)
4. Affirmative action
5. Reproductive rights
6. Gay rights
and also this:
“Trump’s policies fit better with the Democrats than the Republicans….Trump is a consummate businessman….He’s also running against not just Cruz and Kasich but the Republican National Committee and the mainstream media”
Now it is my contention that Trump has not consistently supported any of 1-6 above and it is basically impossible to tell where he is on any of them today. I also hold that he is not a “consummate businessman” (unless that means being a successful crook) having declared several bankruptcies and left countless creditors holding their bags, that he has generally benefited from coverage by the mainstream media, and, that most of the positions he holds that fit well with Democrats he has also railed against. One that DOES fit in well is his Sandersesque anti-trade policy, which fits in quite well with both parties’ current stance on trade barriers.
I have already provided two links that support my views on these matters, and show that Patrick’s (entirely UNsupported) remarks constituted a whitewash, by attempting to make him seem relatively palatable to the average voter. (I note you have made no demands for evidence from Patrick: but it doesn’t matter. There would be such evidence, just as there would be evidence that he also holds or has held the opposite view.) Anyhow, as you love you some links. here are a few more you can suck on:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-30000-troops-isis/
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm
https://rewire.news/article/2015/12/10/donald-trumps-murky-abortion-position-keeps-voters-dark/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/03/news/economy/trump-health-care/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/we-wouldnt-have-donald-trump-if-media-hadnt-helped-destroy-democratic-process-first
http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump
http://opinion.injo.com/2015/09/247749-donald-trump-is-a-mediocre-businessman-and-his-record-proves-it/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/
Apparently my response to this contained too much “evidence” or too many links for you to “evaluate” or both. It’s awaiting moderation.
Since you asked keiths to look up “whitewashing”, I’ll assume for the purpose of this comment that you’re using something like one of these Merriam Webster definitions: b : to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data”
“to prevent people from learning the truth about (something bad, such as a dishonest, immoral, or illegal act or situation)”
“2 a : to gloss over or cover up (as vices or crimes)
In my first comment related to Trump on this thread, I mentioned that “Trump’s policies fit better with the Democrats than the Republicans, but like Sanders he found his niche group of voters.” newton asked “Which policies of Trump are those?” and I generated the list you quoted “Off the top of my head and based only on what I’ve read”.
Now, I just checked Trump’s campaign site (which I wish to give traffic to only slightly more than I do for Uncommon Descent) as well as Reddit’s /r/AskTrumpSupporters (because there are some good links there) and /r/The_Donald (because it makes me laugh). Those are, indeed, his stated positions. They are, in fact, more aligned with positions held by most Democrats than those held by most Republicans.
Nothing of the little I’ve written about Trump is an attempt to gloss over anything he’s said or done. Nothing I’ve written is biased either for or against him. It is, as I stated, merely what I remembered off the top of my head. In fact, my comment about him being a reality TV star, which you replaced with ellipses, is hardly flattering.
Your accusations of whitewashing remain unsupported.
Setting aside this rather petty semantic dispute, the problem for a voter lies in predicting what Trump might do as President. Does he favor subsidizing Planned Parenthood (he has supported that) or defunding it (he’s supported that too). Does he support deporting all illegals (he’s supported that) or employing them (he’s done that as well). And so on down the line. If you were to ask anyone who has studied Trump’s statements over time, you simply could not be surprised if he were to nominate either another Scalia or another Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.
The really devout Trump fans have mostly picked up on the blatant bigotry he’s expressed against immigrants, women, minorities, etc. Which for all we know might even be sincere. Those devoutly opposed to Trump fear his sheer unpredictability. He’s the devil we don’t know, and Cruz is the devil we know. Cruz’s positions are political suicide right down the line (eliminate social security, eliminate health insurance, eliminate Planned Parenthood, eliminate the IRS, have the US government default to prove a political point, etc. etc. etc.) But even suicidal positions sincerely held seem superior to unguessable positions.
I see Cruz as analogous to a firing squad, and Trump to a minefield. The first is SURE to kill you, but at least you know whether, and how, and when.
Patrick, your response is a great example of why it was (as I knew it would be) a complete waste of time to provide the “evidence” you and your buddy were whining for.
The thing is, you are never actually looking for any evidence for any view you disagree with. What you’re looking for is for those who have disagreed with something you’ve said, perhaps after being insulted with some remark like “You lack ethics” to rejoin with, “Oh yes, Patrick and keiths! You were right all along! Thank you for enlightening me with your insult!”
There is not and never will be anything that does not accord with something you have said (whether, as in this case, you know very little about the subject matter), that you will take to be “evidence” that you have been mistaken about anything.
E.g., I have already indicated that you will find both X and not X for every policy position in Trump’s arsenal. That you found either X or not-X on his website today shows nothing precisely because it likely said not-X yesterday, and could say not-X again tomorrow. That’s why, to take some statement of X as showing that he sounds like a Democrat to you, is silly. This has already been gone over. But what have you said in your post above? Nothing but “I saw him say X!”
Anyhow, please continue with your wonted sanctimony. As I’ve mentioned, you’re good at that at least, and it’s nice to be good at something. But I must say that these types of discussions show the extent to which this site is little but a culture war time suck.
I don’t think it’s whitewashing to point out that Trump MIGHT (for all anyone knows) take a liberal position from time to time on just about anything, whereas Cruz never will. I agree with you, though, that it’s possible to cherry-pick statements making Trump look well left of Obama or well right of the NRA. And picking statements on only one side is misleading.
Yes, there’s certainly a sense in which Cruz is scarier. He seems to believe at least some of his bullshit. He’s a sincere, evangelical conservative. Hated by all who know him in Washington, apparently. He’s also smarter than Trump, which could make him more dangerous.
Trump is scary because he’s entirely unpredictable. He has no ideology at all, which could be ok, but his values are basically xenophobic and his campaign is mostly hatred mongering. It’s a classic cult of personality (in spite of him not actually having much personality). But people are mad and he reflects that.
If I had to pick between one of those two, I’d probably just stay home and cry.
It’s the keiths way. And do remember who you are talking to. You need to produce a pail of actual whitewash. Short of that it is simply not possible to convince keiths that you have given evidence of whitewashing.
By “evidence” keiths means evidence acceptable to him, not evidence acceptable to a reasonable person.
What were you thinking walto?
I’m not sure Trump has values as we know them. He has (IMO) correctly identified a strong vein of xenophobia in the public, and he’s milking that because it works. People HAVE lost their jobs to the Mexicans and Chinese, and illegal immigrants ARE taking jobs for low pay and sometimes committing crimes and costing a bundle in welfare programs of various sorts. And as soon as real politicians go to Washington, they get real cozy with big money and lobbyists (which is the road to re-election), and forget about the middle class. So Trump is playing to real gripes. Whether he shares that xenophobia is dubious – he hires these illegal aliens, he doesn’t worry about losing his job, etc. He is a reality TV personality, and knows his audience.
FWIW, I just made my own version of the typical Republican debate this year:
https://plotagon.com/324153
LoL. ok, make one of keiths vs. Patrick
Next stop would be blogging software that incorporates that. Get on it admins!
You’re right. I completely agree with that. I didn’t mean to suggest that Trump has displayed any detectable values other than ambition and avarice.
As one can see from some of his past sycophantic orgies, he’s not averse to cozying himself–particularly with celebrities, but his crass opportunism will likely suggest to those interested in anything but a little short-term bask in his money or power (I’m thinking of Christie now), that he can’t actually be depended upon by them for anything. He has always taken the position that any promise may be reneged upon if something that seems better comes along. Positions, debts, alliances, etc.
I get the sense that that stance resonates with a lot of voters. “Everything is renegotiable!” And I myself don’t think that there are never instances in which past pledges may be broken. But where there’s no expectation of fidelity whatever, the whole notion of trust goes bye-bye, and it’s hard to imagine that that would be a good thing for the country or the world. What that aspect of his personality would mean for big money interests (other than his own) is hard for me to fathom.
ETA: There’s an early work by Gary Wills, before he became a liberal, in which he lauded the idea that politicians were opportunistic and could not be trusted. That seemed to him more in keeping with democracy. If elected officials should always reflect the wills of their constituencies, how (he asked) CAN they be consistent and predictable?–when politicians stop pandering they stop being (small d) democrats and instantly become tyrants. That iteration of Will would have been forced to endorse Trump’s behavior.
That’s one of several paradoxes of representative democracy that makes me long for more direct participation.
Yes, he did.
No, I did not. If you disagree, provide links to such claims.
Interesting.
I have never thought that officials should follow the wishes of their constituents.
My view is that elected officials should act in ways that they, in their best judgment, see as in the interest of their constituents.
As a voter, I try to judge a candidate on the basis of the quality of his/her judgments. The trouble with election campaigns, is that they don’t do a good job of making us aware of the candidates skills at making such judgments.
If I had to choose, and thankfully there are alternatives, I’d go with the minefield. You might make it through that more or less intact. To switch metaphors, Cruz would put us on the most direct road to Dominionism. He’s easily the most frightening of the incumbent party candidates.
That’s an interesting view, and almost as unworkable as any other political fantasy. Why can’t we all just get along?
Governments evolve, and government actions and policies are selected by whatever keeps them in power. One does not need to resort to conspiracy theories or malicious intent. Policies that maintain or increase the concentration of power simply accumulate.
Just as economic bubbles originate and grow, the centralization of government accumulates without regard to the long term well being of the state or of the people.
By long term, I mean on the scale of decades and centuries. It is only recently that any political or economic planning has addressed two or three decades. And by “address” I mean talk about, not do anything about.
walto,
walto,
You didn’t provide any evidence. Like many creationists, you’re attempting to construct a narrative by claiming to have provided support for your position without actually ever doing so.
Thinking about it, though, I have reason to be optimistic. Clearly my comment describing your utter lack of any ethical standing to criticize others has stuck with you. Your animosity towards me that results in you lashing out with increasingly irrational accusations is a good thing. It shows that, just maybe, there is a conscience struggling to get out from under your years of not considering the impact of your life choices on others.
Get that out where you can look at it. Project onto me if you must, I’m a big guy, I can take it. Once enough has surfaced, you’ll be able to see where that anger should really be directed. That will be another difficult process for you, but if you can get through that, you’ll be in a position to work on atonement for all the petty evils that have made up your life.
I believe in you, walto. You can do this.
Something of a truism:-) I think every voter sincerely believes that they are applying that approach. They just have different ideas of what constitutes good judgment based on beliefs and priorities.
I personally try to find candidates that strike a balance between consistency on major issues (e.g. environment, education) and ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The extremes of doctrinal rigidity and knee-jerk reactionism (don’t ask me to define that more clearly) tend to turn me off.
Spot on, particularly given the wide ethical swings many candidates make from primary to general campaigns.
Wow, thanks for the excellent example of your extreme sanctimony. When I think you’ve already exhibited the holier than thou stuff to the max, you always manage to surprise me by dialing it up to eleven. You are most awesome!
Anyhow, getting back to the subject at hand, you asked for (not that you actually want, of course), evidence that you had supported libertarianism here. I.e., I wrote,
to which you responded:
Recent defenses of yours are easy to find. There are many older ones too, but I’m too lazy. The best batch come from what I like to call “Patrick’s Christmas, 2015 sentiments.” They appear on the Noyau, in a discussion that led Neil to create the Libertarianism thread so we could continue there. They all support libertarianism, and, as frosting, also display your extremely high opinon of yourself:
Those all regard what you take to be the merits of libertarianism. You received questions and criticisms about those claims and descriptions from (at least) me, cubist and hotshoe, but repeatedly refused to answer them. Just like erik.
But who cares about evidence. Let us leave that stuff alone now, You have bigger fish to fry! Let me instead close by thanking you for all you do in attempting to improve the morality of others by insulting them. It’s consistent with your libertarian ideals, and your whitewashing of Trump, in addition to your own deep glorious sanctimony. The only thing that makes me sad is that you deserve the same sort of credit that keiths does for your noble work in that area, and I fear I may have lavished more on him than I have on you. For that, I sincerely apologize.
I have to admit, you can run away from a fight as fast as any big man I’ve seen. By the way, the ability to “take it” isn’t the real sign of a big man. The sign of a big man is when he can admit when he was wrong and apologize. Wouldn’t you agree?
Pot. Kettle. Black. Don’t be like that.
In the struggle to be the most sanctimonious prick here at TSZ I am finally getting a run for my money. I need to kick my game up a notch.
Don’t fret mung. I’m sure you’ve got him beat at SOMETHING!
🙂 🙂 🙂
Touché 🙂
Patrick,
In my defence I’d point out the documentary provides evidence as to the character of Donald Trump and was produced before the Donald had even hinted the US presidency was a future ambition.
Brief summary:
Trump decides to build golf course on fragile and sensitive dune habitat using the basic technique of bulldozing.
He attempts charm in persuading inconvenient residents to move, suggesting one resident “lives like a pig”.
Enlists the help of the Scottish government and forces of law and order to push through the project by promising jobs and investment will ensue.
Contractors from the Republic of Ireland do the work. No local jobs transpire.
Falls out with Scottish government over their granting permission for the construction of an off-shore wind farm that spoils the view.
That’s him all over.
I’d ask you to support your claim that I run away, but past experience shows that you don’t support anything you say.
I do agree with you that it’s important to admit when you’re wrong and apologize. I’m still waiting for you to do so. For a while I thought you had it in you, but my opinion of you has dropped over the past few days. I miss NewMung.
The evidence that you dishonestly quote mined Krauss is clear and unambiguous. You’ve doubled and tripled down on that, demonstrating even greater lack of honesty. Now you’re spewing at every opportunity in a transparent attempt to distract from your own reprehensible behavior.
Disappointing, Mung. Very disappointing.
I’m not sure what you’re defending. I’m certainly not voting for the guy (his protectionist policies alone are reason not to vote for him). I simply pointed out that some of his positions, as described in his campaign materials, are more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans.
Patrick,
Me too. Let’s hope he’s still alive somewhere, perhaps locked in the basement at OldMung’s house.
Through my lenses, I think some of the conservative positions derive directly from religious doctrines (being anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-discrimination, etc.) and some of them are VERY highly correlated with religious preferences for no obviously direct reason (global warming is a hoax, science is the enemy). Trump doesn’t seem to have any religion, so he appeals more to the sort of conservatives who want less government, less immigration, hostility to Muslims, etc. We see Cruz winning rather easily where people are more concerned with their religion, while Trump is winning where people are worried about jobs and immigration.
I Guano’d a couple of my comments responding to walto here and copied them to Noyau. Portions crossed the line of addressing the author rather than the content.
Hahaha. Awesome.
HAHAHA!
This is where the general election is going to get very interesting. Assuming that Sanders doesn’t pull an upset, there are a significant percentage of his supporters who will not vote for Clinton. There are also a significant percentage of Republicans who will not vote for Trump under any circumstances. That could lead to a very low voter turnout or it could enable a third party to make headway.
Chaos at both incumbent parties’ national conventions, Trump vs Clinton vs Whoever, and the final decision going down to the Electoral College with no candidate having a clear majority — this could be the most entertaining election in recent history.
My guess is, not likely. When it comes time to vote, and your favorite candidate is not on the ballot, most people will vote for what the consider the lesser of evils. The large majority of Democrat voters, while perhaps having a strong preference for Sanders or Clinton, are able to recognize that either of them is vastly preferable to Cruz, and probably will produce better government than Trump. Polls indicate that Democrat voters are a great deal more indifferent to which candidate is nominated, than Republicans are.
Even so, those fervently hoping for Cruz (or, given a wild convention, some other Republican but not Trump) will nearly always end up voting for their party’s candidate even if it were Ronald McDonald or Alfred E. Newman. The Bernie Or Bust people can hold their noses and vote for Clinton, and the Cruz fans can do the same for Trump. Historically, that’s what happens. The strong pro-Hillary forces in 2008 voted for Obama, and the Santorum and Huckabee fans voted for McCain.
Still, I share your hope that this whole election will stay interesting and fun to watch. At least until Cruz is elected and nominates Roy Moore for SCOTUS.
That’s interesting, I wonder how much of that is related to the religious right being unwilling to support non-evangelicals.
I think, and hope, that it might prove different this year. Clinton’s extremely high unfavorability rating will not only cost her votes from the Bernie or Bust crowd, it will energize Republicans and independents to get out and vote against her. Trump has similar low ratings, but if it’s him vs Clinton, I suspect more on the right would be willing to vote against her even if it means voting for him.
Some groups in the RNC are considering a third party run against Trump. Given the laws that make it difficult for third parties to even get on the ballot, they’d find it easier to take over an existing party like the Libertarians, Reform, or Greens.
That takes a lot of the joy out of it, thank you very much.
Cruz seems to have some dirty laundry being aired at the moment. That could be enough to damage him with his core supporters.
That would seem to be the case since Gary Johnson just hit double digits for the first time.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/
Too bad we can’t have a Trump/Sanders combination like back in the good old days.
The suggestion that foreigners poking their nose into US domestic affairs is likely to be counter-productive. I wasn’t offering advice on whether anyone should vote for Trump so much as supplying evidence that may not have been widely known in the US.
Doubt remains in my mind whether what Trump promises and what happens are not necessarily the same thing. I guess that’s fairly standard among aspiring politicians.
Trump and his fellow Republicans on taxes:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-g-o-p-s-economic-delusion
Absolutely. He’s not to be trusted any more than any other politician.
Indeed. #WhichHillary?
I note that Patrick’s last ‘Trump shoul’d be trusted more than any other politician’ post is an additional whitewash. There are liars, damn liars, politicians, and then Donald Trump.