U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Shryke said:

But anyway, let's move on to the better stuff where we explore Trump's belief in eugenics!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-eugenics_us_57ec4cc2e4b024a52d2cc7f9

 

Here's the quote you really gotta love though:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42946/donald-trump-poor-people-morons/

I'm sure Mr. "I feel like I'm livin in Ayn Rand Novel" would appreciate this though.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

But anyway, let's move on to the better stuff where we explore Trump's belief in eugenics!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-eugenics_us_57ec4cc2e4b024a52d2cc7f9

 

Here's the quote you really gotta love though:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42946/donald-trump-poor-people-morons/

Interesting. Sadly, I derive from pretty run of the mill parents and grandparents. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that the child of two geniuses is likely to have a higher IQ than I have. If it works for racehorses, it will work for humans too. Just like Usain Bolt's explanation as to why so many Jamaicans are sprint champions. Selective breeding.

Hardly a ridiculous notion.

But that doesn't mean that Trump is going to enforce a selective human breeding program if he gets elected. Let's not get hysterical about stuff now.

[OldGimletEye]

Sounds to me like a case of a guy starting out on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

[Mudguard]

Yeah, I agree with others that Trump's Cuba dealings are not worth talking about, at least not on a national level, when you can instead talk about his abhorrent views and/or treatment of women and minorities.  Maybe it makes sense to place some ads in South Florida about it, but I doubt most people care.

[Shryke]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting. Sadly, I derive from pretty run of the mill parents and grandparents. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that the child of two geniuses is likely to have a higher IQ than I have. If it works for racehorses, it will work for humans too. Just like Usain Bolt's explanation as to why so many Jamaicans are sprint champions. Selective breeding.

Hardly a ridiculous notion.

But that doesn't mean that Trump is going to enforce a selective human breeding program if he gets elected. Let's not get hysterical about stuff now.

I see you see following along like a loyal dog.

"Master Trump says people who have been impoverished for several generations are genetically inferior? Why yes, I'm 100% behind that now too! Eugenics for all!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's not even worth replying to. Psychopathic? Please.

Agreed.  There is nothing to indicate either Clinton is a "Psychopath". 

[Mudguard]

9 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I see you see following along like a loyal dog.

"Master Trump says people who have been impoverished for several generations are genetically inferior? Why yes, I'm 100% behind that now too! Eugenics for all!"

Intelligence is determined by genetics and environment.  As far as I can tell, FNR is just acknowledging that genetics plays a role.  Nothing in his comment suggests that he discounts the effect of environment.

Trump, on the other hand, clearly doesn't believe that environment plays a role.

[Kalbear]

Nor am I willing to admit, as @Free Northman Reborn believes, that Hillary Clinton is 'evil incarnate'. 

And as far as I can tell, his characterization of most Trump supporters being able to see through his viewpoints and not agree with him all the way appears to be complete bullshit too. Trump won the primary on the backs of his racist, bigoted base. 

[butterbumps!]

54 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Secondly, I'm pretty convinced that most Trump supporters know that Trump is a narcissist, a conman, a buffoon and a self serving liar. He is far from the ideal candidate. But he serves the purpose of championing the causes that these voters care about, so they would vote for Ronald Macdonald, as long as it got conservative judges elected to the Supreme Court next year, protected their 2nd amendment rights, and led to some attempt to curb illegal immigration.

I honestly don't understand why these are cited by non-Trumpkin Trump supporters as rationale for voting for him.   Why are you so convinced he will nominate judges who will uphold the ideals you care about (or even respect the Constitution at all)?    It's hardly a sure bet that they'd be conservative in the way I suspect many voting this way would like (and which constitutional issues (other than the GUNS! are you that concerned about that voting for an incompetent by your own admission is worth it?).  Frankly, I see him making nominations based on judges' likelihood of supporting things that will benefit him and his cronies directly, like eminent domain (which, no doubt, he and his cronies will waste no time in abusing).

And Trump definitely spoke about supporting the "you can't fly, you can't buy guns" issue at the debate and elsewhere.   I'm not so confident he's that resolute on gun freedoms.

[aceluby]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nor am I willing to admit, as @Free Northman Reborn believes, that Hillary Clinton is 'evil incarnate'. 

And as far as I can tell, his characterization of most Trump supporters being able to see through his viewpoints and not agree with him all the way appears to be complete bullshit too. Trump won the primary on the backs of his racist, bigoted base. 

I don't understand why I would have to 'admit' she's 'evil incarnate' when there is no evidence showing that.  Like at all.  But, yet again, we have a case of false equivalencies between the two candidates, which the right is absolutely loving.  They've elected a rich guy who pays no taxes, is a racist, is a misogynist, and is currently being investigated for multiple crimes.

But we're supposed to admit Clinton is 'evil' because the GOP has been on a witch hunt for almost 30 years.  Please.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 You don't know from Evil Incarnate Free Northman...

 

 http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/00/00570f3e915cfdb2465e98e7e82a1e4f3ee94d5094ad74c62d30bd889e2fbf15.jpg

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 You don't know from Evil Incarnate Free Northman...

 

 http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/00/00570f3e915cfdb2465e98e7e82a1e4f3ee94d5094ad74c62d30bd889e2fbf15.jpg

Nice one.

 

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If it works for racehorses, it will work for humans too. Just like Usain Bolt's explanation as to why so many Jamaicans are sprint champions. Selective breeding.

Do you actually know much about genetics, heritable traits, and inheritance patterns?

But, even taken at face value, Trump's own ideology is ruined by his actions. His wives, for instance, were not billionaires themselves until after they married him. In his world, they're not "successful." So he's breeding with unsuccessful women, effectively diluting his bloodline. Trump's own mother was an immigrant, of modest background. Again, a "failure" in Trump's world. So he's not that great either, and he's further diluting his questionable genetic pedigree with his own choices in mates.

Further, we are not debating whether Trump knows how genetics works (SPOILER: he doesn't, and neither do you). We are criticizing his reaction to those less rich than he is. He's saying that people who were not as rich as his father was are morons, on account of their inability to be as rich as his father. In a capitalist system where capital is unevenly distributed, it's impossible to have everyone be as rich as his father. That means that the lack of wealth in these individuals, as a class, is by design, not by merit. But to Trump, he sees these people and families as morons and losers. Basically, he just called your parents morons.

 

But hey, by all means, continue to support him because you see nothing wrong with Trump insulting your parents. That's your call.

[Shryke]

42 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Intelligence is determined by genetics and environment.  As far as I can tell, FNR is just acknowledging that genetics plays a role.  Nothing in his comment suggests that he discounts the effect of environment.

Trump, on the other hand, clearly doesn't believe that environment plays a role.

No, he's not. Don't be a rube. He is saying this in specific defence of Trump who's entire position, as I already illustrated via that quote, is that intelligence is demonstrated via wealth and that people who have been poor for several generations are obviously genetically inferior. There's no other reason to respond to a post about Trump's views.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

Breeders of Racehorses use inbreeding to accomplish their task.  Should Trump have married his sister to "keep the genes pure"?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Here's why the Cuba story matters:

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-florida-swing-state-polls-show-cubans-matter-2424048

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-trump-cuban-embargo

The polls are tight in FL, and Cubans are a strong pro-Republican voting bloc. Any appearance of Trump trying to help Castro make money is going to cost him votes, and it may push Cubans to Clinton because they want to punish him. .

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Firstly, the fact that the Clintons are supporters of free Healthcare for the poor was used as a reason why they should not be labelled narcissists or psychopaths. A laughable position, I'm sure you'll agree.

First, what was said was that the Clintons' consistent  and sustained support for improved healthcare for the poor isn't really compatible with the idea that they're 'narcissistic, psychopathic' people. And that's 100% true. Psychopathic behaviour is a term that's often loosely used, but is usually understood to imply a lack of empathy and care for others' welfare, poor planning, inability to sustain interest, shallowness, short-term focus, and antisocial behaviour. None of these things are compatible with campaigning consistently over a period of decades, by various means, and across national boundaries to improve the health of others. A completely sensible and obvious position, whether or not you agree.

You could perhaps argue that the Clintons, though not psychopathic, perhaps could be seen as narcissistic but next to Trump they're St Francis of Assisi. In fact, I'd argue they're completely within normal parameters not only for politicians but for successful people of almost any walk of life.

Quote

No one is voting for Trump because they think he is the Pope or is a perosn of great character.

You can find such people at any Trump rally, actually, but I'd agree they're not the majority.

Quote

They are voting for him because he comes closest to espousing the causes they believe in.

Now if Clinton supporters would just acknowledge the same, recognize that she is evil incarnate, but that they are voting for he anyway because she at least proclaims to serve the ideologies they care about, then maybe an honest conversation could be had.

Read as written, your line above suggests that you believe that in order to espouse the causes you care about a politician necessarily has to be evil incarnate. A laughable position, I'm sure you'll agree.

Could it be - just maybe - that it's possible that Clinton is a flawed human being with whom you may disagree, but is basically well intentioned just the same? Why does Clinton have to be 'evil incarnate' just because Trump is? Does that belief not speak more to your understandable feelings of disappointment about what a shithead 'your' candidate is, and a desire on your part to make you feel better about that, rather than anything else?

[Mudguard]

7 minutes ago, Shryke said:

No, he's not. Don't be a rube. He is saying this in specific defence of Trump who's entire position, as I already illustrated via that quote, is that intelligence is demonstrated via wealth and that people who have been poor for several generations are obviously genetically inferior. There's no other reason to respond to a post about Trump's views.

A person can agree with a portion of a Trump's view and disagree with another portion.  

I'll do it right now.  After watching that Trump video, I'll agree that genetics plays a role in intelligence and other attributes.  However, unlike Trump, I also acknowledge that environment plays an important role in intelligence and other attributes.

FNR commented on the genetics portion.  Until he chimes in on the environment portion, it's not clear what his views are on that.

[OldGimletEye]

Okay, let’s examine here two claims. 1) Trump is just oh so smart and 2) The country should be run like a business. Ergo, we should elect a businessman or businesswoman to run it, an old right wing standby.

Here is a bit on the likely technocratic competence of a Trump Administration and Trump’s alleged smarts.

Quote

To put it simply, it's a complete mess.

The thing is that Sumner is hardly a lefty.

More here:

Quote

But this is an accounting procedure, not a causal theory.

This is freshman level stuff. Why now didn’t Mr. genetically superior awesome businessman catch this error?

What about him getting the "best and smartest" people?

And looking at the bozo he's probably going to get to lead his EPA transition team is too scary to think about.

[Free Northman Reborn]

37 minutes ago, mormont said:

First, what was said was that the Clintons' consistent  and sustained support for improved healthcare for the poor isn't really compatible with the idea that they're 'narcissistic, psychopathic' people. And that's 100% true. Psychopathic behaviour is a term that's often loosely used, but is usually understood to imply a lack of empathy and care for others' welfare, poor planning, inability to sustain interest, shallowness, short-term focus, and antisocial behaviour. None of these things are compatible with campaigning consistently over a period of decades, by various means, and across national boundaries to improve the health of others. A completely sensible and obvious position, whether or not you agree.

You could perhaps argue that the Clintons, though not psychopathic, perhaps could be seen as narcissistic but next to Trump they're St Francis of Assisi. In fact, I'd argue they're completely within normal parameters not only for politicians but for successful people of almost any walk of life.

You can find such people at any Trump rally, actually, but I'd agree they're not the majority.

Read as written, your line above suggests that you believe that in order to espouse the causes you care about a politician necessarily has to be evil incarnate. A laughable position, I'm sure you'll agree.

Could it be - just maybe - that it's possible that Clinton is a flawed human being with whom you may disagree, but is basically well intentioned just the same? Why does Clinton have to be 'evil incarnate' just because Trump is? Does that belief not speak more to your understandable feelings of disappointment about what a shithead 'your' candidate is, and a desire on your part to make you feel better about that, rather than anything else?

I never claimed that Clinton is evil just because Trump is. I have reached the conclusion that she is an evil, lying, self serving, corrupt, fiercely ambitious politician long before Trump declared himself a candidate.

31 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

A person can agree with a portion of a Trump's view and disagree with another portion.  

I'll do it right now.  After watching that Trump video, I'll agree that genetics plays a role in intelligence and other attributes.  However, unlike Trump, I also acknowledge that environment plays an important role in intelligence and other attributes.

FNR commented on the genetics portion.  Until he chimes in on the environment portion, it's not clear what his views are on that.

Not that it matters, as I am hardly here to defend Trump's virtue, (as I think I've made it quite clear by now), but of course I believe nature and nurture combine to produce intelligence and success. It's just that I dislike the tendency to ignore the nature part in the interest of making people feel better about themselves.

I didn't watch the video Shryke linked above. I just responded to his/her summary of it. In any case, I disagree with most of what Trump believes and does. But its not about him, is it. It is about keeping a liberal majority of judges out of the Supreme Court. A generation is at stake here.