U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[ants]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding Mankytoes, but isn’t he saying the election had a greater emphasis on sexism because Clinton played into the Republicans hands, whereas Obama tried to minimise highlighting his heritage and pushed issues and change?

 

(ps I’m not saying Manky is correct, just that I think that’s what he/she is stating)

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, ants said:

Maybe I’m misunderstanding Mankytoes, but isn’t he saying the election had a greater emphasis on sexism because Clinton played into the Republicans hands, whereas Obama tried to minimise highlighting his heritage and pushed issues and change?

I don't know.  All I know is from Clinton's perspective, her problem wasn't campaigning as the first major woman candidate, it was in her general lack of campaigning.  Would the electorate be more amenable to a black male or a white female?  We'll never know because the context of each election was entirely different, let alone the specifics of each candidate.

As an aside, it would have basically been impossible for Clinton to push change in 2016, so it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

If you notice, that video was made before the election, so it kind of destroys your argument that we’re only saying this after the fact, because he won. I did come to this conclusion before the election, but it was still too late.

I didn't accuse you or that video maker of only believing Trump is smart after the fact.   I said that you and that narrator seem to be projecting positive qualities onto Trump's speech, finding it smart, but that I find his speech to be devoid of smartness.   The fact that you and the video narrator found him to be real smart with words before he won isn't really relevant to anything.   

Instead, I was saying that here, in this thread, after depositing the smart with words video once, you kept using the "you can't be stupid to win the presidency, so he's not stupid argument" repeatedly.  

More generally, it seems like you've been trying to portray the "he is stupid" side in an impossibly narrow fashion, as though we're arguing he has the faculties of an amoeba or something.   I'm saying he's irredeemably stupid.   That the things he is successful at-- for example, bullshitting and demagoguery-- do not make him not stupid, nor are they signs of particular intelligence.   

ETA:  To be charitable, maybe you were referring to my closing comments.  I did point out that I get why you and various journalists want to believe that there's more to him, because it's horrifying otherwise in light of the win.  I should clarify that even if you thought he was a good bullshitter/ good with words before the win, I still think you're clinging tenuously to a post hoc elevation of his abilities.

Quote

So you’re saying only people from minority groups have deep lying issues, and white people only have superficial ones? Just not true from what I know. I guess your house analogy is treating different social groups as a house each, and that’s the problem, seeing people merely as “black, gay, Jew, woman”, whatever, not as individuals.

That's pretty disingenuous.   DMC answered mostly what I wanted to say.   The different houses analogy was about different needs/ interests in kind and scale across various groups (prior to the right-wing weaponization of the "identity politics" term, I typically referred to "interest groups" or "stakeholders."   Those are still the terms I use professionally).   Interest/ identity groups are more than just immutable characteristics.  It's also economic, regional, and so forth.

Quote

The idea that sexism must have been crucial as Trump was “more qualified” is one I’ve heard before, but it’s weak, became he beat a whole field of much more qualified Republican men. Fro omission, I assume you agree with me that people are wrong to say a woman couldn’t get elected President?

Just because he beat a field of more qualified men in the primary doesn't mean that sexism wasn't a potent force in his win over Clinton.  The nature of the primaries and the general are totally different, and that comparison you're trying to draw is faulty.   

He didn't get a majority of the primary vote or anything.  In a less crowded field, or with different primary rules, he'd have been done a lot earlier.   He stoked racial animus and got himself a rabid fan base.  The bigots focused around him, while those less motivated by bigotry split their votes in an overly crowded field.   

DMC linked you to evidence of how sexism worked against Clinton, so I don't need to elaborate I don't think.

I do think a woman could become president; that doesn't mean sexism wouldn't negatively impact that candidate.  It's a headwind she'd have to push against.  

Quote

You're still mixing up the ideas of being “bad” and “stupid”. If he’s an “irredeemable piece of shit” that doesn’t make him an “idiot”, those are very different.

No I'm not confusing those terms.   I'm saying Trump is devoid of any good qualities, including intelligence, and categorically unable to improve.   If you really require further clarification, just read that as "irredeemably stupid piece of shit."

[Isalie]

So, trade war or trump's intelligence? Maybe someone could start a trump is secretly smart thread? I want to know what will happen once the EU impose their own tariffs.

[butterbumps!]

1 minute ago, Mikael said:

So, trade war or trump's intelligence? Maybe someone could start a trump is secretly smart thread? I want to know what will happen once the EU impose their own tariffs.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing.  Trump's stupidity isn't that interesting, and I'd much rather hear from others about the trade war.

[OldGimletEye]

5 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

Bro!! Our Pony liege lord has requested a “really smart economy type[]” provide a thorough breakdown of a trade war just a few posts above your own! You are the smartiest economic type on this board; I respectfully submit that you are derelict in your duty as such! Ameliorate this immediately or suffer several bawdy, half-comprehensible quips from her liege henceforth.

I think there is little me to say about it, other than it's extremely stupid.

There is no economic upside to it and it will be all downside. American manufacturers which use steel or aluminium imports will face higher cost, resulting in job losses or lower wages in those industries. And then American exporters will be hit, when countries retaliate with their own tariffs.

But other than the economic effects of these tariffs, the real damage will probably be political. Trump seems to be intent on undermining the liberal international trade order that the US helped to put together in the 1940s and every US president has basically respected. He is stirring up unnecessary shit with long standing US allies and partners ie Canda, the EU, and so forth.

What is troubling about this is that with authoritarianism on the upswing, it seems, to me, that liberal democratic states need a bit of solidarity, right about now, which Trump is disrupting.

Perhaps the next US president will be sane and will rescind these tariffs and try to smooth things over. But, long time US allies and trade partners will have to wonder just how reliable the US is, if it can manage to elect somebody like Trump who makes very reckless decisions and is willing to basically throw away about 70 years of trade policy.

So Trump basically starts a trade war with long term allies, like Canada and the countries of the EU, but meanwhile Ivanka Trump gets a bunch of trademarks approved in China. What the hell is going on here? Hmm.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And thats all true. Even in the United States, in the 1930s there was a lot of anti-antisemitism. Back in those days right wingers used to call the New Deal, the Jew Deal.

But, that's kind of like pointing out that racism was around in the US before Trump ran for president. That too was true.

Both the Dumpster and Hitler, basically took something that was odious and made it even more so. 

To some degree yes, however I think you are selling the Austrian painter of landscapes a bit short here. He had a long term vision/idea. A horrifying one, but it was there and went a bit beyond making a profit for himself. I don't think Donnie Dipshit has that. Well, and then Austrian was a better orator (which gets a bit lost when you only have those screaming speeches in mind). In that sense Donnie appears to be simply dumber than the Austrian.

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So Trump basically starts a trade war with long term allies, like Canada and the countries of the EU, but meanwhile Ivanka Trump gets a bunch of trademarks approved in China. What the hell is going on here? Hmm.

You managed to elect a corrupt crook into office, who is now acting like a corrupt crook. I think that's basically it.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

To some degree yes, however I think you are selling the Austrian painter of landscapes a bit short here. He had a long term vision/idea. A horrifying one, but it was there and went a bit beyond making a profit for himself. I don't think Donnie Dipshit has that. Well, and then Austrian was a better orator (which gets a bit lost when you only have those screaming speeches in mind). In that sense Donnie appears to be simply dumber than the Austrian.

Well it's certainly true that I don't recall the Dumpster attending every production of Rienzi ever made, so maybe the Dumpster has no grand vision, other than promoting the Dumpster.

Still, I do think they both made nasty tendencies, already present in their respective countries, worse or went way beyond what was "normal".

And it's hard be dumber the Dumpster, even if the Dumpster is a first class bullshit artist.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I don't know.  All I know is from Clinton's perspective, her problem wasn't campaigning as the first major woman candidate, it was in her general lack of campaigning.  Would the electorate be more amenable to a black male or a white female?  We'll never know because the context of each election was entirely different, let alone the specifics of each candidate.

As an aside, it would have basically been impossible for Clinton to push change in 2016, so it's a bit of an unfair comparison.

Ah, an age old question, which is stronger, racism or sexism?

My bra burning mother is convinced that men would elect a man of any ethnicity before ever considering electing a woman to lead them.

Adding in religion makes it tricky though, especially in this country.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

He's lucky I've been watching Platoon to get my spirits up.

Was your climax point when Elias died? 

Spoiler alert! 

[Zorral]

14 hours ago, Yukle said:

The Republicans will soon just get Fox News to change the tune for them: that taking money from donors, even criminal ones, or Vladimir Putin, is just a sign of clever campaigning. Besides, Crooked Shillary took money from someone overseas once and the MSM never talks about that because she's a liberal and there's a double-standard.

Well the orange dumbster is working hard -- working overtime! (one of his fave locutions, certainly on twitter, so favorite that he stuck in a twit that supposedly Malania twitted) -- to convince the voters that corruption of any kind, any rule breaking, any criminal behavior, is no biggie, it's just politics, so I'm pardoning EVERYBODY who (supported ME) who committed crimes.  So when it comes my turn nobody will even bother noticing.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, LongRider said:

NPR releases a tape of Michael Cohen threatening of Tim Mak writing for the Daily Beast. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/31/615843930/listen-how-michael-cohen-protects-trump-by-making-legal-threats

I heard that.  Quite something.  It's OK -- the dumpster is gonna pardon.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And I think Trump really believes what he says or at least he does often.

It's true that Hitler sometimes changed his tune depending on his audience. Praising capitalism when he was speaking to industrialist and then throwing out a bone to socialism when he was speaking to workers. So he was a bit of a bullshitter, kind of like the Dumpster.

And despite today's greater media coverage, I think the Dumpster did get away with spewing some bullshit, or lots of it actually, since the media was evidently more concerned about Hillary's emails. Remember when talking about health care, Trump said he would come up with something "wonderful". I don't recall much the media calling bullshit on that one. And then of course, Trump  convinced at least some people that he was this really competent business guy, rather than some guy that just basically licensed out his name, then sat on his ass, and collected royalties, basically.

Anyway, both the Dumpster and Hitler, I guess, were are not with out some talents. Hitler did seemingly have a gift for oratory and public speaking, something that was noted by his army superiors, when during his last days they used to send him out to convince soldiers not to turn communist. But, as a head of state, leaving his evil intentions aside, he was pretty much a flamin' idiot.

And the Dumpster, well, he is first rate bullshitter, so I'll give him that one. But he's in his 70s now and he has been bullshitting for about 50 years or so now, so I guess it's not too surprising he got good at it. But other than being a bullshitter, there isn't much to him.

He's a classic US type -- a populist (male) blowhard, and there are millions of this ilk in this country -- my family has a lot of them, for a single instance.  They all love his orange blowhardness.  They LURVED him on tv.

[IheartIheartTesla]

This latest trade war kerfuffle is just further proof that this Administration has no patience for playing the long game, and honestly it feels like they just feed off the drama. Then they can be in crisis mode all the time and run on adrenaline, rather than do the hard graft and boring work that goes into governance.

If any generic Republican (like Jeb! for example) had been President we'd have been guaranteed a second term and possibly holding on to both the House and Senate. That's the silver lining in the situation right now.

I wager Trumps approval ratings will drop a bit in the coming weeks, since he couldnt leave well enough alone. Trade wars are definitely something you do in your second term, didnt West Wing teach us anything?

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If any generic Republican (like Jeb! for example) had been President we'd have been guaranteed a second term and possibly holding on to both the House and Senate. That's the silver lining in the situation right now.

It's hard to really imagine what a Jeb or Rubio presidency would be like, but you're probably right.  Republicans still would have passed a deficit exploding tax cut for businesses, although probably a slightly smaller one.  Republicans still would have tried to repeal the ACA, and that still would have been really unpopular.  It's possible that with Jeb or Rubio an ACA repeal would have succeeded, although it's impossible to say for sure.  At the very least the WH and congress would have been working together in a more cohesive and functional manner.  IF we assume that the ACA repeal failed, I'm sure Democrats would be less motivated than they are now, but at the same time so would Republicans.  If they can't campaign on vilifying immigrants (Jeb/Rubio wouldn't go for that) or on repealing the ACA, the midterms would probably just be about championing the economy and blaming Democratic obstruction. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Given what we already know and have seen, I think the most interesting hypothetical question under a JEB! Or Rubio presidency is would the Senate have eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? I can honestly see it going both ways.

[S John]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

This latest trade war kerfuffle is just further proof that this Administration has no patience for playing the long game, and honestly it feels like they just feed off the drama.

Um, yes.  They definitely do.  I think that Trump is a believer in the no publicity is bad publicity school of thought, and it'd be hard to argue that he's wrong about that when it comes to himself.  The Trump team absolutely relishes constantly dominating the headlines. 

A. It keeps them in the spotlight

B. Even when the coverage is negative it allows them to reinforce their narrative that the media and the establishment are partisan, unfair, and out to get Trump and conservatives.  With each anti-Trump story his supporters get new examples of how right they've been about the media all along and, as a bonus, get to cheer when he 'hits back'.  

The only question for me has been if there's a point where his supporters would flee.  If there's a line he could cross that would cut through the bullshit and cause his supporters to drop him.  Increasingly, I think the answer is no.  There's not one.  Boehner was 100% right when he recently stated that there is no Republican Party, there's a Trump party.  If some of these conservative politicians apparently hand-wringing behind closed doors or sniping from the peanut gallery once retiring / retired could find a set of balls prior to retiring, that'd be great.  Won't happen.

 

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I don't think anyone's saying that.  The entire idea of "identity politics" is preposterous.  In a two party system, each mainstream party is a coalition of interests, or if you prefer "identities."  This is how the American electoral system has always worked.  However, while the Dems have to galvanize a wide array of demographics, or "identities," it's' the GOP that has zeroed in on one identity - that of the dominant white male, which garners quite a bit of white female votes as well.  Identity politics is a bullshit red herring term that essentially means targeting, which campaigns have engaged in for time immemorial.

Sexism had an empirical effect on the 2016 presidential election results.  It's documented here, here, and here.  If you don't believe it, or are rushing to add caveats, that's your hangup.  Call your mother.

How about he's an idiotic irredeemable piece of shit?

The funny thing is, the person I was replying to said they support identity politics... To me, it's all about the difference between seeing people as individuals verses seeing them as a collective. And as you say, this isn't a left/right thing, the right love bunching people into demographics whenever it is convenient to them. 

Thanks for the links, but please talk like a grown up. When you make references to my mother, I feel like I'm talking to a 14 year old. You've got to look at both sides- I heard many people say quite openly that part of the reason they were supporting Hilary was that they wanted a female President. So while her gender hurt her, it definitely helped her as well. Obviously, a similar statement could be made about Obama. You can't ever know for certain, we'd have to run the election in exactly the same way with a male clone of Hilary. 

Well that's fine, just don't conflate the two ideas.  

7 hours ago, ants said:

Maybe I’m misunderstanding Mankytoes, but isn’t he saying the election had a greater emphasis on sexism because Clinton played into the Republicans hands, whereas Obama tried to minimise highlighting his heritage and pushed issues and change?

(ps I’m not saying Manky is correct, just that I think that’s what he/she is stating)

Yes, what I'm saying is Clinton should have just let her gender sit there as a background issue, which is what Obama did with his race. It won't be forgotten, the media will ensure that. It's like Clement Attlee in the UK, he was a socialist Labour politician who surprised many by beating Churchill in the post WW2 election. He had quite a radical policy agenda, introducing healthcare free at the point of use and the welfare state. Churchill played the classic rightist scare card, saying he would introduce a British gestapo. But Attlee was no raving revolutionary, he was a calm old English schoolboy. Churchill was the one who looked ridiculous and insincere. 

I'll give a specific example-

"Frankly, I think if Hillary Clinton were a man, she wouldn't get 5 percent of the vote," Trump told a crowd of supporters. "The only thing she's got going is the woman card."

Clinton was quick in her reply: "If fighting for women's healthcare and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in!".  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/hillary-clinton-woman-card-161103104753944.html

So you can see what Trump was doing there. His statement was evidently ridiculous and didn't deserve direct response. What I think she should have said was "He is trying to separate this into men against women. This election is about those of us who want our healthcare protected, etc, etc, versus people who only want the best for big business, etc etc". A number of voters do have a degree of conscious or unconscious bias against a female leader. Why would she want to buy into the whole battle of the sexes thing? I guess because the people she is around saw her gender as a positive thing.  

7 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I didn't accuse you or that video maker of only believing Trump is smart after the fact.   I said that you and that narrator seem to be projecting positive qualities onto Trump's speech, finding it smart, but that I find his speech to be devoid of smartness.   The fact that you and the video narrator found him to be real smart with words before he won isn't really relevant to anything.   

Instead, I was saying that here, in this thread, after depositing the smart with words video once, you kept using the "you can't be stupid to win the presidency, so he's not stupid argument" repeatedly.  

More generally, it seems like you've been trying to portray the "he is stupid" side in an impossibly narrow fashion, as though we're arguing he has the faculties of an amoeba or something.   I'm saying he's irredeemably stupid.   That the things he is successful at-- for example, bullshitting and demagoguery-- do not make him not stupid, nor are they signs of particular intelligence.   

Just because he beat a field of more qualified men in the primary doesn't mean that sexism wasn't a potent force in his win over Clinton.  The nature of the primaries and the general are totally different, and that comparison you're trying to draw is faulty.   

He didn't get a majority of the primary vote or anything.  In a less crowded field, or with different primary rules, he'd have been done a lot earlier.   He stoked racial animus and got himself a rabid fan base.  The bigots focused around him, while those less motivated by bigotry split their votes in an overly crowded field.   

But your whole argument seems to be that I'm only saying Trump isn't an idiot because he won the election. But that's not true, I thought that before the election. 

Yes, and I've backed that up, but you were forgetful or dishonest in saying I hadn't provided evidence. 

Well my claim is hardly a bold one, I'm just saying he's not "an idiot, plain and simple". That doesn't mean he has "particular intelligence", but I'm thinking of people I know who are "idiots, plain and simple", and there's no way they could bullshit people like he does. Doesn't Tywin once say all Tyrion has is "low cunning"? That's a good way of putting it. 

He still had to win one on one in the end though, against a much more experienced man. You're going on about bigotry, but that wasn't his only appeal, there was a big thing about his outsider status, his supposed business acumen. I don't think either of those are very legitimate either, but it's a massive over simplification to say his campaign was all about bigotry. Above all else, he was the celebrity candidate, the reality tv star, the one everyone knew and recognised. He didn't have a lot going for him, but he used what he had well. 

Anyway, apparently Europe has responded to these tariffs by targeting very specific products, including things specifically exported from swing states. Very smart.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Adding in religion makes it tricky though, especially in this country.

Well, all apologies to Jeremiah Wright, but not really in that comparison.

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If any generic Republican (like Jeb! for example) had been President we'd have been guaranteed a second term and possibly holding on to both the House and Senate. 

Huh?  Why?  The GOP caucus would have the same difficulties and face similar headwinds in the coming midterms.  Repealing the ACA would have had the same fundamental problems.  And the left would be vilifying that generic Republican just as much as Trump.  The only difference is the reasoning why, and I suppose it wouldn't be quite as easy.

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Given what we already know and have seen, I think the most interesting hypothetical question under a JEB! Or Rubio presidency is would the Senate have eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?

That's an easy one - yes.  The Republicans were gonna kill the filibuster if they elected a duck as their president.

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Thanks for the links, but please talk like a grown up. When you make references to my mother, I feel like I'm talking to a 14 year old. You've got to look at both sides

Talk like a grown up?  Get over yourself, my comment wasn't disparaging your mother it was an innocuous joke on you.  And to the bolded, no, I don't.

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I heard many people say quite openly that part of the reason they were supporting Hilary was that they wanted a female President. So while her gender hurt her, it definitely helped her as well.

Yeah, I prefer hard data and analysis as opposed to what you "heard" in order to make that determination.

[S John]

RE: Trump being an idiot.

I am 100% convinced that I would soundly defeat Donald Trump at the following:

a round of Jeopardy!, an SAT-off, a Geography Bee, a foot race

But I think he has a pretty keen ability to manipulate a situation to his advantage.  Trump said he could shoot someone in the street and wouldn't lose support.  He said that during the campaign and he was absolutely right.  Have to at least give him some credit for understanding the devotion (desperation?) of his base.  And remember everything he does either caters to them, or is spinned through the conservative glossary until it looks like it like it does.  He doesn't care about those of us who hate him.  Driving us nuts is part of the fun for both him and his supporters.  If he can keep that base intact, he will win again.