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

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, S John said:

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. 

Trump's strategy of solidifying support among his base has been very successful (and I think you've summarized it well).  But all elections are won on the margins, and there are downsides to Trump's strategy too. 

1.  Democrats are very motivated in a combination of fear and outrage that is far beyond the lukewarm enthusiasm many had for Clinton in 2016.  There has been high Democratic enthusiasm for essentially all elections since Trump won.

2.  In addition, there are a LOT of intermittent voters in America, who are mostly low information voters.  Latinos and people under 30 are both groups that typically have terrible voter turnout, and Trump may be motivating them to get more involved than usual (although it's hard to say definitively until 2018 midterms).

3.  Trump has done a great job of making Republican voters more loyal to him than Republicans in Congress.  However, that comes with a downside, namely that when he isn't on the ballot, it is harder to get people motivated.  Even if we throw out Roy Moore as an aberration, in PA-18 and AZ-8, generic republicans struggled to get people to come out and vote, even though Trump was polling well in those very red districts.  Trump is intentionally trying to make Congressional Republicans an appendage of his will, which makes Republicans in Congress appear subservient, weak and indecisive. 

[Zorral]

25 minutes ago, S John said:

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.   

One the contrary. He is obsessed with EVERYONE IN THE WORLD LOVING HIM AND DECLARING HIM THE GREATEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THIS WORLD.  He is obsessed with his numbers -- making them up against all the recorded facts.  He is obsessed with those who express, mock or who write unflattering truthful portraits of him, his words and his actions, to the point of demanding they be fired, eradicated, etc.  If it isn't actively for him, it's against him, and he's against them / it and demands from his followers that they even commit violence against them -- as with Hillary and the press, even during the campaign.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, S John said:

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.

The Milo case would suggest that the line is supporting paedophilia. Historically, children have often been seen as a "special case". You can get away with a lot, but it's always a good idea to keep away from children. 

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

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. 

"The person you were talking to" (me) was pointing out that you keep using the term "identity politics" in the warped way the right wing wants to define it-- their meaning is what's bullshit.   I don't believe in Identity Politics the way the right uses that term- the way they use it to disparage the left, nor in the way they wield identity in a very "American Exceptionalist, we're white and awesome!" way.  

As DMC pointed out, and I agreed with, "identity politics" is really about tailoring messaging and policy to address different needs of divergent demographics, some of which have a basis in less mutable identities (such as gender), some of which is less intrinsic (for example, class).

Quote

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. 

You asserted that he's "not an idiot, plain and simple."   As evidence for his not being a plain and simple idiot, you have provided a link, appealing to his ability to bullshit.   Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you believe that his ability to bullshit disqualifies him from being "an idiot plain and simple."

There's a second, though very related, argument you've been making.   You have been arguing that Trump's victory is in part attributable to intrinsic intelligence or talents or skills or whatever (virtues that disqualify from being an idiot), and have plainly stated that you reject the idea that he could have "bumbled" his way to the top without there being something of intrinsic intelligence there.  If you need reference, this is from your post on page 1: "And I think it's that last part that makes people really cling to the idea that he's just a lucky idiot who bumbled into the White House- the alternative is realising that he played us, he fooled us. And I do mean us, I was telling people for ages that he had no chance. He understood something that I didn't. You don't Presidents who are true idiots."    

Here, and in subsequent posts, you assert that someone doesn't get to be president who is a true idiot (which is the post hoc rationalization I was pointing to.  You keep accusing me of dishonestly representing your arguments, but this post of yours (among others) shows you arguing exactly what I'm saying you were arguing.). 

And all of this these subsequent arguments-- about the role of sexism, racism, identity politics, etc-- have spiraled out from your rejection of the notion that Trump could be a plain and simple idiot who stumbled into the job by virtue of no intrinsic intelligence of his own.  You keep rejecting all of these factors that aligned to thrust Trump to victory despite being an idiot.  But that's why we're talking about all these other things now-- because you were refusing to believe that someone could reach the presidency via outside factors aligning without some sort of virtue on Trump's part to get himself there that would render him not an idiot.

Quote

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. 

Yea, I didn't say his campaign was exclusively about bigotry.   I brought up bigotry as the driving force behind how he got into office, as the force behind the virulent support he maintains from a lot of his followers, as what gave him momentum in the primaries.  I brought it up to point out that being racist and exploiting racism doesn't require particular intelligence or skill.

[S John]

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

One the contrary. He is obsessed with EVERYONE IN THE WORLD LOVING HIM AND DECLARING HIM THE GREATEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THIS WORLD.  He is obsessed with his numbers -- making them up against all the recorded facts.  He is obsessed with those who express, mock or who write unflattering truthful portraits of him, his words and his actions, to the point of demanding they be fired, eradicated, etc.  If it isn't actively for him, it's against him, and he's against them / it and demands from his followers that they even commit violence against them -- as with Hillary and the press, even during the campaign.

I don't deny he's a narcissist, but I don't think he necessarily self aggrandizes solely to stoke his own ego.  I think he (and his whole team) does it to try and control his image and reinforce the belief among his base that 'real' Americans (and a majority of Americans at that) actually support the president and believe as they do.  He's vain, thin-skinned, and vindictive for sure, but I think the real motive is to convey to his supporters that they are on the winning side - in the majority. 

Approval numbers don't matter - almost all of the polls said Trump would lose and they were wrong.  The fact that he lost the popular vote doesn't matter - he won the election.  Just look at that red map!  I really think most everything he does is done to reinforce who he is with his base.  A popular winner.  I don't even really know how far they believe his bullshit, but he leaves it out there for the taking and they go ahead and pick it up 'cause he ain't some damned pussy socialist liberal.  And more importantly he is attacking some of their favorite targets - the media being the prime example.  

I don't think he cares if the rest of us believe it because history has shown that he doesn't need us to win.  His lies aren't for us.  They are for those who are willing to go with it.   @Maithanet is right that there are some flaws in that strategy and it might bite him, but that is what the strategy is.  It's to double down, feed the base, to hell with everyone else.

[mankytoes]

24 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

You asserted that he's "not an idiot, plain and simple."   As evidence for his not being a plain and simple idiot, you have provided a link, appealing to his ability to bullshit.   Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you believe that his ability to bullshit disqualifies him from being "an idiot plain and simple."

There's a second, though very related, argument you've been making.   You have been arguing that Trump's victory is in part attributable to intrinsic intelligence or talents or skills or whatever (virtues that disqualify from being an idiot), and have plainly stated that you reject the idea that he could have "bumbled" his way to the top without there being something of intrinsic intelligence there.  If you need reference, this is from your post on page 1: "And I think it's that last part that makes people really cling to the idea that he's just a lucky idiot who bumbled into the White House- the alternative is realising that he played us, he fooled us. And I do mean us, I was telling people for ages that he had no chance. He understood something that I didn't. You don't Presidents who are true idiots."    

Here, and in subsequent posts, you assert that someone doesn't get to be president who is a true idiot (which is the post hoc rationalization I was pointing to.  You keep accusing me of dishonestly representing your arguments, but this post of yours (among others) shows you arguing exactly what I'm saying you were arguing.). 

And all of this these subsequent arguments-- about the role of sexism, racism, identity politics, etc-- have spiraled out from your rejection of the notion that Trump could be a plain and simple idiot who stumbled into the job by virtue of no intrinsic intelligence of his own.  You keep rejecting all of these factors that aligned to thrust Trump to victory despite being an idiot.  But that's why we're talking about all these other things now-- because you were refusing to believe that someone could reach the presidency via outside factors aligning without some sort of virtue on Trump's part to get himself there that would render him not an idiot.

You're correct. I've known several bullshitters, and the successful ones always have intelligence. Dumb people can't do it. And he's a very successful bullshitter, like many politicians. 

Again, correct, that's a good summary of my argument. 

You were dishonest in saying that I provided no evidence, you later admitted you'd actually watched a video that I'd submitted as supporting evidence. I did include the qualifier you might have simply forgotten. 

You're incorrect. I'm not disputing that they had an effect, just that they can alone explain his win. In fact, the opposite is true, I accept that all of those factors played a part.

[Week]

19 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You're correct. I've known several bullshitters, and the successful ones always have intelligence. Dumb people can't do it. And he's a very successful bullshitter, like many politicians. 

My unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence is better than your unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence; therefore I disagree because this line of argument is nonsense.

[Zorral]

41 minutes ago, S John said:

I don't deny he's a narcissist, but I don't think he necessarily self aggrandizes solely to stoke his own ego.  I think he (and his whole team) does it to try and control his image and reinforce the belief among his base that 'real' Americans (and a majority of Americans at that) actually support the president and believe as they do.  He's vain, thin-skinned, and vindictive for sure, but I think the real motive is to convey to his supporters that they are on the winning side - in the majority. 

Approval numbers don't matter - almost all of the polls said Trump would lose and they were wrong.  The fact that he lost the popular vote doesn't matter - he won the election.  Just look at that red map!  I really think most everything he does is done to reinforce who he is with his base.  A popular winner.  I don't even really know how far they believe his bullshit, but he leaves it out there for the taking and they go ahead and pick it up 'cause he ain't some damned pussy socialist liberal.  And more importantly he is attacking some of their favorite targets - the media being the prime example.  

I don't think he cares if the rest of us believe it because history has shown that he doesn't need us to win.  His lies aren't for us.  They are for those who are willing to go with it.   @Maithanet is right that there are some flaws in that strategy and it might bite him, but that is what the strategy is.  It's to double down, feed the base, to hell with everyone else.

Again disagree beyond his playing deliberately to his base. But that base provides his bubble fortress of fantasy about how fracking great and loved he is.  That isn't not caring.  That's being terrified by reality.

[SweetPea]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

One the contrary. He is obsessed with EVERYONE IN THE WORLD LOVING HIM AND DECLARING HIM THE GREATEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THIS WORLD.  He is obsessed with his numbers -- making them up against all the recorded facts.  He is obsessed with those who express, mock or who write unflattering truthful portraits of him, his words and his actions, to the point of demanding they be fired, eradicated, etc.  If it isn't actively for him, it's against him, and he's against them / it and demands from his followers that they even commit violence against them -- as with Hillary and the press, even during the campaign.

Care to give me an example where he demanded his followers to commit violence against those who criticize him?

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Care to give me an example where he demanded his followers to commit violence against those who criticize him?

That line about how the second amendment crowd had a solution for that (assainate his opponent); when he was heckled at a rally and he encouraged people to beat on the dude.  Saying that there were 'good people' among the white supremacists in Charlottesville at the rally/protest where Heather Heyer was murdered 

 

Oh look, a compilation video!

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Care to give me an example where he demanded his followers to commit violence against those who criticize him?

That line about how the second amendment crowd had a solution for that (assainate his opponent); when he was heckled at a rally and he encouraged people to beat on the dude.  Saying that there were 'good people' among the white supremacists in Charlottesville at the rally/protest where Heather Heyer was murdered 

 

Oh look, a compilation video!

[SweetPea]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That line about how the second amendment crowd had a solution for that (assainate his opponent); when he was heckled at a rally and he encouraged people to beat on the dude.  Saying that there were 'good people' among the white supremacists in Charlottesville at the rally/protest where Heather Heyer was murdered 

 

Oh look, a compilation video!

I don't know anything about that assassination line, what's that about?

Charlottesville has nothing to do with the subject.

And as for the protestors, I couldn't care less. If they start the aggression, they have no right to complain. That video was a joke. I thought the poster I was replying to had some info where Trump asked his followers to beat up a journalist who wrote a critical article of him or something.

[mankytoes]

56 minutes ago, Week said:

My unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence is better than your unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence; therefore I disagree because this line of argument is nonsense.

Jesus, do you ever say anything constructive? That doesn't even make sense, because I wasn't disagreeing with anything he said when I said that. He made an assertion, I agreed with it and gave my reason. Nothing worse than a dumb smartarse.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I don't know anything about that assassination line, what's that about?

Charlottesville has nothing to do with the subject.

And as for the protestors, I couldn't care less. If they start the aggression, they have no right to complain. That video was a joke. I thought the poster I was replying to had some info where Trump asked his followers to beat up a journalist who wrote a critical article of him or something.

Here it is

 

 

[SweetPea]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Here it is

 

 

That's it? Basically an observation that people won't give up their guns freely?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Sorry for  double post, here he is advocating violence against a journalist

This is the same guy that bragged he could shoot someone on the street and get away with it. 

 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, S John said:

Approval numbers don't matter - almost all of the polls said Trump would lose and they were wrong.  The fact that he lost the popular vote doesn't matter - he won the election.

Pick one.

Trump lost the popular vote, so that does matter to whether the polls were wrong. Again, people don't want to deal with this, but the fact is that Trump was incredibly lucky in how his votes shook out in their distribution. This was not a deliberate plan on his part. His last month of campaigning was flailing around. He was losing despite being handed a gift by Mueller. That it worked out does not mean that 'it doesn't matter': it would have mattered a great deal that he lost the popular vote in almost any other scenario.

Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc is the trap.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

That's it? Basically an observation that people won't give up their guns freely?

That's a very charitable interpretation.

[Week]

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Jesus, do you ever say anything constructive? That doesn't even make sense, because I wasn't disagreeing with anything he said when I said that. He made an assertion, I agreed with it and gave my reason. Nothing worse than a dumb smartarse.

I was disagreeing because you did not support the argument with anything resembling logic. If you feel the need to go to ad homnem -- feel free and enjoy. I was engaging with your line of argument. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

@SweetPea and if you don't think what happened in Charlottesville is connected and related to what we're talking about I don't know what to tell you.