Donald Trump

[Delta1212]

Honestly, I don't think that it's. I think he's just a compulsive liar. He's not just lying about the effects of policy positions. You almost expect politicians to overstate the benefits of their plans. But that's not what he's doing. He's lying about literally everything. Even little trivial things that don't matter and are easily checked, like the size of his private jet.

 

He has seemingly deep seated need to be perceived as the greatest, and the way that he has figured out how to get that is to simply keep telling everyone that he is the greatest, that he has the greatest of everything and that there is no part of his life and nothing associated with him that is not extremely impressive.

 

He's not lying in order to win. He's lying because he wants to look good. It's why he tells stupid lies about stupid things. It's why he directly responds to every criticism leveled against him personally. It's why he does such sudden about faces on other people, attacking them brutally when they criticize him and praising them effusively when they compliment him, sometimes days apart and in direct contradiction to what he previously said about them.

 

He's not lying for the reasons politicians typically lie. He's lying for the reason that Mean Girls in high school lie. The whole thing is an ego trip.

[Phi for All]

If you add up the numbers, you can't try Hillary half the time. As for trump, believe the oppiste of what he says lol. Either way, they still lie. If your wondering, I count half true as half false. Would you believe something half true? Probably not.

When you say, "Either way, they still lie", you're attempting to make Clinton's lying on a par with Trump's, like it's OK because they all do it. This is NOT the case. All politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, but it's disingenuous to claim that a 2% Truth ratio is just as bad as a 22% ratio.

 

Also, yes. My dads voting for Donald trump.

But I'm wiling to bet your parents were democrats.

You lost. They were Eisenhower Republicans. In fact, I'm a Sanders supporter mainly because his policies are similar to Ike's, not because he's running as a Democrat.

 

It's not a big deal, but I find most young people vote the way their parents do until they go to college, where they're exposed to more than the one ideology.

 

I also can't find anyone who supports Trump for rational reasons. They say it's because he's a businessman, but he's a very sleazy businessman, as anyone he's owed money to will tell you. They say it's because he speaks his mind, but when was that EVER part of diplomacy? And when he lies so often, speaking his mind doesn't sound so great anymore.

 

They all seem to be emotionally invested, but can't say why a Trump presidency would be anything other than a global embarrassment of national proportions. There's no part of being POTUS that he would excel at.

[Delta1212]

Trump would be a repeat of W cranked up to 11, but without the slightly endearing personability.

[iNow]

But that's not what he's doing. He's lying about literally everything.

He's perfectly deploying the tools of persuasion. Taking a flamethrower to a stick fight. It's not about facts, but about focusing attention where he wants it. See the creator of the Dilbert comics discussing it last week here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMERNoQm5DE

[Ten oz]

@ Delta1212, look at how far boasting, exaggerating, and lying has gotten him. I think there is more to it than just his ego. It is a huge coup of the media narrative that continuously does bait and switch tactics to spin critics in circles. Trump has started with what he knows a strong portion of the conservative base wants and has basically promised them everything they could ever want and assured them he won't do anything that compromises it like consider logic, reason, the views of others, and etc. They hate fact checking leading to them being on the wrong side of everything. Trump represents the hope of them just getting what they want rather then whats true or fair. Sometimes people just selfishly want what they want. To that end all of Trump's lies are comforting to his base. They are comforted that like them Trump just wants win and be awesome. Who cares about the rest.

 

In the U.S. the pinnacle of success is money. There is an almost religious quality to wealth where it is assumed that all people with money, regardless of how that money was attained, must be intelligent and worked hard to be where they are. Trump preys on that by lying about how wealthy and succesful he is. Despite all the business failures and the fact that Trump inherited his real estate empire (branding) the simple fact that he is or at least is believed to be very wealthy makes the view that he must know business irrefutable. In turn he doesn't need to explain his views on econimcs. If a reporter ask how he'll create jobs all he needs to do is talk about how big his plane is and insist that he knows more because he has more. All of his lies build on themselves that way.

 

So Trump lies because it works. Lying assures his supporters that he won't consider the "facts" from the other side and/or be reasonable; his lying reinforces many ignorant views about success, and his lies prevent the media or anyone else from focusing on anything that matters. That last part being the most important. For examples; I have enjoyed watching Bill Maher's HBO show for several years. In the past Maher has done well having panel debates about policy (gun laws, healthcare, abortion, religious freedom, DOJ, etc). His panels are informed and everyone normally has a purposed change or fix which would resolve which ever policy issue is being debated. Yet Maher's show recently has fallen victim to what we can call the "Trump effect". Maher spends at least a 3rd of every show meandering about trying to wrestle in all the Trump lies and exaggeration of the week. By the end of the show it feels like a series of complaints that lacks stated resolutions for those complaints. As a result no policy is being discussed. Just a weekly rehashing of "how can Trump", "why does Trump", "who would Trump", and etc. Trump says he'll build a wall and rather than people like Maher and the rest of the media doing indepth work on immigration they all just sit around and talk about how Trump expects to do it. Debating the need for immigration form is a very different conversation that debating the viability of a Trump tweet. And that is where Trump is winning with his lies. Turning normally well thought out political observers into daily twitter followers who are always playing catch up.

[Raider5678]

When you say, "Either way, they still lie", you're attempting to make Clinton's lying on a par with Trump's, like it's OK because they all do it. This is NOT the case. All politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, but it's disingenuous to claim that a 2% Truth ratio is just as bad as a 22% ratio.

 

 

You lost. They were Eisenhower Republicans. In fact, I'm a Sanders supporter mainly because his policies are similar to Ike's, not because he's running as a Democrat.

It's not a big deal, but I find most young people vote the way their parents do until they go to college, where they're exposed to more than the one ideology.

 

I also can't find anyone who supports Trump for rational reasons. They say it's because he's a businessman, but he's a very sleazy businessman, as anyone he's owed money to will tell you. They say it's because he speaks his mind, but when was that EVER part of diplomacy? And when he lies so often, speaking his mind doesn't sound so great anymore.

 

They all seem to be emotionally invested, but can't say why a Trump presidency would be anything other than a global embarrassment of national proportions. There's no part of being POTUS that he would excel at.

 

We support Trump because we don't want to support Hillary or Bernie Sanders. Hillary exaggerates quite a bit if you noticed. She also seems to simply be trim to appease people. She talked to an illegal immigrant, and said that she's trying to get him citizenship, so she should vote for him. This is in video. On the news. Look it up. I find people are irrational when it comes to immigration. As soon as you say its not a good idea to have immigration in large proportions, its instantly "racist" or your an evil man who doesn't care about anyone.

 

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+stuttering&oq=obama&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39l2j0.1933j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

So the guy stutters. Who cares?

[iNow]

Using the handy quote feature offered by the software of this forum, kindly please quote EXACTLY what I have said that causes you to suggest I am "simply accepting everything Hillary says without looking it up" and simply "nodding my head in agreement."

 

That's quite a charge. If you think you're right, prove it.

Still waiting.

[Ten oz]

We support Trump because we don't want to support Hillary or Bernie Sanders. Hillary exaggerates quite a bit if you noticed. She also seems to simply be trim to appease people. She talked to an illegal immigrant, and said that she's trying to get him citizenship, so she should vote for him. This is in video. On the news. Look it up. I find people are irrational when it comes to immigration. As soon as you say its not a good idea to have immigration in large proportions, its instantly "racist" or your an evil man who doesn't care about anyone.

 

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+stuttering&oq=obama&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39l2j0.1933j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

So the guy stutters. Who cares?

The native population of this country is about one percent while the other 99% are immigrants. We already have immigration in large proportions.

 

Removing race from conversations about immigration is ignorant. The history of immigration in this country is racial. The clean slate approach of trying to remove race from any conversations moving forward only serves as a conveinience for those who don't understand history and aren't prepared to tackle the whole problem.

 

Historical snapshot of immigration policy:

- 1790 Naturalization Act allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person.

 

-Page Act of 1875 first restrictive immigration law prohibiting "undesirables". The law defined "undesirable" as anyone from Asia engaged a list of practices.

 

- Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. Not repealed until 1943.

 

- Immigration Act of 1924 limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the U.S. in 1890.

 

-Mexican Repatriation Act forced people of Mexican decent to move to Mexico. Targeted states fromerly part of Mexico. Most were U.S. citizens.

 

- Immigration Act 1965 changed the quota formula making immigration laws universal to all racial and enthnic groups.

 

Our immigration policies started with all free white persons can apply and went through various waves of restricting all others until finally standardizing policy for all groups in 1965. That history has shaped the power structure, demographics, culture, religion, and etc of this country for hundreds of years. Race has always been part of the all our immigration debates. The question has seldom been how many immigrants should be allowed in but rather which types should be allowed in based on how our majority white protestants judge others worthy. That simply has not change. WhenTrump says Mexico isn't sending their best Trump is making clear value judgements on the worthiness of Mexicans in this country. Conservatives argue it is merely about the law then turn around and take personal shiots at Mexican immigrants specifically basically saying that they are all a bunch of uneducated undesirables. Obviously this isn't just about "the law".

[Phi for All]

We support Trump because we don't want to support Hillary or Bernie Sanders. Hillary exaggerates quite a bit if you noticed. She also seems to simply be trim to appease people.

 

So Hillary "exaggerates quite a bit", Sanders had 0% of the "Pants on Fire" type of lies that Trump is infamous for. Yet you prefer the liar. OK.

 

I also don't know what you mean by Hillary being "trim". Are you talking about her body, or is this a youthful term I'm unfamiliar with?

 

Finally, you should understand that without immigration, this country would have died out long ago. Immigration is important to every country that wants innovation and progress. Everything we allow that undermines the attractiveness of the USA as a place where immigrants can come to make their dreams come true hurts us deeply as a nation. We're a superpower because of large scale immigration.

 

You're right about the knee-jerk reaction to "immigration", though. Now that you're aware of it, notice the same things about all controversial issues. You can't say "welfare" or "abortion" without the same thing happening. This should be a signal to you that there are levels of complexity you probably aren't considering.

[swansont]

He's perfectly deploying the tools of persuasion. Taking a flamethrower to a stick fight. It's not about facts, but about focusing attention where he wants it. See the creator of the Dilbert comics discussing it last week here:

 

 

 

He's a (pardon the French) Bullshitter

http://kottke.org/16/06/on-bullshit-and-donald-trump

 

"The bullshitter is indifferent to the truth in a way in which the liar is not. He's playing a different game."

 

I also see a parallel between The Donald and the cranks we get here on SFN. (I use the term cranks to mean that subset of crackpots who get angry when challenged) Very few crackpots know much about what they are talking about but there are those who take this personally and lash out at anyone who corrects them — how dare you not accept their missive as truth! The correction can be one of factual detail or one of procedure — it doesn't matter. The rules don't apply to them. But do it and you will be insulted, usually in the form of 'you're too dumb to see what I'm talking about' (uncountable insults like this from Trump). You will be called biased because if you don't agree it can only be because they system is unfair (That judge is biased! Not treating me fairly.). You will be reminded that the reason people get irritated is that the crank has the audacity to challenge the dogma. But no relevant, coherent scientific details will be forthcoming (anyone seen any policy details, ever?). Their explanations can't be questioned as being incoherent, though (I have the best words).

We support Trump because we don't want to support Hillary or Bernie Sanders.

One could simply not vote. But saying one would vote for someone means you have to be agreeing with and supporting at least some of the positions of the candidate.

 

Hillary exaggerates quite a bit if you noticed.

It's pretty lame to critique one candidate and give a pass to another who is exhibiting the same behavior, but at an even worse level (by a lot, in this case). It's just rationalization.

 

She talked to an illegal immigrant, and said that she's trying to get him citizenship, so she should vote for him. This is in video. On the news. Look it up. I find people are irrational when it comes to immigration. As soon as you say its not a good idea to have immigration in large proportions, its instantly "racist" or your an evil man who doesn't care about anyone.

Why is talking to an immigrant and saying you would try to get him/her citizenship a bad thing?

 

And you are mischaracterizing the discussion. "Build a wall" is not an issue of "immigration in large proportions". Net immigration from Mexico is less than zero: more immigrants have left than have come into this country. (2009-2014: -140,000)

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

 

So that's just a BS excuse. It's not why he's being accurately labeled a racist. It's because of all the racist things he's been saying.

[dimreepr]

But they took our jobs; even the ones I didn't want...

[Phi for All]

But they took our jobs; even the ones I didn't want...

 

It's amazing how often this very subjective objection overrides the objective goals of job creation, immigration, and improving the economy overall.

 

 

 

I still say the worst part about the Donald is that he lowers the intelligence level of any discussion. My initial reaction to the Scott Adams video was "Hey, let's start the 'Carpetbagger Don' meme to spoil his base in the racist South!"

 

I shouldn't be stooping to stupid. Oooh, there's the meme. "Don't Stupe!"

[dimreepr]

I still say the worst part about the Donald is that he lowers the intelligence level of any discussion.

 

 

I sincerely hope you're right.

[Ten oz]

 

It's amazing how often this very subjective objection overrides the objective goals of job creation, immigration, and improving the economy overall.

 

 

 

I still say the worst part about the Donald is that he lowers the intelligence level of any discussion. My initial reaction to the Scott Adams video was "Hey, let's start the 'Carpetbagger Don' meme to spoil his base in the racist South!"

 

I shouldn't be stooping to stupid. Oooh, there's the meme. "Don't Stupe!"

We all grew up learning that one shouldn't criticize less they have a better idea. That solutions are better than complaints. Trump does a great job turning all his critics into complainers who point out his stupidity and run out of time before presenting any solutions. At the same time he hides his complaints inside of nebulous solutions that mean something different each time he states them.

 

Will we build a wall on the southern border and would it be successful if we did; of course not. That said building a wall is a proposed solution that really appeals to the low information voters Trump has all worked up. Simply pointing out (complaining) that the wall wouldn't work, is racist, would be expensive, would hurt the economy, and etc offers no solution and thus can be ignored as criticism from haters. Trump is full of impratical solutions. We cannot allow ourselves to constantly be suckered into combating his solutions merely with complaints about those solutions because that is what he wants. Daily tit for tats rather than real policy discussion.

 

Instead of complaining about the excessive media coverage we should focus debate on the equal time and solutions like the fairness doctrine, campaign reform, public media, and etc. Rather than laughing at the wall proposal we should focus debate on our agricultural industry, minimum wage, and immigration reform. As opposed to agruing about whether long lost jobs will comeback we should focus on technology, innovation, and infrastructure. Because stupid as Trump's solutions are, and they are breath takenly stupid, they're solutions all the same and complaints generally lose out to solutions.

 

*I am not implying you are complaining. Rather my post is meant broadly (pundits, bloggers, journalist, etc).

[John Cuthber]

But they took our jobs; even the ones I didn't want...

They took our jobs while simultaneously claiming unemployment benefit!

[iNow]

My initial reaction to the Scott Adams video was "Hey, let's start the 'Carpetbagger Don' meme to spoil his base in the racist South!"

 

I shouldn't be stooping to stupid. Oooh, there's the meme. "Don't Stupe!"

It has to be simpler and get to the heart of his appeal.

 

In much the same way he did with:

Low Energy Bush

Lyin' Ted

Crooked Hillary...

 

Maher is trying for "Whiny little bitch Trump," but while accurate given his thin skin, I'm not really feeling that one.

 

I'm thinking "Total Fraud Trump" and/or "Precious Little Donald" do better and engages his supporters where we need to.

[dimreepr]

We all grew up learning that one shouldn't criticize less they have a better idea. That solutions are better than complaints. Trump does a great job turning all his critics into complainers who point out his stupidity and run out of time before presenting any solutions. At the same time he hides his complaints inside of nebulous solutions that mean something different each time he states them.

 

Will we build a wall on the southern border and would it be successful if we did; of course not. That said building a wall is a proposed solution that really appeals to the low information voters Trump has all worked up. Simply pointing out (complaining) that the wall wouldn't work, is racist, would be expensive, would hurt the economy, and etc offers no solution and thus can be ignored as criticism from haters. Trump is full of impratical solutions. We cannot allow ourselves to constantly be suckered into combating his solutions merely with complaints about those solutions because that is what he wants. Daily tit for tats rather than real policy discussion.

 

Instead of complaining about the excessive media coverage we should focus debate on the equal time and solutions like the fairness doctrine, campaign reform, public media, and etc. Rather than laughing at the wall proposal we should focus debate on our agricultural industry, minimum wage, and immigration reform. As opposed to agruing about whether long lost jobs will comeback we should focus on technology, innovation, and infrastructure. Because stupid as Trump's solutions are, and they are breath takenly stupid, they're solutions all the same and complaints generally lose out to solutions.

 

*I am not implying you are complaining. Rather my post is meant broadly (pundits, bloggers, journalist, etc).

 

 

 

Hmmm... That sounds ALOT like our Brexit debate... The unknown described as knowledge whilst the known is described as bullshit.

They took our jobs while simultaneously claiming unemployment benefit

 

 

You've gotta admit, that's a neat trick.

[Delta1212]

Thin-Skin Donald seems like it would really cut to the core of his biggest and most effective weakness.

[Ten oz]

Name calling is something Trump brought to the fight. It is his weapon of choice. No beating him at it. Losing strategy to try. Sanders appeal is that he is right on the issues. That should be the approach; being right about stuff. Leave the lowbrow shtick to Trump.

[StringJunky]

 

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

[Delta1212]

Name calling is something Trump brought to the fight. It is his weapon of choice. No beating him at it. Losing strategy to try. Sanders appeal is that he is right on the issues. That should be the approach; being right about stuff. Leave the lowbrow shtick to Trump.

And what does the fact that Trump won his primary and Sanders didn't win his tell you about the effectiveness of those respective strategies, unfortunately?

[Ten oz]

And what does the fact that Trump won his primary and Sanders didn't win his tell you about the effectiveness of those respective strategies, unfortunately?

Not much. In this country more people identify as Democrat than Republican and Sanders not only polls as much more likable than Trump but crushes Trump in head to head polling. The GOP primary and the general election are very different things and Hillary should be (probably will be) mindful of that.

[iNow]

Sanders not only polls as much more likable than Trump but crushes Trump in head to head polling.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-donald/

Sanders said, "Right now, in every major poll, national poll and statewide poll done in the last month, six weeks, we are defeating Trump often by big numbers, and always at a larger margin than Secretary Clinton is."

 

On the numbers, Sanders is correct: In the past six weeks’ worth of polls, Sanders fares 6 points better against Trump than Clinton does, and he beats Trump by double digits on average. Still, polling experts caution that polls this far away from Election Day are not entirely reliable, and they add that Sanders hasn’t been exposed to the same degree of negative attacks as Clinton has.

For context.

[waitforufo]

Not much. In this country more people identify as Democrat than Republican and Sanders not only polls as much more likable than Trump but crushes Trump in head to head polling.

The people have known Hillary for a long time. They don't like her. She is not a likable. Bernie, for most people, is an unknown. His negatives, if he has them, won't come out until the general election, if he somehow beats Hillary. Bernie beating Hillary is very unlikely.

[Raider5678]

It's amazing how often this very subjective objection overrides the objective goals of job creation, immigration, and improving the economy overall.

Ok, I'm confused. Please explain.

 

 

Will we build a wall on the southern border and would it be successful if we did; of course not. That said building a wall is a proposed solution that really appeals to the low information voters Trump has all worked up. Simply pointing out (complaining) that the wall wouldn't work, is racist, would be expensive, would hurt the economy, and etc offers no solution and thus can be ignored as criticism from haters. Trump is full of impratical solutions. We cannot allow ourselves to constantly be suckered into combating his solutions merely with complaints about those solutions because that is what he wants. Daily tit for tats rather than real policy discussion.

Speaking of complainers, what if we just grew bamboo,and thorn bushes about a mile wide? Easier to patrol then a wall. Bamboo can grow a foot a day, thorn bushes are quite tricky to trim, remove, or make a path through. And I'm speaking from experience, I work on a farm.

 

 

One could simply not vote. But saying one would vote for someone means you have to be agreeing with and supporting at least some of the positions of the candidate.

 

 

It's pretty lame to critique one candidate and give a pass to another who is exhibiting the same behavior, but at an even worse level (by a lot, in this case). It's just rationalization.

 

 

Why is talking to an immigrant and saying you would try to get him/her citizenship a bad thing?

And you are mischaracterizing the discussion. "Build a wall" is not an issue of "immigration in large proportions". Net immigration from Mexico is less than zero: more immigrants have left than have come into this country. (2009-2014: -140,000)http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

So that's just a BS excuse. It's not why he's being accurately labeled a racist. It's because of all the racist things he's been saying.

How about this, currently I would rather Donald Trump then the other two. If I don't vote, its one less vote for trump. This is figurative by the way, I cant vote.

 

 

Also, I'm not giving a pass to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that either way is still bad, even if one is better then the other.

 

The immigrant was an illegall immigrant. Also, it seems I have phrased something wrong. I don't mind immigration, I'm against illegal immigration. So it IS the law. They did the math, and came out with the proper number of immigrants we could handle annually without ruining us, and I trust whoever did the math. But I think you should still have to go through the immigration process before your allowed in.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Am I the idiot?