How does it sum up the black people who support Trump? It couldn’t be because the current president is selling them out to illegal immigrants taking their jobs. That would be too obvious.
The Democratic party is finding out the hard way they don’t own the black vote.
AA comes from slavery not skin color. AA is a cultural slave decedent and not someone from Africa. Yes slaves were black people from Africa but someone immigrating today from an African nation is not an African American. He’s tried to portray himself as someone who came from a disadvantaged background (the hardest end of that metric being the hood).
'Cause Thurgood Marshall notwithstanding, no ethnically black American ever went to law school.
One more try.
Lots of black people are not from the hood. Many people whose great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents were slaves are leading middle-class lives. Lots of people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not black, and have no connection to slavery. In other words, claiming that he was from a disadvantaged background is a completely different story from claiming to be black, regardless of the merits of either claim.
In my first reply to you I addressed the difference between African-Americans and post-slavery immigrants from Africa; I don’t know if my writing is poor, or your reading comprehension, but you seem to be ignoring the difference between ethnically black (hint: culture, what people do) and racially black (hint: appearance, what other people think they are regardless of what they do).
I’ve been thinking about this a bit. There is something evolving within the GOP. It’s origins are the politics of hate espoused by Fox News/talk radio and partially given form by the Tea Party movement (aka The Koch brothers). And note that those two groups aren’t in complete alignment.
But …
All this anger is very hard to control. It tends to quickly take off in its own direction. Change its position on issues. Etc.
Trump is the seed around which this anger is condensing. And Fox and the Kochs aren’t going to able to control it as much as they hoped.
Emphasis added.
That last part?
Bulls-eye.
Would it be possible to elaborate on this more?
I have listened to some of Trump’s speeches out of curiosity, they do not seem particularly angry. The basic soundbites you hear on the news seem to create a different picture than the more in depth answers he gives. I feel as if he throws out something bombastic and inflammatory that he knows will get the media in a frenzy because they will turn it into an inaccurate soundbite which he will then counter. To me, this is a subtly different strategy than I am familiar with as someone who generally pays little attention to politics.
Also, how is his anger different from the general anger that is always in politics; on the left and the right?
Just to clarify, I am not saying these things to endorse Trump personally, I just am interested in having a polite discussion about the issue.
This doesn’t rhyme, but it really should.
Holy shit, dude. Even **Construct **would think this post crossed the line.
The last part of it anyway. The first part was actually stated by some African-American talking heads, explaining why they were supporting Hillary Clinton back when African-American voters hadn’t yet gotten on the Obama train. His experience was substantially different from your average African-American experience. Now Ben Carson, that’s a guy who lived it for real.
Here’s a Time article about Obama’s identity weakness:
Not sure why you feel the need to walk down this road. My position was stated so you could understand it. Obama wasn’t raised culturally as an African American. He chose this to be his persona. He carefully constructed an image of himself right down to his early autobiography.
All of this strays from the topic. People are not happy with the last 7 years. It clearly showed in the polls when both houses flipped dramatically. As head of his party he gets the credit for this.
Unlike the other Republicans Trump recognized why the houses flipped and how unhappy voters from both parties are with their own parties. This is why he’s getting positive polling results. I can’t emphasis enough how fed up people are with their own parties. He’s pulling in large crowds despite being the most undiplomatic person ever to enter politics in my lifetime.
Because “Obama wasn’t raised culturally as an African American” (edit: which is true) means something different from “Obama isn’t black” (edit: which isn’t true).
Wow. What the hell is wrong with you?
Incidentally, IMHO is sometimes referred to as “GD lite”. You can expect to be challenged. I opine this is good.
I think Trump is mouthing off on issues that he never bothered to be briefed on. If you read his remarks, you can see a lot of free association and little coherence. If anything, a one or two sentence sound bite puts Trump in a more favorable light. In fact I challenge anybody to show me 5 consecutive sentences of Trump’s that are not laughably ignorant.
Trump’s appeal derives from his time at Celebrity Apprentice. Contestants respectfully called him Mr. Trump. He demands accountability and fires those who don’t cut it. That’s a lot like a Hollywood President acts or postures. But it really has little to do with the actual job that somebody will win in Nov 2016. That one involves a lot of internal and external diplomacy.
There’s also a schism between a broad swathe of the Republican electorate who like social security and medicare, but can be appealed to on cultural issues. Traditionally, the GOP’s funders support somebody who will cut upper level tax rates and while providing pleasing rhetoric for the base. But Trump is self-funded, so he cam simply espouse nativist rhetoric while avoiding talk of “Entitlement reform”, which is a code word for cutting social security and medicare. No need to get the plutocrat funders involved. Anyway, when Jeb Bush says that Trump isn’t a true conservative, such an argument falls on deaf ears. We’ll see what happens when the attacks on Trump ramp up in October and November.
I agree that challenging is good. I also believe that being straightforward with posters about what I am interested in responding to is also good, then there is no guessing involved, and no ignore lists are needed.
Your response challenges what I say in a way that is worth reading - there is a massive difference between your response and the one you are referring to. For example you provide specific sites and analysis and you manage to do it without needlessly inflammatory language. It’s as simple as that.
Anyhow, the article you posted seems to me to show obvious bias. If they want to make a real case for Donald Trump having ADHD they fell far short by any measure I know of. One conversation does not a worthwhile diagnosis make. In general, I have a low opinion of using amateur psychology to analyze anything. I know that was pedantic of me, but I just fell as if it is a poor article and analysis. They are trying to get a lot of mileage out of the fact that he was not being specific about one thing - I think you could apply the same analysis to any politician and come to the same ADHD conclusion.
None of what I am saying, however, does anything to disprove your assertion that Trump is mouthing off without being properly briefed.
So there’s an underserved demographic that Trump appeals to. But I don’t want to mince words: many of them are ignoramuses. The idea that sensible policy is something you can dream up without study or expertise is just pride and folly. If I want brain surgery, I’d visit Ben Carson. If I want my car fixed, I hire an auto mechanic. To think that the Presidency is one of the rare jobs that doesn’t require special knowledge or background is crazy.
I blame Fox News, talk radio and yeah TV news. At best, it’s all assert-assert-assert. Very little weighing of evidence. It’s not surprising that those who get their information from such sources both have a higher than average self perception of their knowledge and a lower than average test scores when asked simple factual questions about the news. So when I say ignoramus, I’m not just pitching an insult: I am characterizing a phenomenon.
Cite: The outsider delusion and the fallacy of ‘getting things done’
Crosspost:
I’m pretty sure the author was speaking figuratively about ADHD. The argument isn’t really, “Trump has ADHD, so he’s unqualified.” Firstly, I’m not sure ADHD is a disqualification. Secondly no diagnosis was presented. It was really just a colloquial characterization of Trump’s current public shtick.
The point I was making with the article though was that Trump’s speech is conceptually incoherent. Drum emphasized that he wasn’t cherry picking lines. But for the purposes of demonstrating the point, I’ll cherry pick a sentence from Trump that I used in another thread. It’s a word salad which makes no substantive argument.
[QUOTE=Donald Trump]
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
[/QUOTE]
If you want a contrast, you can see it with Hillary’s workmanlike speeches here and here. They are rather old school. They lack the flashy insults. But as you read them, they make a coherent argument. You may not agree with that argument. But it is there. With Trump you have a claim, followed by chains of one sentence brags about his background.
Do you have any statistics, analysis, polls to fortify these assertions? Exactly how do you define ignoramus?
It may have been a nice speech, but it is difficult for many people to find it to be genuine and believable considering her track record. To me, using someones track record as a means of evaluation is a wise thing to do.
This is not to say I think Trump is any better than Hillary - it is all just politics as usual to me. I am just explaining why your argument does not sway me one way or the other. On the one hand you have an “outsider” who will “shake things up” vs. an insider who is bemoaning the state of affairs that she, and especially her husband, played a huge part in creating. Six of one, half a dizen of the other IMHO.
An ignorant person who -critically- is unaware of their ignorance, especially an ignorant blowhard.
Turns out I messed up though. I see the dictionary says that an ingnoramus is merely a stupid or ignorant person, which isn’t what I was trying to get at. I was ignorant, sadly and ironically. 
Actually I had a few in mind.
One example shows Fox News viewers doing worse on news questions: “Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”
The other example is older: Al Franken reported a study indicating that listeners to Rush Limbaugh were simultaniously among the least informed members of the body politic and most confident of their knowledge.
But I didn’t say it was a nice speech. I simply googled for 2 speeches Hilary made. I could have chosen any other of the Democratic Presidential candidates. I’m just saying that their arguments are coherent and informed. I’m setting the bar pretty low.
Though frankly, the fact that your link shows that incarceration shot up from 1980-2008 doesn’t overwhelm me. Nor does relying on decisions made by her husband 20 years ago. Times change. Crime was a lot higher back then. We know more about the effects of lead on crime and the abatement of the same.
Or to paraphrase Paul Samuelson: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
I was looking for more of a quantitative answer regarding the definition of ignoramus. Also, what portion of the Trump supporters are Fox news viewers compared to the general public?
Yet why is almost any politician who speaks well enough despite no executive experience considered qualified for the Presidency?
Is the issue Trump or Carson’s experience, or the fact that they aren’t talented orators, or that they didn’t “Pay their dues” by doing a couple years in the Senate first?