Personally, I wouldn’t feel any real concern about Trump himself. I’d feel some concern about why deceitful, hateful, utter bullshit statements work on some significant percentage of the population, but even that in moderation.
Starving Artist, Hilary made $100,000 in her first year in Arkansas trading cattle futures (from an initial investment of $1,000). Does that make her a “genius” in your view?
He’s got a blind spot for Trump. I get it. He’s getting all of his data from Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, which he’s brought up several times. The fact that the book is an autobiography written by (well written for, as the author is actually Tony Schwartz) a man who is notorious for being, shall we say, a tad self aggrandizing notwithstanding.
How many speeches has he given about Egyptology? The pyramid theory was a throwaway line in a speech years ago. Yet people are treating it like it invalidates his running one of the best neurosurgery departments in one of the best hospitals in the world. Being smart and accomplished does not mean you are immune from believing silly things or that you should be president, but it does mean that you should not be dismissed as a dolt.
Hillary Clinton is a smart and accomplished person, not in the same league as Carson, but plenty smart enough to be president. Yet, at one point she was dumb enough to believe that Bill would not cheat on her and that she could speak to the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. Do those wacky beliefs disqualify her from the presidency or should we look at her actual record and beliefs?
They absolutely would disqualify her if she still managed to believe that Bill Clinton did not have an affair despite all evidence to the contrary.
Your Eleanor Roosevelt line, admittedly, I had to look up, but it turns out when I did it makes you look like you’re intentionally being dishonest. She did not believe that she was literally talking to a ghost, she said she imagined conversations as a therapeutic release, which every single person on Earth has likely done.
I don’t suppose you’d like to try to back that up with evidence? I mean, you cannot, but I’d be interested in seeing you try.
When it was just a throwaway line in a speech, I didn’t think it merited much attention. But instead of explaining that it was a metaphor or taken out of context or whatever, Carson actually stood by his “theory” when questioned about it after the video went public. At that point, it became fair to judge him based on it.
She went on tv to ascribe the Lewinsky allegations as part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Either she believed Bill or she was lying and intentionally smearing innocent people. I like to think enough of her that she did that because she believed Bill even after all of the previous affairs.
She participated in the “seances” with a new age quack who was a trusted advisor. Maybe I am one of the few people on earth who has never had conversations with dead people so they could give me advice so it seems weird to me.
I believe it is fair to judge him based on it too, just not that it is the only thing we should judge him on. What did Lincoln think about the pyramids or FDR? No one knows and no one cares. I have not read the interview where he stood by it so I am not able to judge that part. I think it is better a judge the man by his incredible accomplishments and not odd theories of ancient societies.
In her memoir, she described herself as dumbfounded, heartbroken, and outraged. She said" “Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him,” she wrote. “‘What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?’”"
That sounds like someone who expected Bill Clinton to be faithful to her.
She was a wife who trusted her husband until the evidence indicated he was lying. She doesn’t still believe that he didn’t cheat on her.
The rest of your post regarding seances requires a citation.
Never mind. I found it.
" Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Seances” were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.
But in an interview here at her Rockland County home today, Dr. Houston said Mrs. Clinton never made any seance-like effort to contact the spirits of Mrs. Roosevelt or Gandhi but simply engaged in an intellectual role-playing exercise to tackle a problem the First Lady was having with her book about children, “It Takes a Village.”
“We were using an imaginative exercise to force her ideas, to think about how Eleanor would have responded to a particular problem,” Dr. Houston said. “I have never been to a seance.”
Bolding mine. You’re reaching.
I’ve had conversations in my mind with my scientific heroes many times. This is quite normal. Interpreting this as a “seance” is dumb or intentionally misleading.
I hate that I’m defending Hillary Clinton who I don’t particularly like.
:shrug: I suppose, if you’re predisposed to see it that way, you can certainly see it that way.
To me it sounds like someone angry at being lied to. But I’m predisposed to believe that she knew all about his philandering from day one.
Also:
This.
.
Okay, okay, I’ll admit it! Hillary grew up three towns down Northwest Highway, but in geographical terms that’s down the block.
Starving Artist, you are the biggest Trump fan I have come across. Maybe I need to get out more though. I agree that Trump is an effective guy, but I don’t know if I’d call him a genius. OTOH, Lobohan goes too far in the other direction, though he isn’t all wrong either.
Here’s what I see about Trump: even if the index-fund argument is true, Trump leveraged his wealth into another American currency: celebrity. I know he is a pretty cheesy/avuncular celebrity, but most celebrities are pretty cheesy, yet they are still celebrities. It is a pretty good trick whether you are rich, poor, pretty or you name it (though rich is surely a big help). I can only speculate about how many rich nobodies there are out there, but even among the very wealthy, few are as big of celebrities as Trump. Especially now.
Ok. But what are his motives, really? Sometimes I wonder if he is a double-agent, out to sabotage the GOP’s chance for the White House. Sometimes I wonder if he is simply an evil, dangerous asshole. Sometimes I wonder if this is truly a display of clever and cunning realpolitik.
The OP asked: why? One argument that presented itself to me is that the professional politicians have too many standards to pander to the GOP base they have created. Trump, for his own reasons, will pander to them with relish, and he is winning. What kind of victory is that though?
Another argument that presented itself to me is that the GOP base has been heavily propagandized to hate “liberals”, which is supposed to be synonymous with “Democrats” or, depending, anyone who doesn’t agree with hard-right views. So, even if the Democratic party promotes positions that the GOP base actually agrees with, they can’t hear the message because it is basically coming from behind enemy lines.
In this post I link to an article describing the effects of plutocracy in Illinois: the public is deeply dissatisfied with their leaders, who are obsessed with the policy positions of the rich instead of the policy positions of the public. The GOP literally will not enact the GOP base’s agenda!
But the propagandistic thing is to always shift the blame, and blame has been shifted to “political insiders”. They are the reason the minimum wage isn’t raised, why nothing gets passed in Congress! Maybe the argument can be extended to the point that libruls are to blame. Vote 'em out!
And so lawyers and professional politicians are out of favor with the base, it must be an outsider who accomplishes their policy goals. Some of which are racist, some of which are stupid. The professionals cannot pander to this base, but Trump, thanks to his privilege and his wealth, is not subject to the same restrictions, and can make the kinds of odious promises it takes to seize this Nomination.
Ok. What currency has Sanders leveraged his life into? Integrity. He has been in the Senate for decades, promoting basically the same thing the whole time. He isn’t going to change his tune now. If you like what you hear, that is what you will get if he is elected.
Hillary? Competence. Not that Sanders or Trump lack it, but she’s got quite a resume. Why Hillary? Because she is the most powerful Democrat of all right now, I guess. It is tough to fight, though in the end Sanders is really the most trustworthy of the bunch.
I’d say that any billionaire or even someone with a couple hundred million could become a celebrity if they want to. Most billionaires don’t especially want to be celebrities, because of all the extra hassles that causes in day to day life. Trump’s business skill lies solely in his unshakeable confidence in himself, he’s a salesman who can get investors onboard because of his name, larger than life persona and confidence.
He has a track record of taking money for putting his name on projects and then walking away with his bags full of cash when they fail.
Well, I don’t think just anyone can become a celebrity- some people just aren’t interesting. But whatever. My point is that the GOP Cannot make the election about issues because they intend to enact the billionaire agenda, which their base doesn’t support. So we get the guy who makes the biggest spectacle, and Trump is quite good at that.
Plus, the last election was largely Hope v. Fear. Fear lost, but Hate hasn’t been tried. Trump will go there, other candidates won’t.
T’was a time when “avuncular” was a compliment. Then people started remembering their own uncles. Your use of it as “blowhard asswipe” is more accurate.
Thanks! It’s nice to have one’s word usage appreciated. 