Why are you asking this question of me when I was just going with the premise of the guy I was responding to?
I mean, not that I disagree with him or anything (and your analysis here is glib and specious) but your question is properly directed elsewhere.
I challenge you to give a consistent Trump position on practically anything. He sure as hell didn’t give one in his “presidential” foreign policy speech. Saying what they want to hear is not a position, by the way. Neither is him saying 1 + 1 = 3 after he finishes negotiating with mathematics.
I posted this about half a dozen times but:
This is from 1987: nine years before I was born, when Reagan was in the White House, and when the Soviet Union still existed.
Those of us who were critical of your thesis pointed out that this was not likely. The man is hated. Possibly if all things were equal the Republican brass might have held their nose and went for Cruz but all things were never going to be equal and there was zero chance that GOP leadership was going to end-around a guy who got a plurality of support to a majority for someone like Cruz.
Simply put there was a risk-reward for the Republican party in pushing Trump away as the nominee in favor of anyone, but the reward of Cruz was not worth the risks.
He hasn’t changed a bit since before your thesis in that regard so again, this isn’t a fly that messed up your ointment as much as something you overlooked at the time.
The Republican base is many things. Possessing “higher intelligence” and being “rational” are not the qualities I would say are among them.
I think Hillary should win in a landslide precisely because any GOP candidate would have an uphill battle, and Trump is far too polarizing to get much crossover support. It’s possible that some Bernie supporters will vote Green, but it’s also possible that some Republicans will vote Libertarian.
I welcome you to write a thesis on Trump’s inevitability and Clinton’s failure if only because, well, look how well it turned out the first time! 
To be fair, practically all of them were not getting it wrong by the time this OP came around. The OP was made in March, only two months ago, and by then most people were wondering whether it was even possible at that point to derail Trump, not how it was inevitable that he would be derailed.
I think that had little to do with it. Ask Nate Silver and he’ll point out that demographics trumps momentum in political races. The northeast was always going to be huge for Trump and lousy for Cruz and it just so happened those were the states that were voting next.
When you say that the other Republican candidates are worse than Trump, you have to compare them against some sort of plan Trump has. Saying that the Japanese were taking advantage of us isn’t a plan. I’m not saying you’re wrong - I’m just wondering how you can come to any conclusion based on Trump’s slitheriness.
I was working in Bell Labs back then, and they showed videos of how the Japanese were going to kick our butts all the time. And they did push for quality which American companies were lax about. Then I saw the internals of an IC design from a major Japanese company, and it was really crap. The I felt better.
The conclusion to be drawn is obvious: he has none, and is just dissembling. All evidence points to it, and I’ll trust in Occam’s Razor.
That’s hilarious.
Not sure what you mean.
If you don’t think there’s any reality to the persuasion techniques Adams talks about, you’re simply uninformed. Most of the basic ideas he hits on – thinking past the sale, repetition, subconscious visualization – are well-established psychological principles. The book he cites most often is Cialdini’s Influence, which is one of the the most influential texts in modern marketing.
If you think those techniques work, but suppose modern political campaigns don’t use them to override people’s logical thinking, I’d say you’re naive.
If you think those techniques work, know that modern political campaigns use them, and think it’s hilarious that I was hoping that those techniques wouldn’t enable programmed emotions to override people’s rational minds … well, you’re probably right, and I was the one being naive.
This is goal post shifting. You asked for a position that Trump has been consistent on, Qin provided one. Now you saying it’s all about comparing plans and Trump doesn’t have plans.
To base a firm prediction on one’s own desire that someone else’s prediction doesn’t come to pass is the very definition of idealism.
And idealism is always hilarious.
I wouldn’t call the contention that everyone in the world is taking advantage of us a position. No more than the nearly universal statement that we are the greatest country on earth is. (Which everyone except Trump says.) How does that kind of statement make one better than anyone else?
Ah, I see your point; but that wasn’t my basis, more like my motivation to look into it. I was reading that and seeing the media mostly talking about Trump and Rubio, but I was aware of Cruz’s much better standing with the delegates, and that led me to look into it more closely.
Back when Trump dissed McCain I thought he’d quickly lose in the primary cycle and maybe even be booted out of the GOP. Shows my level of political acumen.
In retrospect, the GOP field was pretty weak. The other 15 guys and one gal were not much of a challenge for The Donald. None of them were as glib and many of them had equally crazy ideas.
Hillary won’t need to say one bad thing about The Donald. His fellow GOPers have done that for her.
Wasn’t it a great feeling when we discovered that our Nipponese “competitors” were every bit as fucked up as us? Our new Japanese owners had to cycle their guys every two months rather than three because they jumped into the American “who gives a shit” attitude even faster than their counterparts back home, who had to wait MONTHS after college to adopt the traditional Japanese management “I have a job for life and I will start drinking myself to death the moment I graduate,” attitude. It was delightful to witness.
NPR’s Morning Edition (Marketplace Morning?) had a story recently about how American Rust Belt towns, like Akron, are redefining themselves as R&D centers and how Asian competitors are scared because they aren’t as good with innovation.
Kaizen!
Sorry to “me too” this point, but I don’t see how such a broadly held idea can be considered a clear ‘position’ in the political sense of this thread.
Typical Trump lies. Japan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries do pay the United States for the troops stationed in their countries and have been all along. Trump’s trying to stir up outrage over an issue that doesn’t exist. No doubt he plans on “fixing” this problem the way he’ll fix unemployment. Once he’s President, he’ll just start using the true figures and claim he solved the problem.
Ixnay on the inxjay.
Ixnay on the elusionday.