The 2016 US American Election Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hyperbolic predictions of doom have unfortunately been a part of political campaigning for as long as politics have existed. At least as far back as Ancient Rome.

Of course, the problem is not improved by people who want to tone down the rhetoric regardless of whether or not it's accurate.

Trump pretty obviously is racist, misogynist and possibly unhinged to the point of being genuinely dangerous. Sometimes those things are not hyperbole.

"Fascist" on the other hand does not IMO describe him. (It's one of those words that I feel Americans almost never use correctly. Then again it's a mostly European political movement, you luckily haven't really had that much literal fascism in your local politics.)

This is a good point. North American politics have not yet reached the depravity of European politics. Man, you guys have some messed up stuff going on over there.

[photon]

I like the idea of deciding the president by having them do the Kobayashi Maru

Really president should be picked by lottery from a group of people that tried to avoid the lottery.

[FlamesAddiction]

There are different versions of fascism. For example, German and Italian fascism were quite different from each other and from South American juntas. Even historians debate exactly what combination of characteristics are needed to be fascist.

Trump isn't a fascist in the traditional sense, in that he isn't interested in the national socialism aspect (i.e. isn't trying to combat rampant individualism to better "the nation") or overtly authoritarian (most fascists want a stronger government), but he certainly has elements of fascism in the ideas he spews (ethnic nationalism and policing). I doubt it is conscious, but it's there. It could very easily be an American version of fascism.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, if you read that all the way through, it never calls into question whether or not he went to Wharton, just that he was probably an average student who kept to himself.

And if you pay attention to the article it clearly states Donald was granted admission as a favor by a friendly admissions officer. He transferred in for his last two years after spending two years at Fordham, which is a liberal arts school.

On the relevance of IQ and success at SAT or LSAT examines, there really is none. Those entrance exams are all aptitude tests, not measures of intelligence, reasoning ability, or even general intelligence. There are many tools to measure IQ, but specific aptitude tests are not one of them. I would also add that EQ comes into play when discussing politicians and successful business men. If you are high functioning on the EQ scale, you can get by with limited intelligence. I think Trump is someone with an exceptionally high EQ, but a middling IQ. People with high IQs tend to challenge themselves and expand their understanding of the world around them. People with high EQs tend to rely heavily on their people skills and ability to build relationships to limit their need to know more about the world around them. People with high EQs tend to surround themselves with people that know and can do things they can't. To me it is very obvious which one Trump is and which one he is not. Just some food for thought.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a good point. North American politics have not yet reached the depravity of European politics. Man, you guys have some messed up stuff going on over there.

Mostly I just see it as a different kind of mess.

I feel democracies all over need a movement that actively wants to study and learn from other political systems and pick the best parts. Most countries haven't seen significant development in this regard in decades.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There are different versions of fascism. For example, German and Italian fascism were quite different from each other and from South American juntas. Even historians debate exactly what combination of characteristics are needed to be fascist.

Certainly.

Trump isn't a fascist in the traditional sense, in that he isn't interested in the social nationalism aspect (i.e. isn't trying to combat rampant individualism to better "the nation") or overtly authoritarian (most fascists want a stronger government), but he certainly has elements of fascism in the ideas he spews (ethnic nationalism and policing). I doubt it is conscious, but it's there. It could very easily be an American version of fascism.

Well, ultimately words exist to serve as tools for communication, so who am I to oppose calling Trump a fascist. But mostly I feel that any such term would require that he actually had some kind of consistent ideology, which he pretty clearly doesn't.

Mostly I'd just call him a high-functioning wacko (I think he pretty obviously regurarly displays manic behavior for example), who is not a danger to others unless you give him too much power or responsibility.

Fascists tend to practice or support things such as street violence against political opposition, journalists and ethnic minorities, and they're dangerous no matter where they are in the society. Trump is mostly harmless as long as he's not in politics.

[nik-]

Fascism is kind of difficult to even consistently define, so using it to disparage someone is kind of extreme.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So it appears the Trump campaign is really going to start trying to push the Bill Clinton stuff. I suspect it's a distraction tactic so we're not talking about him paying $0 in tax or his awful debate performance, at the same time with the misogynists and serial cheaters in Trump's team, maybe they think this is legitimately a good approach. It's not, but they're kind of morons so yeah.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by nik-

Fascism is kind of difficult to even consistently define, so using it to disparage someone is kind of extreme.

Trump's camp lives off this stuff too:

Republican? Kinda, let's discuss.
Conservative? In some ways, but not others.
Racist? Dunno, let's look at definitions and argue about it.
Bigot? Could be, but maybe not.
Fascist? Let's discuss the history of various political movements...

Just look at how gleeful ole Buster was arguing about the definition of racist in the previous thread.

Trump has made a campaign out of no ideas and no competence and crazy talk. At this point, he is his own label and brand and ideology: Trumpism really is a thing.

But I do think that diving down any rhetorical rabbit hole in this campaign is a win for Trump.

[Swift]

Man, who are these dirtbags?

For second Trump son Eric Trump, the moment of Trump’s not bringing up Monica Lewinsky was more than a moment of restraint. It was a moment of pride that will forever live in Eric Trump’s heart, he told an Iowa radio host in an interview snagged by BuzzFeed:
“He could have just crushed her on that last question, you know, you would have probably hurt a family if he did and um, I don’t know, I uh, I think that took a lot of courage in so many regards,” Eric Trump said.

“And that was a big moment for me and probably will actually become — my life and this campaign — and probably will be something I’ll always remember.”

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So it appears the Trump campaign is really going to start trying to push the Bill Clinton stuff. I suspect it's a distraction tactic so we're not talking about him paying $0 in tax or his awful debate performance, at the same time with the misogynists and serial cheaters in Trump's team, maybe they think this is legitimately a good approach. It's not, but they're kind of morons so yeah.

The simple response to that line of attack is to point out that a serial philanderer is pointing out the transgressions of another? Pot meet kettle. Maybe Mr. trump would like to explain how he is being sued for raping a 13 year old girl? Mr. Trump can them begin to explain away his relationship with serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This is a subject that Trump and his cronies should really stay away from. Their attempts to deflect could make things worse for the Great Pumpkin.

[bob-loblaw]

The Donald Trump Sandwich goes global...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...h-goes-global/

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ducay

See this is where so much of the MSM and his detractors are getting it wrong. They're looking at what he says, how he acts, and comparing him to a "typical" republican candidate.

As we've all seen, any one outrageous thing that would have brought down a "typical" candidate, has only made him more popular. His supporters love him for that. He is anti-establishment, anti-PC, anti-a lot of things that average Americans hate. Remember, we're looking at things from liberal, progressive Canada.

That said, the people who are ardently against him probably have only based the majority of their hatred on what the media keeps pushing (racist, bigot, etc). Look for specific examples of racism and you'll probably come up short. (protip: islam isn't a race). People don't hate him for things like his cutting comments against women, for example, because he is just being Donald. They are tired of everyone being too scared to say what they think.

I'm okay with either candidate, Hillary will be much better for my portfolio here in Canada with her insane take on O&G. While Trump will get pipelines built, Clinton nuking US O&G exploration will be great for us here. As much fun as Trump would be, I'd prefer real dollars in my pocket over that.

People always say stuff like this, but it's demonstrably not true. Acting like a jackass and blatantly lying might fire up his base, but he'll never come close to winning the election if all he gets is support from his base. The people who he needs to be able to attract if he hopes to win are people that are just as likely to vote for Clinton. Suggesting that his outrageousness is increasing his popularity demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what's going on. His lowest points in this election so far have come as a result of him putting his foot in his mouth, and I suspect his debate performance will hurt his numbers in the coming days.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Man, who are these dirtbags?

"It took courage for my dad to not go full 12 year old" - legitimate comment from the 2016 election campaign. It's so sad it's come to this point.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

And if you pay attention to the article it clearly states Donald was granted admission as a favor by a friendly admissions officer. He transferred in for his last two years after spending two years at Fordham, which is a liberal arts school.

On the relevance of IQ and success at SAT or LSAT examines, there really is none. Those entrance exams are all aptitude tests, not measures of intelligence, reasoning ability, or even general intelligence. There are many tools to measure IQ, but specific aptitude tests are not one of them. I would also add that EQ comes into play when discussing politicians and successful business men. If you are high functioning on the EQ scale, you can get by with limited intelligence. I think Trump is someone with an exceptionally high EQ, but a middling IQ. People with high IQs tend to challenge themselves and expand their understanding of the world around them. People with high EQs tend to rely heavily on their people skills and ability to build relationships to limit their need to know more about the world around them. People with high EQs tend to surround themselves with people that know and can do things they can't. To me it is very obvious which one Trump is and which one he is not. Just some food for thought.

Well, if you read all of my responses, you would have seen that I mentioned that there are really only a few reputable intelligence tests. All of them must be administered one on one by a licensed professional psychologist, and the results are kept as very close secrets.

I think you are on to something here regarding his personality traits versus his intelligence. It is impossible to know someone's intelligence through media soundbites. I would say that he doesn't seem to have exceptionally high verbal intelligence given his speaking style, but even that is hard to tell as most candidates are so coached on public speaking that all you are really hearing is the consultant's voice.

Trump has had a lot of business ventures across a variety of fields. He also tends to dominate conversations, which can be a sign of high IQ.

However, he also tends to overrate his skill set, which is a sign of the opposite. So very hard to say, and probably irrelevant to the race.

I should reiterate that I believe you are correct to say that some combination of intelligence and social environment is essential to being a presidential candidate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

The simple response to that line of attack is to point out that a serial philanderer is pointing out the transgressions of another? Pot meet kettle. Maybe Mr. trump would like to explain how he is being sued for raping a 13 year old girl? Mr. Trump can them begin to explain away his relationship with serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This is a subject that Trump and his cronies should really stay away from. Their attempts to deflect could make things worse for the Great Pumpkin.

Problem is Bill Clinton has also been to Sex Slave Island.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Gozer

There is an interesting proposal to have a "stress-test" replace debates.
Candidates assume the role of President for a dramatized crises, and their reactions, priorities, and decisions are tested.

Kobayashi Maru, I like it

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Problem is Bill Clinton has also been to Sex Slave Island.

True, but is Clinton being sued by someone who was a 13 years old at the time? Also, Trump has settled two other suits against him for sexual assault and has a long list of complaints against him, including employees. Clinton's record isn't clean by any stretch of the imagination, but if Trump came at my campaign with stuff like that I'd air his dirty laundry out like crazy. Trump's background is much sketchier, and that says something.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The issue for bringing it up isn't Bill Clinton, it's how Trump will almost certainly blame Hillary for it, or something to that effect. And if he does the election is over right there, as the women's vote is permanently gone and never coming back.

[bob-loblaw]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The issue for bringing it up isn't Bill Clinton, it's how Trump will almost certainly blame Hillary for it, or something to that effect. And if he does the election is over right there, as the women's vote is permanently gone and never coming back.

This is exactly why I want him to bring it up. Him and his hair will be going down in flames.