ADVERTISEMENT

Ezra Klein says what I think

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,255
6,841
113
I stand second to none in my revulsion for Donald Trump, but this has little to do with his supposed policies -- I don't think Trump has any policies or even any coherent political thoughts. He's a dangerous, erratic, aberrant, and obviously unfit candidate. It's bizarre that a major political party has nominated such a cartoon character. The battle from my perspective isn't between a Democrat and a Republican, but between democracy and a delusional, authoritarian narcissist. Klein:

America’s main political cleavage is between the Democratic and Republican parties. That split has meant different things at different times, but in recent decades it primarily tracks an ideological disagreement: Democrats are the party of liberal policies; Republicans are the party of conservative policies.

But in this year’s presidential election, the difference is more fundamental than that: The Democratic Party is a normal political party that has nominated a normal presidential candidate, and the Republican Party has become an abnormal political party that has nominated an abnormal presidential candidate.

Simply saying that will raise people’s partisan hackles, but it’s not a partisan comment. Republicans know that Donald Trump is not a normal nominee. They know this isn’t what their 2012 convention looked like or how their 2008 convention felt. And while most Republicans fear Democrats keeping the White House enough to unhappily support Trump, it’s worth listening to what they’ve said about him.

Ted Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen."

Rick Perry said Trump’s candidacy was "a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded."

National Review, the flagship journal of American conservatism, said Trump "is a menace to American conservatism."

Rand Paul said Trump is "a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."

A list like this could go on, and on, and on. But here’s the point: These aren’t normal political condemnations. This isn’t normal political language. Republicans know they’ve nominated a dangerous man. They tried to warn their voters in the strongest terms possible that Trump is unqualified, untrustworthy, and amoral.

Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican mayor of New York City, put it simply in a speech endorsing Clinton. "Together, let's elect a sane, competent person," he said. That is what an endorsement sounds like when the choice shifts from left versus right to normal versus abnormal.

There are some differences in politics that transcend ideology. This is one of them. Clinton, say what you will about her, is a normal political candidate who will operate within the normal boundaries of American democracy. Donald Trump is an abnormal political candidate; we have no idea which democratic boundaries he would respect, which conspiracy theories he would believe, which political enemies he would punish, which treaties he would honor.

Trump has already been scolded by his own party for racist comments, for attacks on the judiciary, for undermining the NATO alliance, for inviting foreign governments to meddle in American elections. None of this is okay. None of it is normal. This is not a man with the temperament, the steadiness, or the discipline to be president.

This election puts Republicans in a hard position. Even as the choice in this election is between a normal candidate and an abnormal one, it’s also between a liberal candidate and a, well, conservative-ish one. I don’t doubt Trump would nominate pro-life judges, or that he would resist raising taxes. I understand why so many Republicans have decided to suppress their doubts and support him.

But this is a dangerous game. We are a nation protected by norms, not just by laws. Our political parties should be held to certain standards in terms of the candidates they nominate, the behaviors they accept, the ideas they mainstream. Trump violates those standards. By indulging him, the Republican Party is normalizing him and his behavior, and making itself abnormal.
Anyone who thinks Trump is the lesser of evils is making a category error. Yes, Hillary Clinton is disliked and distrusted. She will appoint liberal Supreme Court justices and pursue mainstream Democratic policies. No Republican would happily embrace that. But Trump is dangerously unfit and has no business being anywhere near the White House. None of us can have any idea what harm he might do. Voting for Hillary may be unpalatable, but voting for Trump is recklessly irresponsible.
 
I stand second to none in my revulsion for Donald Trump, but this has little to do with his supposed policies -- I don't think Trump has any policies or even any coherent political thoughts. He's a dangerous, erratic, aberrant, and obviously unfit candidate. It's bizarre that a major political party has nominated such a cartoon character. The battle from my perspective isn't between a Democrat and a Republican, but between democracy and a delusional, authoritarian narcissist. Klein:

America’s main political cleavage is between the Democratic and Republican parties. That split has meant different things at different times, but in recent decades it primarily tracks an ideological disagreement: Democrats are the party of liberal policies; Republicans are the party of conservative policies.

But in this year’s presidential election, the difference is more fundamental than that: The Democratic Party is a normal political party that has nominated a normal presidential candidate, and the Republican Party has become an abnormal political party that has nominated an abnormal presidential candidate.

Simply saying that will raise people’s partisan hackles, but it’s not a partisan comment. Republicans know that Donald Trump is not a normal nominee. They know this isn’t what their 2012 convention looked like or how their 2008 convention felt. And while most Republicans fear Democrats keeping the White House enough to unhappily support Trump, it’s worth listening to what they’ve said about him.

Ted Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen."

Rick Perry said Trump’s candidacy was "a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded."

National Review, the flagship journal of American conservatism, said Trump "is a menace to American conservatism."

Rand Paul said Trump is "a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."

A list like this could go on, and on, and on. But here’s the point: These aren’t normal political condemnations. This isn’t normal political language. Republicans know they’ve nominated a dangerous man. They tried to warn their voters in the strongest terms possible that Trump is unqualified, untrustworthy, and amoral.

Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican mayor of New York City, put it simply in a speech endorsing Clinton. "Together, let's elect a sane, competent person," he said. That is what an endorsement sounds like when the choice shifts from left versus right to normal versus abnormal.

There are some differences in politics that transcend ideology. This is one of them. Clinton, say what you will about her, is a normal political candidate who will operate within the normal boundaries of American democracy. Donald Trump is an abnormal political candidate; we have no idea which democratic boundaries he would respect, which conspiracy theories he would believe, which political enemies he would punish, which treaties he would honor.

Trump has already been scolded by his own party for racist comments, for attacks on the judiciary, for undermining the NATO alliance, for inviting foreign governments to meddle in American elections. None of this is okay. None of it is normal. This is not a man with the temperament, the steadiness, or the discipline to be president.

This election puts Republicans in a hard position. Even as the choice in this election is between a normal candidate and an abnormal one, it’s also between a liberal candidate and a, well, conservative-ish one. I don’t doubt Trump would nominate pro-life judges, or that he would resist raising taxes. I understand why so many Republicans have decided to suppress their doubts and support him.

But this is a dangerous game. We are a nation protected by norms, not just by laws. Our political parties should be held to certain standards in terms of the candidates they nominate, the behaviors they accept, the ideas they mainstream. Trump violates those standards. By indulging him, the Republican Party is normalizing him and his behavior, and making itself abnormal.
Anyone who thinks Trump is the lesser of evils is making a category error. Yes, Hillary Clinton is disliked and distrusted. She will appoint liberal Supreme Court justices and pursue mainstream Democratic policies. No Republican would happily embrace that. But Trump is dangerously unfit and has no business being anywhere near the White House. None of us can have any idea what harm he might do. Voting for Hillary may be unpalatable, but voting for Trump is recklessly irresponsible.

There is a lot to chew on here

I'll start with the last quoted paragraph. While the GOP is stuck with Trump, I think it is a mistake to think the GOP deliberately chose Trump. Trump won because of delegate allocation rules, primary election rules, and the number of opposing candidates. Trump won because of the selection structure. When it mattered Trump did not win the GOP closed primaries or caucuses. Trump was winning open primary states, with winner take all or winner take most delegates and lord knows who was voting for Trump in those elections. In short, Klein's comment that the GOP normalized Trump is a tad overstated. The GOP politicos, officials, and mainstream would have never picked Trump if they had their way. Trump is just another example of the problems with too much voting.

Second, any suggestion that Clinton is a normal candidate is almost as bad as saying Trump is normal. Her many deliberate exculpatory falsehoods about her email are not normal. Her deliberate falsehoods about her sniper attack in Bosnia and her being named after the mountain climber are not normal. The reporting about her abnormal personal behavior are too frequent to ignore. The only part of Hillary's resume that in anyway supports her candidacy is her time as Senator. Biden would have been a normal and rational choice. It just isn't normal that Hillary charged across the finish line unless we think her sex is the most important thing.

Third, I am not impressed with Klein's criticism of Trump. It takes no effort to aggregate what primary opponents say about Trump and use that as a basis for a blog post. It takes no effort to call Trump a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist racist; and I think all of those criticisms are overstated and are more less true than true. There is no doubt that Trump has been and will be disrespectful in ways and in situations that we don't currently see. That is not a good thing for any POTUS. Whenever I try to think of Trump in favorable terms, I always get back to his mocking Serge Kovaleski. That was absolutely despicable and inexcusable. It dominates my view of the man.

Fourth, Trump has some favorables. I don't see his lack of ideology as a bad thing, it is a good thing. Not being conservative or liberal enough is fine by me. But that shouldn't be mistaken for the notion he has no ideas. Trump has said a few things during the campaign that shows me he is the only candidate who understands the job of Chief Executive. He is decisive. He has proven he can be a very effective executive and can accomplish things.

Finally, the system is rigged. I was somewhat familiar with Gary Johnson's term in office in New Mexico. He was very good. William Weld is a solid guy. The notion that these two will likely be excluded from the presidential debates is a shame and in the long run bad for all of us.
 
There is a lot to chew on here

I'll start with the last quoted paragraph. While the GOP is stuck with Trump, I think it is a mistake to think the GOP deliberately chose Trump. Trump won because of delegate allocation rules, primary election rules, and the number of opposing candidates. Trump won because of the selection structure. When it mattered Trump did not win the GOP closed primaries or caucuses. Trump was winning open primary states, with winner take all or winner take most delegates and lord knows who was voting for Trump in those elections. In short, Klein's comment that the GOP normalized Trump is a tad overstated. The GOP politicos, officials, and mainstream would have never picked Trump if they had their way. Trump is just another example of the problems with too much voting.

Second, any suggestion that Clinton is a normal candidate is almost as bad as saying Trump is normal. Her many deliberate exculpatory falsehoods about her email are not normal. Her deliberate falsehoods about her sniper attack in Bosnia and her being named after the mountain climber are not normal. The reporting about her abnormal personal behavior are too frequent to ignore. The only part of Hillary's resume that in anyway supports her candidacy is her time as Senator. Biden would have been a normal and rational choice. It just isn't normal that Hillary charged across the finish line unless we think her sex is the most important thing.

Third, I am not impressed with Klein's criticism of Trump. It takes no effort to aggregate what primary opponents say about Trump and use that as a basis for a blog post. It takes no effort to call Trump a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist racist; and I think all of those criticisms are overstated and are more less true than true. There is no doubt that Trump has been and will be disrespectful in ways and in situations that we don't currently see. That is not a good thing for any POTUS. Whenever I try to think of Trump in favorable terms, I always get back to his mocking Serge Kovaleski. That was absolutely despicable and inexcusable. It dominates my view of the man.

Fourth, Trump has some favorables. I don't see his lack of ideology as a bad thing, it is a good thing. Not being conservative or liberal enough is fine by me. But that shouldn't be mistaken for the notion he has no ideas. Trump has said a few things during the campaign that shows me he is the only candidate who understands the job of Chief Executive. He is decisive. He has proven he can be a very effective executive and can accomplish things.

Finally, the system is rigged. I was somewhat familiar with Gary Johnson's term in office in New Mexico. He was very good. William Weld is a solid guy. The notion that these two will likely be excluded from the presidential debates is a shame and in the long run bad for all of us.

CoH, don't agree completely, but liked it for the most part. Especially liked the part about how Trump won the nomination while at the same time disagreeing with your the anti-democratic remark about "too much voting". Lots of newly found Republicans who voted for Trump would also disagree as they prefer citizen voting versus allowing candidates to be picked by party leaders even if some are elected legislators.

CoH, I noticed you didn't label Trump a "narcissist" as did some of those quoted in the Klein link. Are you reserving this label as an exclusively Obama trait :rolleyes: ?
 
Actually, I agree with a lot of that, too. I'm still going to vote for him -- mostly because the judiciary has become, by far, the most influential branch of government and the SCOTUS hangs in the balance.

I mean, in Heller, there were 4 justices who disagreed with the notion that the 2nd amendment was an individual right. It seems perfectly obvious to me -- and I'm not even a gun guy. Yet, there they were, coming within one vote of declaring that the right to bear arms was somehow contingent on military service.

And, of course, the other reason the gulf between me and the Democratic Party is wide enough to get me to vote for Trump is everything pertaining to the welfare state. Not only is it fiscally unsustainable, I also think that it encourages irresponsibility and discourages responsibility. I don't think Democrats have ever come to terms with its myriad failures. Rather, they keep selling more of it -- which is understandable, because: (a) its long been their lead product, (b) it usually sells pretty well, and (c) its shortcomings are (perversely) a great motivation for people to demand more.

The welfare state is the quintessential codependent relationship: the people who rely on public assistance of one kind or another depend on it for their daily sustenance, and the politicians who tax others to pay for it and package it for sale on the campaign trail are just as dependent on it for their political well-being. I've long thought that it bears a lot of resemblance to the relationship between drug addicts and drug dealers.

Our society does not need more social dependence, it needs less.

Another part of this are the major middle-class entitlements. I've seen very little honesty from Democrats about the reality of where those programs presently sit -- let alone any sensible ideas on how to put them on solid ground. All I've seen is demagoguery of ideas put forth by the likes of GWB, Paul Ryan, and others. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to agree with approaches like the ones Ryan etal have proposed. But I would like to see them at least work towards compromises.

Honestly, were it not for these two issues, I don't think I'd have much problem voting for Democrats at the federal level. I have other disagreements with them, to be sure. But they pale in comparison to these two.

And, because I think they both bring a lot more to bear for the country's well-being than the risks of a Trump presidency, it's a chance I've decided I'm willing to take. When the established insiders have made such a mess of things, it makes their protestations about the dangers of handing the reins to a reviled outsider fall a bit flat.

Clearly, Trump's ascendency should cause traditional Republican politicians to engage in some deep contemplation and introspection. I think the single biggest driver of it was Republican politicians' fecklessness on immigration policy over the past decade. They've obviously been out of touch with their base on that issue -- and that created a huge window of opportunity for a demagogic opportunist like Trump to exploit.

But perhaps Democratic politicians might also use the occasion to ask why Trump's rise (to this point, anyway) doesn't appear to be translating into a landslide win of historic proportions for them.

It seems like most supporters on both sides of the political establishment (and, believe it or not, I consider myself one) can only gasp in disbelief at Trump's supporters and ask "What in the hell is wrong with you?" Hopefully, at some point, they might also ask "What in the hell is wrong with us?"
 
Actually, I agree with a lot of that, too. I'm still going to vote for him -- mostly because the judiciary has become, by far, the most influential branch of government and the SCOTUS hangs in the balance.

I mean, in Heller, there were 4 justices who disagreed with the notion that the 2nd amendment was an individual right. It seems perfectly obvious to me -- and I'm not even a gun guy. Yet, there they were, coming within one vote of declaring that the right to bear arms was somehow contingent on military service.

And, of course, the other reason the gulf between me and the Democratic Party is wide enough to get me to vote for Trump is everything pertaining to the welfare state. Not only is it fiscally unsustainable, I also think that it encourages irresponsibility and discourages responsibility. I don't think Democrats have ever come to terms with its myriad failures. Rather, they keep selling more of it -- which is understandable, because: (a) its long been their lead product, (b) it usually sells pretty well, and (c) its shortcomings are (perversely) a great motivation for people to demand more.

The welfare state is the quintessential codependent relationship: the people who rely on public assistance of one kind or another depend on it for their daily sustenance, and the politicians who tax others to pay for it and package it for sale on the campaign trail are just as dependent on it for their political well-being. I've long thought that it bears a lot of resemblance to the relationship between drug addicts and drug dealers.

Our society does not need more social dependence, it needs less.

Another part of this are the major middle-class entitlements. I've seen very little honesty from Democrats about the reality of where those programs presently sit -- let alone any sensible ideas on how to put them on solid ground. All I've seen is demagoguery of ideas put forth by the likes of GWB, Paul Ryan, and others. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to agree with approaches like the ones Ryan etal have proposed. But I would like to see them at least work towards compromises.

Honestly, were it not for these two issues, I don't think I'd have much problem voting for Democrats at the federal level. I have other disagreements with them, to be sure. But they pale in comparison to these two.

And, because I think they both bring a lot more to bear for the country's well-being than the risks of a Trump presidency, it's a chance I've decided I'm willing to take. When the established insiders have made such a mess of things, it makes their protestations about the dangers of handing the reins to a reviled outsider fall a bit flat.

Clearly, Trump's ascendency should cause traditional Republican politicians to engage in some deep contemplation and introspection. I think the single biggest driver of it was Republican politicians' fecklessness on immigration policy over the past decade. They've obviously been out of touch with their base on that issue -- and that created a huge window of opportunity for a demagogic opportunist like Trump to exploit.

But perhaps Democratic politicians might also use the occasion to ask why Trump's rise (to this point, anyway) doesn't appear to be translating into a landslide win of historic proportions for them.

It seems like most supporters on both sides of the political establishment (and, believe it or not, I consider myself one) can only gasp in disbelief at Trump's supporters and ask "What in the hell is wrong with you?" Hopefully, at some point, they might also ask "What in the hell is wrong with us?"
Why don't you have faith in the Republican senate to not allow an uber-liberal judge through the Senate confirmation process?

Because you're essentially saying that you're willing to elect a know-nothing sociopath because you don't trust your own party's ability to stop a justice nomination that would take the country too far left.

But you do trust who they nominated for President.

Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.
BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH
 
CoH, I noticed you didn't label Trump a "narcissist" as did some of those quoted in the Klein link. Are you reserving this label as an exclusively Obama trait

Ha . . . .good point

However, if being a narcissist is the worst thing that one could say about Trump, I'd vote for him.
 
Why don't you have faith in the Republican senate to not allow an uber-liberal judge through the Senate confirmation process?

Because you're essentially saying that you're willing to elect a know-nothing sociopath because you don't trust your own party's ability to stop a justice nomination that would take the country too far left.

But you do trust who they nominated for President.

Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.
BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH

Most of the 4 left-wing justices on the court today were confirmed by Republican Senates, Ranger.

So, of course I don't trust Republicans to block left-wing nominees. They've given me no reason to. And they may not even be in the majority next year anyway.

And, moreover, I'd obviously prefer a Justice who isn't left-wing at all.
 
The Donald is offended that Hillary didn't give him props in Philly:

Donald Trump lamented Friday that Hillary Clinton did not congratulate him during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

During a rally in Colorado Springs, Trump said he tuned in to Clinton's speech "out of curiosity" to see if Clinton would mention his name and was disappointed she didn't congratulate him for winning the GOP nomination.

"I was curious to see whether she'd do a class act and not mention my name," Trump said. "Or mention it with respect, like, say, 'I'd like to congratulate my Republican opponent for having done something that nobody has ever done in the history of politics in this nation.'"

Trump went on to say that he has been the more civil one in campaigning against Clinton because he does not join in on chants of "lock her up" when people yell them at his rallies, but that his kindness has run out.

"Every time I mention her, everyone screams 'lock her up, lock her up'," he said. "And you know what I do? I've been nice. But after watching that performance last night, such lies, I don't have to be so nice anymore. I'm taking the gloves off, right? Yes? Take the gloves off. Take the gloves off. Right? Taking the gloves off. Just remember this, Trump is going to be no more Mr. Nice guy."
 
Ha . . . .good point

However, if being a narcissist is the worst thing that one could say about Trump, I'd vote for him.
I'm not going to let this go.

You've been bitching since January 20, 2009 that Barrack Obama is a narcissist. That commentary has been as ill-considered as everything else you've posted, but apparently you think that narcissism is a disqualifying characteristic -- since you haven't been able to shut up about it.

Now we have a raging delusional clinical narcissist running as your party's nominee, and you have not a single thing to say about that. This isn't a case of "Ha ha ha, good one, hoot." This is a case of you being a profoundly dishonest partisan hypocrite. Needless to say, no one is surprised.
 
Actually, I agree with a lot of that, too. I'm still going to vote for him -- mostly because the judiciary has become, by far, the most influential branch of government and the SCOTUS hangs in the balance.

I mean, in Heller, there were 4 justices who disagreed with the notion that the 2nd amendment was an individual right. It seems perfectly obvious to me -- and I'm not even a gun guy. Yet, there they were, coming within one vote of declaring that the right to bear arms was somehow contingent on military service.

And, of course, the other reason the gulf between me and the Democratic Party is wide enough to get me to vote for Trump is everything pertaining to the welfare state. Not only is it fiscally unsustainable, I also think that it encourages irresponsibility and discourages responsibility. I don't think Democrats have ever come to terms with its myriad failures. Rather, they keep selling more of it -- which is understandable, because: (a) its long been their lead product, (b) it usually sells pretty well, and (c) its shortcomings are (perversely) a great motivation for people to demand more.

The welfare state is the quintessential codependent relationship: the people who rely on public assistance of one kind or another depend on it for their daily sustenance, and the politicians who tax others to pay for it and package it for sale on the campaign trail are just as dependent on it for their political well-being. I've long thought that it bears a lot of resemblance to the relationship between drug addicts and drug dealers.

Our society does not need more social dependence, it needs less.

Another part of this are the major middle-class entitlements. I've seen very little honesty from Democrats about the reality of where those programs presently sit -- let alone any sensible ideas on how to put them on solid ground. All I've seen is demagoguery of ideas put forth by the likes of GWB, Paul Ryan, and others. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to agree with approaches like the ones Ryan etal have proposed. But I would like to see them at least work towards compromises.

Honestly, were it not for these two issues, I don't think I'd have much problem voting for Democrats at the federal level. I have other disagreements with them, to be sure. But they pale in comparison to these two.

And, because I think they both bring a lot more to bear for the country's well-being than the risks of a Trump presidency, it's a chance I've decided I'm willing to take. When the established insiders have made such a mess of things, it makes their protestations about the dangers of handing the reins to a reviled outsider fall a bit flat.

Clearly, Trump's ascendency should cause traditional Republican politicians to engage in some deep contemplation and introspection. I think the single biggest driver of it was Republican politicians' fecklessness on immigration policy over the past decade. They've obviously been out of touch with their base on that issue -- and that created a huge window of opportunity for a demagogic opportunist like Trump to exploit.

But perhaps Democratic politicians might also use the occasion to ask why Trump's rise (to this point, anyway) doesn't appear to be translating into a landslide win of historic proportions for them.

It seems like most supporters on both sides of the political establishment (and, believe it or not, I consider myself one) can only gasp in disbelief at Trump's supporters and ask "What in the hell is wrong with you?" Hopefully, at some point, they might also ask "What in the hell is wrong with us?"

Crazed, you state the following in explaining your vote for Trump in addition to nominating Supremes,

And, of course, the other reason the gulf between me and the Democratic Party is wide enough to get me to vote for Trump is everything pertaining to the welfare state....

...but what has Trump said about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, unemployment insurance and the rest which makes you think Trump will close the gulf? Also he might surprise everyone with unpredictable judicial nominations. Let us face it, he is rather unpredictable.
 
I'm not going to let this go.

You've been bitching since January 20, 2009 that Barrack Obama is a narcissist. That commentary has been as ill-considered as everything else you've posted, but apparently you think that narcissism is a disqualifying characteristic -- since you haven't been able to shut up about it.

Now we have a raging delusional clinical narcissist running as your party's nominee, and you have not a single thing to say about that. This isn't a case of "Ha ha ha, good one, hoot." This is a case of you being a profoundly dishonest partisan hypocrite. Needless to say, no one is surprised.

I'm not surprised you wouldn't let it go

First, Trump has a lot of negatives that far supersede his narcissism.

Second, Obama's narcism adversely affects his ability to be a good president. Narcissists have a fragile self esteem. This is why I believe Obama refused to roll up his sleeves and actually do the hard negotiating necessary to be a good president. This has been confirmed not only by observation but also by Bob Woodward who investigated Obama's sole attempt at adversarial negotiations which failed. He was responsible for the failure.

I have no doubt that Trump is an extreme narcissist. All you need to do is look at how his name is displayed on his properties. But, there is a difference. Trump has been successful in accomplishing high end real estate developments. That is not an easy game. Those who have no ability to make a deal have no chance. You linked a story about his Plaza investment. While the story you linked didn't tell the full story, which is easily found on Wiki, that story does show that Trump can humble himself when needed. Obama can't do that. He won't even put himself in the position of where that will be necessary.
 
I'm not surprised you wouldn't let it go

First, Trump has a lot of negatives that far supersede his narcissism.

Second, Obama's narcism adversely affects his ability to be a good president. Narcissists have a fragile self esteem. This is why I believe Obama refused to roll up his sleeves and actually do the hard negotiating necessary to be a good president. This has been confirmed not only by observation but also by Bob Woodward who investigated Obama's sole attempt at adversarial negotiations which failed. He was responsible for the failure.

I have no doubt that Trump is an extreme narcissist. All you need to do is look at how his name is displayed on his properties. But, there is a difference. Trump has been successful in accomplishing high end real estate developments. That is not an easy game. Those who have no ability to make a deal have no chance. You linked a story about his Plaza investment. While the story you linked didn't tell the full story, which is easily found on Wiki, that story does show that Trump can humble himself when needed. Obama can't do that. He won't even put himself in the position of where that will be necessary.
LOL
 
Coincidentally, I came across this excellent description of category error:

Two muffins are sitting in an oven, baking. One muffin turns to the other and says: “Is it just me, or is it getting really hot in here.” The second muffin turns to the first and says: “Holy crap, a talking muffin!”

The above joke is funny, largely because it commits a logical fallacy called a category error, and then immediately turns around and calls itself on it. It’s generally accepted that muffins can’t talk and so to ascribe them that ability is ridiculous. Ascribing a quality or set of qualities to an object that can’t possibly possess them is called a category error.

Another, less obvious example: many people say that anyone who plays the lottery is a fool. After all, the odds of winning are narrow, the expected return is staunchly negative. It seems to me, however, that for most purchasers of lottery tickets, that argument is fallacious. After all, most of the people buying lottery tickets don’t actually expect to win. And vanishingly few of them actually expect to make money on the prospect in the long run. Most of them are playing the lottery in order to day-dream for a few days what they would do if they win. (My personal fantasy is to pay for Logic 101, Computer Science 101, and Economics 101 classes for every person in the country.)

So to tell a lottery player that they’re making a bad gamble is a category error. You assume that lottery playing is a form of gambling, when really it’s a form of assisted daydreaming. The anti-lottery killjoy is ascribing to the lottery player motives they don’t actually possess.

. . . In day-to-day life, category errors occur frequently in fields that are poorly understood by the general populace, like science or technology. Many of the technological problems that people encounter come from bad analogies leading them to think that, for instance, a computer and a human brain are the same category of thing. The answer to “why did my computer do something so stupid” is, invariably, “because someone told it to.” Computers only ever do exactly what they’re told, and this leads to bad behavior at times. Brains, on the other hand, have no such constraints and, indeed, can’t have them because they aren’t artifacts like computers are.

Almost all category errors rely on explicit or implicit analogies. This is because all analogies are imperfect, even though we tend to treat them as flawless identities. Joel Spolsky calls this the “Law of Leaky Abstractions“. We assume our computer is like a brain, because that’s an analogy that serves us well some high percentage of the time. We end up expecting our computer to behave “intelligently” (meaning roughly: however I really wish it would behave) and get angry when it’s “dumb” enough to do something like download a virus or delete our files. Ascribing intelligence or lack thereof to a modern computer is a category error based on the leaky abstraction that computers are “sort of like” brains.

. . . Like all informal fallacies, avoiding category errors can be difficult. The best way to attempt to avoid them is often to be rigorous about examining your suppositions. Whenever you ascribe qualities to person or thing without direct evidence, or you find yourself making assumptions based on analogy, it’s a good time to step back and ask if those assumptions are warranted.​
 
Coincidentally, I came across this excellent description of category error:

Two muffins are sitting in an oven, baking. One muffin turns to the other and says: “Is it just me, or is it getting really hot in here.” The second muffin turns to the first and says: “Holy crap, a talking muffin!”

The above joke is funny, largely because it commits a logical fallacy called a category error, and then immediately turns around and calls itself on it. It’s generally accepted that muffins can’t talk and so to ascribe them that ability is ridiculous. Ascribing a quality or set of qualities to an object that can’t possibly possess them is called a category error.

Another, less obvious example: many people say that anyone who plays the lottery is a fool. After all, the odds of winning are narrow, the expected return is staunchly negative. It seems to me, however, that for most purchasers of lottery tickets, that argument is fallacious. After all, most of the people buying lottery tickets don’t actually expect to win. And vanishingly few of them actually expect to make money on the prospect in the long run. Most of them are playing the lottery in order to day-dream for a few days what they would do if they win. (My personal fantasy is to pay for Logic 101, Computer Science 101, and Economics 101 classes for every person in the country.)

So to tell a lottery player that they’re making a bad gamble is a category error. You assume that lottery playing is a form of gambling, when really it’s a form of assisted daydreaming. The anti-lottery killjoy is ascribing to the lottery player motives they don’t actually possess.

. . . In day-to-day life, category errors occur frequently in fields that are poorly understood by the general populace, like science or technology. Many of the technological problems that people encounter come from bad analogies leading them to think that, for instance, a computer and a human brain are the same category of thing. The answer to “why did my computer do something so stupid” is, invariably, “because someone told it to.” Computers only ever do exactly what they’re told, and this leads to bad behavior at times. Brains, on the other hand, have no such constraints and, indeed, can’t have them because they aren’t artifacts like computers are.

Almost all category errors rely on explicit or implicit analogies. This is because all analogies are imperfect, even though we tend to treat them as flawless identities. Joel Spolsky calls this the “Law of Leaky Abstractions“. We assume our computer is like a brain, because that’s an analogy that serves us well some high percentage of the time. We end up expecting our computer to behave “intelligently” (meaning roughly: however I really wish it would behave) and get angry when it’s “dumb” enough to do something like download a virus or delete our files. Ascribing intelligence or lack thereof to a modern computer is a category error based on the leaky abstraction that computers are “sort of like” brains.

. . . Like all informal fallacies, avoiding category errors can be difficult. The best way to attempt to avoid them is often to be rigorous about examining your suppositions. Whenever you ascribe qualities to person or thing without direct evidence, or you find yourself making assumptions based on analogy, it’s a good time to step back and ask if those assumptions are warranted.​
That's an excellent bit. I want to have a thread about qualia, bats, the color red, and the Chinese Room now.
 
...but what has Trump said about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, unemployment insurance and the rest which makes you think Trump will close the gulf?

Not much -- which is among the reasons he was my last pick of those seeking the Republican nomination. But his campaign manager has said that Trump is open to entitlement reform. That's a start (and more than Hillary has said...or could say).

Also he might surprise everyone with unpredictable judicial nominations. Let us face it, he is rather unpredictable.

Oh, I realize this. I've conceded it all along. Even given my reasoning for supporting him, I very much recognize that it's a roll of the dice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
Not much -- which is among the reasons he was my last pick of those seeking the Republican nomination. But his campaign manager has said that Trump is open to entitlement reform. That's a start (and more than Hillary has said...or could say).



Oh, I realize this. I've conceded it all along. Even given my reasoning for supporting him, I very much recognize that it's a roll of the dice.

Crazed, I gave your response a "like", but saying Trump according to his campaign manager is open to entitlement reform is hardly something a sharp guy such as yourself should get his checkbook out on behalf of Trump.

Given the high percentage of government spending which is wrapped up in entitlements and given the need for more government spending on infrastructure along with overdue tax reform and reducing deficits, entitlement reform will have to be on any elected president's agenda.

We cannot kick the entitlement reform can up the street forever.
 
But his campaign manager has said that Trump is open to entitlement reform.
Trump's campaign and campaign management has said he'll be open to a lot of things...mostly things he doesn't understand and instead likely mined from Breitbart forums and Drudge headlines.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT