Trump Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not exactly?



But for your pleasure:



You knew I was a snake!

I am not suggesting it was a deliberate snub, but it was a deliberate decision to visibly replace the Churchill Bust with the King Bust. As Obama notes he had another Bust of Churchill that he could have moved to the Oval Office. Trump apparently found room for both Busts.

Rather like Obama saying the UK would "go to the back of the queue" for a trade deal behind China, it speaks to his attitude.

1. From daddy and his friends. Didn't he even get new money when he was already bankrupt? Do poor people without connections get that, too?

2. Not by appealing to the most intelligent people and not by winning the popular vote either, while we're at it. I don't think intelligence is a requirement to win an election.

It is also entirely possible that he is a combination of all that as I said. He may know how to get (certain) people to support him, but that does not mean he knows how to run a country well. Otherwise every winner of "Country x has talent" would have to be a genius. If we derive intelligence from popularity, scripted reality shows have to be something we can learn a lot from.

Before Obama became President he had essentially been an academic and a Senator, not any kind of executive. So how is Trump less qualified than Obama? they're qualified in different ways.

[Husar]

Before Obama became President he had essentially been an academic and a Senator, not any kind of executive. So how is Trump less qualified than Obama? they're qualified in different ways.

Trump didn't really earn that, he was born into it. That's not a qualification, it's a privilege.
He may have learned a bit over time, but Xiahou already showed that he would be even richer now had he not touched his money with his decisions... If we're to judge his "qualification" based on that, he's a terrible executive.
Obama didn't need to prove his intelligence by pointing to his bank account because he didn't talk like a dumbass and didn't lie with every second sentence. I'm also not aware that Obama went bankrupt several times or earned less money than he would have if he had merely invested his base capital instead of squandering his profits with bad decisions.

[Montmorency]

Trump apparently found room for both Busts.

As per the article, he has temporarily moved the older bust from the private residence, where Obama kept it after it was repaired, to the Oval Office. It does not seem he will have both busts in the office at once. Meanwhile, Trump's overall design seems to be refashioning the office to mimic its appearance under W Bush, with some degree of influence from the Farage connection.

So how is Trump less qualified than Obama?

That's rather glib. Of course if we stretch our parameters wide enough we might discover many tens of thousands more or less qualified to hold high office compared to past holders. Any number of politicians, corporate executives, professors or generals. Has there ever been an unqualified candidate, in fact?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As per the article, he has temporarily moved the older bust from the private residence, where Obama kept it after it was repaired, to the Oval Office. It does not seem he will have both busts in the office at once. Meanwhile, Trump's overall design seems to be refashioning the office to mimic its appearance under W Bush, with some degree of influence from the Farage connection.

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.

That's rather glib. Of course if we stretch our parameters wide enough we might discover many tens of thousands more or less qualified to hold high office compared to past holders. Any number of politicians, corporate executives, professors or generals. Has there ever been an unqualified candidate, in fact?

Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

Reminds me of some of my fellow undergrads complaining about professor Hung years ago in my International Relations class. Thick Vietnamese accent so they dismissed him and his opinions. I talked with him a little and his colleagues more. English was his 4th language after Vietnamese, French, and a passable Cantonese... He'd been part of the South Vietnamese national police force, acquired two degrees before leaving Vietnam ahead of "the chop," and managed both a thesis and dissertation in his 4th language.

My countrymen, as a whole, are reasonably intelligent, but the level of self-developed ignorance is cloying at times.

[Pannonian]

Reminds me of some of my fellow undergrads complaining about professor Hung years ago in my International Relations class. Thick Vietnamese accent so they dismissed him and his opinions. I talked with him a little and his colleagues more. English was his 4th language after Vietnamese, French, and a passable Cantonese... He'd been part of the South Vietnamese national police force, acquired two degrees before leaving Vietnam ahead of "the chop," and managed both a thesis and dissertation in his 4th language.

My countrymen, as a whole, are reasonably intelligent, but the level of self-developed ignorance is cloying at times.

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

[Greyblades]

It's good to see you acknowledging your flaws.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

Having spent a grand total of 50 hours in "Blighty," and 16 or so of those hours having been devoted to...er...sleep whilst on my honeymoon, I do not think I can summarize my English cousins, so I pitched my comment only about my fellow yanks. I would admit to not being stunned at your concurrence for your side of the pond. Apples and trees and all that.

[Sarmatian]

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

It's a very vague comment and fits all nations pretty much. It's a classic example of "disguise a compliment as a flaw" that we are so fond of. Like when the teacher says "You know, your child is very bright but lazy."

This might come as a shock, but your countrymen are no more reasonably intelligent or ignorant than the rest of the world. Everybody's countrymen are usually less intelligent and more ignorant than we like to think they are.

[Montmorency]

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.



Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

What you speak of seems to be bare minimum, so it doesn't say much as to qualifications compared to any number of other individuals.

As for torture, your two points are confusing, leaving aside that I would be very interested to see where you get the US intelligence community vouching for torture "working". By definition, any person in office will be delegating and supporting in some way, since there is indeed government besides the POTUS and one would have to go far out of their way to publicly undermine and contradict every possible subordinate.

In other words, you don't ever actually offer concrete qualifications.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you speak of seems to be bare minimum, so it doesn't say much as to qualifications compared to any number of other individuals.

As for torture, your two points are confusing, leaving aside that I would be very interested to see where you get the US intelligence community vouching for torture "working". By definition, any person in office will be delegating and supporting in some way, since there is indeed government besides the POTUS and one would have to go far out of their way to publicly undermine and contradict every possible subordinate.

In other words, you don't ever actually offer concrete qualifications.

I am only speaking in general terms, as I'm not an Intelligence Officer with a bug in the Oval Office.

Trump is saying his Intelligence Chiefs have told him torture works, so he is supporting it.

There are numerous examples of politicians, here and in the US, asking for expert opinions and then dismissing them.

[Montmorency]

I am only speaking in general terms, as I'm not an Intelligence Officer with a bug in the Oval Office.

Trump is saying his Intelligence Chiefs have told him torture works, so he is supporting it.

There are numerous examples of politicians, here and in the US, asking for expert opinions and then dismissing them.

I almost find it unfair to push this quibble, but I was pointing out that as an absolute the two qualities you noted while referring to torture (again putting aside what the actual intelligence community positions are or were), delegating responsibility and supporting subordinates, are not in the way you raised them qualities sought after in a leader - rather, they are qualities intrinsic to being a leader, since they only require any normal human activity in the absence of solipsism. You did not speak to degree or nature of the qualities, merely listing their presence, but as such you're only speaking in tautologies.

And to be sure, there are many expert opinions Trump is happy to dismiss. But by no means can a leader be obliged to or even hope to accommodate every opinion.

So an argument for competence or qualification has to come down to the character and the events through which it is mediated, not apparitions of the latent. For the torture example alone, this would mean arguing from the virtue or value of the specific case and not the fact that it involves the basics of living in a world with other actors.

[Pannonian]

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.



Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

You're thinking of the R-word, but I'd attribute it more to pseudo-HIGNFY "wit", that affects some kind of supposedly intelligent world weariness and cynicism, and dismisses people with one liners. The difference is, the HIGNFY crew do their research. These would be political wits don't, yet dismiss expert opinions with a single line, usually in the format: "They [insert activity here]. How can we take them seriously?". The peak of this isn't some liberal comedian, but that Tory politician, Michael Gove.

"People in this country have had enough of experts."

The problem is liberal democracy at its extreme. People assert their rights (liberalism), but accept no responsibility. They rest on the knowledge that their vote is worth as much as any expert's with decades of experience in their field (democracy). The problem isn't solely confined to the Left or the Right.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump didn't really earn that, he was born into it. That's not a qualification, it's a privilege.
He may have learned a bit over time, but Xiahou already showed that he would be even richer now had he not touched his money with his decisions... If we're to judge his "qualification" based on that, he's a terrible executive.
Obama didn't need to prove his intelligence by pointing to his bank account because he didn't talk like a dumbass and didn't lie with every second sentence. I'm also not aware that Obama went bankrupt several times or earned less money than he would have if he had merely invested his base capital instead of squandering his profits with bad decisions.

Making 10B is just a touch easier with a $100M starter loan than with 100K in school debt.

[Greyblades]

Well there are plenty of opportunities for those with a degree in gender studies, assuming they can find enough rubes whose own degree has overwhelmed with white guilt and whose parents haven't yet cut them off from daddy's money.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think intelligence is a requirement to win an election.

You bet it is! Look at George W. Bush.

[CrossLOPER]

Well there are plenty of opportunities for those with a degree in gender studies, assuming they can find enough rubes whose own degree has overwhelmed with white guilt and whose parents haven't yet cut them off from daddy's money.

Gender studies aren't important. Researching societal flaws are not important. Providing assistance to members of the public who are categorically disadvantaged isn't important.

Also, didn't you complain about shi!posting a while ago and get the mods to make the Org politically correct again?

[Greyblades]

Gender studies aren't important. Researching societal flaws are not important. Providing assistance to members of the public who are categorically disadvantaged isn't important.

Also, didn't you complain about shi!posting a while ago and get the mods to make the Org politically correct again?

No, I'm the person such pusilanimous weeds complain about.

[CrossLOPER]

No, I'm the person such pusilanimous weeds complain about.

Treat people as you are treated: easy.
Treat people as you want to be treated: hard.

We argue, but we dont respect each other very much, but the disrespect is limited. In the TWC's mudpit debators hold thier intellectual opponents in outright contempt.

Is that there some of them "alternative facts" I keep hearing about?

[Greyblades]

Ahahahaha: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pusilanimous



Ahahahaha, Greyblades can't write and if he complains that I laugh at him, he's just pusillanimous and PC, ahahahaha....

Don quoi?