Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 13, 2015, 11:18:31 AM
-
The Donald may be a lot of great things, but intellectual heavyweight isn't one of 'em. He shoulda known better than to embroil himself in a personal feud with an actual heavyweight like Jonah Goldberg. But he's not that smart. Goldberg just demonstrated that when it comes to conservative political debate, where evidence and reason matter, and where anger and emotion are signs intellectual emptiness, Trump is completely outclassed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud
Do read the whole thing, especially if you think Trump is a serious guy. If you like what he's saying, then hold tight and watch your wallet. You're being conned.
-
Questions of ideological purity aside, I would not knowingly spar in words with George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Jonah Goldberg individually, much less simultaneously.
-
While I admire Trump in some ways -- mostly for telling it "how it is and sticking to what was said" (within the context ONLY of these current debates) -- I find that on studying his past reveals several problems.
He has, in the past, supported liberal agendas, and also given liberals (like Hillary, for example) money.
I am more forgiving of his monetary donations. It is said that businesses give democrats $$ to keep them of their heels, regulation-wise, while they give republicans $$ to support their (supposedly) business-friendly agendas. If Trump was givng libs money to keep 'em off his heels, well, I don't really "like" it but I understand it -- and Trump is not the only business guy doing that.
However, his past support of some lib agendas does bother me. He purports to be a conservative now. Really? Did he have an epiphany or was he taught a lesson somewhere? Or (as I suspect) is he jumping on what he sees as a convenient politically correct right wing bandwagon to accrue "brownie points" with a supposed electorate?
I am seriously questioning his bona fides ....
"Send in the clowns ....send in the clowns ....don't bother, they're here." >:D
-
Meh... broken record on this, but I'll say it again. There should be a rule or agreement in place that Trump is forced to switch parties every other time for his fake POTUS runs.
He would have just as easily staked out a pro-immigration position, saying businesses like his need the labor, and blasting "native Americans" who won't take those jobs, or show up for them reliably.
-
“I’m a big fan of Hillary. She’s a terrific woman. She’s a friend of mine.”
-
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-trump-we-need-a-health-care-system-like-what-canada-has/
-
As I recall, Trump has his clothing line made in China by your normal sweatshop labor, while decrying folks who ship jobs overseas. I admit, I did laugh
-
I always enjoy reading Jonah Goldberg's columns. In this one, he just completely eviscerated Trump. There's almost nothing left to say about The Donald.
That was exquisite. Thank you.
-
As I recall, Trump has his clothing line made in China by your normal sweatshop labor, while decrying folks who ship jobs overseas. I admit, I did laugh
When was the last time you tried to find clothing made in the USA? Beyond extremely automated clothing manufacture like underwear and t-shirts, it's hard to do.
-
The fact that Goldberg and Krauthammer have responded back when they originally just brushed Trump off tells me that they truly fear him.
Trump's poll numbers have continued to climb despite him being attacked at all angles. Trump must be cast from the same mold as John L. Sullivan to still be even standing, let alone in a dead heat with Jeb Bush.
Also, isn't this the first time Trump actually officially declared his candidacy? He's dead serious and that's why he's dangerous.
-
When was the last time you tried to find clothing made in the USA? Beyond extremely automated clothing manufacture like underwear and t-shirts, it's hard to do.
Carhartt jeans and Wigwam socks are easy to find.
-
The fact that Goldberg and Krauthammer have responded back when they originally just brushed Trump off tells me that they truly fear him.
Trump's poll numbers have continued to climb despite him being attacked at all angles.
Why do you think it's fear, and not just the fact that they are paid to express opinions? Also, the fact that Trump is a hot topic right now, and that's all the motive they really need to talk about Trump. They want audience and page clicks, just like everyone else.
-
"Never get into a fight with someone that buys ink buy the barrel."
-
"Never get into a fight with someone that buys ink buy the barrel."
Which side in this ho-down buys ink by the barrel?
-
I sure do hope that Goldberg would win a war of printed words with Trump, given:
1. Purposeful word arrangement is Goldberg's profession.
2. Goldberg has zero concrete accomplishments(1) or failures to criticize, whereas Trump has plenty of both to mine for material.
3. Goldberg has finely honed his political stance on this & that to be perfectly in accord with Conservative, Incorporated.
4. Trump's political stances are not nearly as well thought out and he obviously cares less than Goldberg about a cohesive political philosophy.
5. Goldberg has never faced a situation where he must either compromise his principles or fail; where failure is not just personal, but has knock-on effects to include firing good employees.
My opinion as to why Trump resonates:
1. Raises issues such as immigration and "free" trade that the political class has decided not to let the American people have a say on.
2. Trump comes across as someone who actually likes America in an instinctive, "Of course, I love America" fashion.
3. Trump has concrete accomplishments(1).
4. GOP leadership does not share points 1-3.
5. GOP leadership has reneged on its commitments to quash ObamaSCOTUScare.
6. GOP leadership has reneged on its commitments to reign in BHO's orgy of illegitimate executive power.
7. GOP leadership did not cut off funding BHO's backdoor amnesty.
IOW, Trump's existence in the GOP POTUS candidate race is almost wholly attributable to failure, lies, corruption, and disgusting cowardice in the GOP, especially the leadership.
(1) Opposed accomplishments, where there are folk doing their bast to thwart your success and succeed themselves.
The fact that Goldberg and Krauthammer have responded back when they originally just brushed Trump off tells me that they truly fear him.
Why do you think it's fear, and not just the fact that they are paid to express opinions? Also, the fact that Trump is a hot topic right now, and that's all the motive they really need to talk about Trump. They want audience and page clicks, just like everyone else.
I think they (JG, CK, etc.) fear Trump because he has the potential to upset the GOP apple cart. I think GOP leadership is pissing down its leg in fear. I think the coordinated attacks, in which JG & CK are but two participants, point to a real fear. Attack #1 was the equivalent of pointing and screaming at Trump because he was so gauche as to speak of immigration in terms most Americans speak of it. Same with trade. When that proved ineffective, Attack #2 went to the well of Trump's real estate deals, some of which included eminent domain in one way or another. Attack #3 is the Kitchen Sink Approach, where any and every act or statement by Trump that might be unattractive to actual conservative voters is propped up and made to sing.
JG, CK, and the rest of Conservatism, Incorporated, have not done this to any other candidates in near the intensity and frequency. Mostly because they can be expected to be god Donor Party candidates.
For my own part, I have little faith Trump will be a lasting force in the race. I also do not think he has a coherent political philosophy. I hope he stays in as long as possible and causes the GOP leadership as much butthurt as possible. Were I hopeful about the political milieu, I might even hope that Trump and Sanders might cause the GOP and Dems to crumble and rupture.
-
Goldberg's insights on Trump are right on the money. Trump is resonating with certain people on the right not because he's telling them the truth, but because he's telling them what they want to hear. That's an important distinction. Trump is demagoguing the right and far too many of us are falling for it.
Trump's political ambition is a con job. He'll slip up eventually, say something that belies the farce, and people will wise up. The only question is whether that happens before or after Trump does real damage to the cause.
The reason Krauthammer and Goldberg and other intellectual conservatives dislike Trump is because they see through the fraud, and because they have real concerns about the damage Trump can cause.
-
Goldberg's insights on Trump are right on the money. Trump is resonating with certain people on the right not because he's telling them the truth, but because he's telling them what they want to hear. That's an important distinction. Trump is demagoguing the right and far too many of us are falling for it.
Trump's political ambition is a con job. He'll slip up eventually, say something that belies the farce, and people will wise up. The only question is whether that happens before or after Trump does real damage to the cause.
The reason Krauthammer and Goldberg and other intellectual conservatives dislike Trump is because they see through the fraud, and because they have real concerns about the damage Trump can cause.
Which of the major GOP candidates is not a con job? Thus far they are nothing more than a pot full of Donor Party butt boys and vanity candidates. I would say Trump fits right in, with the exception that he has actual concrete accomplishments.
Goldberg and Kraut don't see anything other folks don't. It just happens to be their ox being gored by Trump. They are part of the problem.
-
I agree with every single thing roo_ster posted.
Trump is the symptom, not the problem.
-
I agree with every single thing roo_ster posted.
Trump is the symptom, not the problem.
Hitch your cause to his wagon and I suspect he will soon become the problem as well.
-
I don't see many people who think Trump would be a good President, or even who think he will get a shot at it. They mostly just hate the Republican establishment and are glomming onto anyone who seems to be lashing out at them. His past support of Hillary, his calls for socialized medicine, his eminent domain abuse, his support for gun control, his flip flopping on immigration and abortion etc etc etc... That's all in the past, and requires reading, and ain't nobody got time fo dat.
-
Hitch your cause to his wagon and I suspect he will soon become the problem as well.
I ain't doing that fo sho. Just making a point about what happens in a charisma vacuum.
Not to Godwin the hell out of the thread but...we are experiencing the sort of rapidly increasing cultural malaise that led to the rise of Hitler.
If we had serious, crippling economic trouble either this cycle or the next, all bets are off as far as who we get, and what their title ultimately is.
Maybe it's not fair of me to ultimately lay this at the feet of the GOP. But Trump and anyone who follows his mode of picking fights and enjoying them, whatever their ideological issues, is going to get a following in this day and age of a completely useless Republican party. Who, by the way, think that they are your entitled to your votes for their constant attempts at Failure Theater.
Trump could not have existed in any previous election to 2008. Liberals will point out the fact that his equivalent didn't exist as proof that the GOP is becoming radicalized. For some of the base, this is true: however these are people who, like myself, believe that the country is in an existential crisis. Even if they are not smart enough to understand that Trump is playing some kind of game.
Those people and their dissatisfaction with the GOP is not going away, even if Trump does.
-
I sure do hope that Goldberg would win a war of printed words with Trump, given:
1. Purposeful word arrangement is Goldberg's profession.
2. Goldberg has zero concrete accomplishments(1) or failures to criticize, whereas Trump has plenty of both to mine for material.
3. Goldberg has finely honed his political stance on this & that to be perfectly in accord with Conservative, Incorporated.
4. Trump's political stances are not nearly as well thought out and he obviously cares less than Goldberg about a cohesive political philosophy.
5. Goldberg has never faced a situation where he must either compromise his principles or fail; where failure is not just personal, but has knock-on effects to include firing good employees.
My opinion as to why Trump resonates:
1. Raises issues such as immigration and "free" trade that the political class has decided not to let the American people have a say on.
2. Trump comes across as someone who actually likes America in an instinctive, "Of course, I love America" fashion.
3. Trump has concrete accomplishments(1).
4. GOP leadership does not share points 1-3.
5. GOP leadership has reneged on its commitments to quash ObamaSCOTUScare.
6. GOP leadership has reneged on its commitments to reign in BHO's orgy of illegitimate executive power.
7. GOP leadership did not cut off funding BHO's backdoor amnesty.
IOW, Trump's existence in the GOP POTUS candidate race is almost wholly attributable to failure, lies, corruption, and disgusting cowardice in the GOP, especially the leadership.
(1) Opposed accomplishments, where there are folk doing their bast to thwart your success and succeed themselves.
I think they (JG, CK, etc.) fear Trump because he has the potential to upset the GOP apple cart. I think GOP leadership is pissing down its leg in fear. I think the coordinated attacks, in which JG & CK are but two participants, point to a real fear. Attack #1 was the equivalent of pointing and screaming at Trump because he was so gauche as to speak of immigration in terms most Americans speak of it. Same with trade. When that proved ineffective, Attack #2 went to the well of Trump's real estate deals, some of which included eminent domain in one way or another. Attack #3 is the Kitchen Sink Approach, where any and every act or statement by Trump that might be unattractive to actual conservative voters is propped up and made to sing.
JG, CK, and the rest of Conservatism, Incorporated, have not done this to any other candidates in near the intensity and frequency. Mostly because they can be expected to be god Donor Party candidates.
For my own part, I have little faith Trump will be a lasting force in the race. I also do not think he has a coherent political philosophy. I hope he stays in as long as possible and causes the GOP leadership as much butthurt as possible. Were I hopeful about the political milieu, I might even hope that Trump and Sanders might cause the GOP and Dems to crumble and rupture.
Trump's resonance has made me rethink my support in the race.
My first choice is, and has been, Bobby Jindal. However, if I am to put my money where my mouth is and actually act out my belief that one of the most serious issues the country faces is the political class itself, I really ought not to be voting for someone who has done nothing but (or little else than) be a politician.
I'm giving some real thought to supporting Mrs. Fiorina.
On that theme:
Carly Fiorina said in an interview Sunday that fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is “tapping into an anger that I hear every day.”
“People are angry that a commonsense thing like securing the border or ending sanctuary cities is somehow considered extreme,” she told ABC’s “This Week.” “It's not extreme, it's commonsense. We need to secure the border.”
“People are also angry at a professional political class of both parties that talks a good game, gives good speeches, but somehow nothing ever really changes,” she added. “And people are angry as well at a double standard in the media.”
-
If you are looking for an incrementalism candidate who is going to move things our way then it is hard to beat Scott Walker or maybe even Rick Perry. Both have reasonably conservative resumes and their states have done well under their governance.
It's hard to believe either of those guys are going to fundamentally change America though. Having said that, Walker has to a real degree inflicted damage on the entrenched leftist power structure in his state.
The Republicans will have to really pull a rabbit out of their hats to get my vote this time around.
-
I ain't doing that fo sho. Just making a point about what happens in a charisma vacuum.
Not to Godwin the hell out of the thread but...we are experiencing the sort of rapidly increasing cultural malaise that led to the rise of Hitler.
If we had serious, crippling economic trouble either this cycle or the next, all bets are off as far as who we get, and what their title ultimately is.
Maybe it's not fair of me to ultimately lay this at the feet of the GOP. But Trump and anyone who follows his mode of picking fights and enjoying them, whatever their ideological issues, is going to get a following in this day and age of a completely useless Republican party. Who, by the way, think that they are your entitled to your votes for their constant attempts at Failure Theater.
Trump could not have existed in any previous election to 2008. Liberals will point out the fact that his equivalent didn't exist as proof that the GOP is becoming radicalized. For some of the base, this is true: however these are people who, like myself, believe that the country is in an existential crisis. Even if they are not smart enough to understand that Trump is playing some kind of game.
Those people and their dissatisfaction with the GOP is not going away, even if Trump does.
Well, I almost wasn't gonna post one of my opinions, but since you went first... :laugh:
I have to say, I also have had thoughts, at least from the snippets on the news of Trump and the audiences he speaks to, and their vocal reactions, of his talks very much resembling certain beer hall talks. Failed establishment, a segment of society to blame stuff on, new blood, power to the people -- it's all eerily similar. While I won't equate Trump to Hitler, there is no doubt he is raising support on a similar theme of failed establishment and quick solutions to prosperity for people who feel they've been taken advantage of. And hey, which of us that has been pulling a cart with far too many freeloaders in it doesn't feel a bit taken advantage of?
Kinda reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kysRQP0ca7s
All that said, I still stand by my statement that Trump would probably make a good Secretary of Transportation and make good and efficient use of every infrastructure penny. He's just not suited to the big chair, and his broad brush thoughts on foreign policy, in relation to his experience, knowledge (or lack thereof) and temperament, would have me building a bunker two minutes after he was elected. I'm also still of the thought that he's doing this for self-marketing, and if it shakes up establishment republicrats, so much the better.
-
Related Question: In a leader, which is more important? The personal intelligence and smarts of the leader or the leader's ability to choose and evaluate the best people working for him? Or do you think those go together?
-
Related Question: In a leader, which is more important? The personal intelligence and smarts of the leader or the leader's ability to choose and evaluate the best people working for him? Or do you think those go together?
I think they go together. A good leader HAS to put smart, experienced people in key positions, and not their bestest golfing buddies. Part 2, and most important, a good leader has to listen to the people in those positions.
-
Related Question: In a leader, which is more important? The personal intelligence and smarts of the leader or the leader's ability to choose and evaluate the best people working for him? Or do you think those go together?
Clearly #2. Personal intelligence is good, but good judgement is better.
-
Clearly #2. Personal intelligence is good, but good judgement is better.
I would argue that judgement and intelligence are highly correlated. Ref: "hold my beer and watch this" videos on youtube. :)
-
I would argue that judgement and intelligence are highly correlated. Ref: "hold my beer and watch this" videos on youtube. :)
To a point. It's been my experience that as the intelligent quotient increases past a certain point, the judgement quotient (to coin a term) decreases, especially with regard to other people.
I'd prefer someone 1 standard deviation above the mean with the capability of judging other's character and capabilities than someone three standard deviations above the mean without those qualities.
So, yes, there needs to be a minimum level of intelligence (not average), but the greater the judgement, the better.
Only tangentially related to this is the account I've read of Earnest Shackleton (http://www.south-pole.com/p0000098.htm). The author seems to think Shackleton was randomly choosing people for the expedition, for oddball reasons, but in the failed South Pole expedition, the group held together perfectly with only 2 (out of 56) who broke down under the strain.
He picked 56 people out of a total of 5,000 applications and only failed in his judgement of character twice. THAT is the kind of judgement I would like. Clearly he was highly intelligent, but it is his judgement I prefer.
-
Only tangentially related to this is the account I've read of Earnest Shackleton (http://www.south-pole.com/p0000098.htm). The author seems to think Shackleton was randomly choosing people for the expedition, for oddball reasons, but in the failed South Pole expedition, the group held together perfectly with only 2 (out of 56) who broke down under the strain.
He picked 56 people out of a total of 5,000 applications and only failed in his judgement of character twice.
Did he really fail twice? Maybe any of the other, rejected applicants would have cracked, too.
-
Did he really fail twice? Maybe any of the other, rejected applicants would have cracked, too.
Someone who cracks during the mission is a greater liability than someone who does not go on the expedition.
So, yes, those two are failures. But, still, dude could pick his people.
-
Aaand...his people put SS troops into a campaign poster.
http://twitchy.com/2015/07/14/did-dingus-donald-trump-seriously-use-nazis-in-his-campaign-poster-screenshot/
-
Aaand...his people put SS troops into a campaign poster.
http://twitchy.com/2015/07/14/did-dingus-donald-trump-seriously-use-nazis-in-his-campaign-poster-screenshot/
I really, really hope this is just garden variety incompetence.
-
I really, really hope this is just garden variety incompetence.
I'm sure it was just incompetent staff. I think one of the major Democrats did something similar a ways back mixing up US service members with some other country. I wouldn't expect average people to know the difference (sadly), but if you're on someone's campaign staff, it seems like one of the more important things to check in the editing process.
Also I thought it was coincidentally funny given my beer hall comment. :)