ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th April 2017, 03:44 PM   #41
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,354
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Actually, it might create a backlash in the other direction.
Quite. The "basic competence" line was a big yawn last year, but in 2020 it'll surely be taken more seriously. Unless, of course, Trump's presidency turns out to be a rip-roaring success. Or the world as we know it doesn't make it to 2020; let's not rule anything out.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:16 PM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
This is assuming there will be future presidents...
Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. You think otherwise?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:22 PM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Good Zod why? : confused :
What's sad is that the left really is confused about all of this.

But to answer your question: A successful businesswoman, with a good heart, an understanding of effective PR, no major controversies or scandals, and outside the corrupt Washington establishment? What's not to like? Hell, she ticks more boxes than Donald Trump!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:53 PM   #44
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,944
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What's sad is that the left really is confused about all of this.

But to answer your question: A successful businesswoman, with a good heart, an understanding of effective PR, no major controversies or scandals, and outside the corrupt Washington establishment? What's not to like? Hell, she ticks more boxes than Donald Trump!
That she has consistently pushed woo and often doesn't know what she's talking about. She's a genius of marketing and a keen businesswoman, but that's really not enough to be a good politician in my eyes, and I thought yours too.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:21 PM   #45
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That she has consistently pushed woo and often doesn't know what she's talking about. She's a genius of marketing and a keen businesswoman, but that's really not enough to be a good politician in my eyes, and I thought yours too.
"Good politician".

My God, you really are confused, aren't you?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:25 PM   #46
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,962
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Good politician".

My God, you really are confused, aren't you?
You do realize that if you run for office, you are a politician? That's how that works.

You can look it up. Trump is a politician (gasp!).
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 05:33 AM   #47
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,755
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
Seriously, could you go a few posts without acting like a teenager?

Quote:
Yeah it was that in 2016, how'd that work out for ya?
What are you talking about? Trump wasn't president in 2016.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 06:51 AM   #48
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,453
Mod Warning The thread title seems to refer to President Trump and future presidents. With that in mind, several posts discussing President Obama have been consigned to AAH. Please stay on topic.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 06:51 AM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You do realize that if you run for office, you are a politician? That's how that works.

You can look it up. Trump is a politician (gasp!).
I'm pretty sure you missed his point, which was about the first word in that phrase, not the second one.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 07:22 AM   #50
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm pretty sure you missed his point, which was about the first word in that phrase, not the second one.
He definitely missed my point about the first word. He also missed my point about the second word, and the one about the general concept of a career or professional politician. As he indicated, he is confused on this topic. The entire left is confused. Thus the best rebuttal on offer is that if Oprah runs for office she is no better than Hillary. As if "running for office" is the only thing we might mean by "politician".

When the Appeal to the Dictionary starts being deployed like squid ink, the argument is pretty much over anyway.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:11 AM   #51
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,944
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
He definitely missed my point about the first word. He also missed my point about the second word, and the one about the general concept of a career or professional politician. As he indicated, he is confused on this topic. The entire left is confused. Thus the best rebuttal on offer is that if Oprah runs for office she is no better than Hillary. As if "running for office" is the only thing we might mean by "politician".

When the Appeal to the Dictionary starts being deployed like squid ink, the argument is pretty much over anyway.
I used the word politician, and what I meant by it was someone who runs for or is elected to an elected public office. You used the word president. You don't get to tell me that my absolutely accurate and in context use of the word is wrong. I'm not right wing and thus I don't think that government and the people who want to be in it are inherently unclean badong because 'government bad'. Neither do I believe that 'being electable' is the most important factor in making a good president, nor that my 'side' getting power is more important than having good decision makers in the office.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:13 AM   #52
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,755
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The entire left is confused.
The entire left is confused! The entire right is corrupt! All white people are racist! All men are rapists! All black people are criminals!

Gee, painting with a broad brush is so fun!

Meanwhile, we're talking about individuals, not groups. Could we do that?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:25 AM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The entire left is confused! The entire right is corrupt! All white people are racist! All men are rapists! All black people are criminals!

Gee, painting with a broad brush is so fun!

Meanwhile, we're talking about individuals, not groups. Could we do that?
Personalize the debate, you mean? I'd prefer to keep that to a minimum. I'm sure you understand.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:27 AM   #54
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,755
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Personalize the debate, you mean? I'd prefer to keep that to a minimum. I'm sure you understand.
Oh, how clever. Do you really think that treating people as individuals rather than caricatures of arbitrary groups is somehow against the rules of the forum? Or are you saying that you can't address other people's political points and opinions without being uncivil?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:52 AM   #55
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,298
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That she has consistently pushed woo and often doesn't know what she's talking about.

Even if true, I fail to see how that makes her significantly different from many Presidents and Presidential candidates we've had in the past.

It certainly doesn't in comparison with Trump. In that contest she'd come off by far the best.

Quote:
She's a genius of marketing and a keen businesswoman, but that's really not enough to be a good politician in my eyes, and I thought yours too.

It seems to me that being "a genius of marketing" is a stellar recommendation for a politician.

And business acumen has always been touted as an important, even preferred qualification for the office by Republicans.

They couldn't stop insisting on that during the Trump campaign. It was one of the few qualifications they had to try to brag about for him, sullied only by the fact that in Trump's case it was demonstrably untrue.

Unlike Trump, who came into his wealth the old fashioned way ... by having the right parents, Winfrey started from abject, hard-scrabble poverty and pretty much single-handedly built herself a multi-billion dollar business empire. All while suffering from the handicap of being a black female.

That certainly shows some rather excellent organizational skills and a firm grasp of reality, at least as far as business is concerned. And according to the Republicans that is enough to make a good President.

I can't think of a single one of the horde of candidates that the GOP fielded last year who had the demonstrable business skills and organizational acumen which Winfrey has repeatedly proven herself to have.

Against any field like that I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:54 AM   #56
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Against any field like that I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
You aren't a swing voter.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:55 AM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Do you really think that treating people as individuals rather than caricatures of arbitrary groups is somehow against the rules of the forum?
Judging by most threads here, it certainly seems to be.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:06 AM   #58
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,755
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Judging by most threads here, it certainly seems to be.
How so?

As long as you don't make the topic about the poster rather than about their arguments, there isn't a problem. My point is that treating individuals, members or no, like stereotypes of a larger group rather than unique persons is silly and counterproductive.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:38 AM   #59
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, how clever. Do you really think that treating people as individuals rather than caricatures of arbitrary groups is somehow against the rules of the forum? Or are you saying that you can't address other people's political points and opinions without being uncivil?
Tyr professes confusion. Very well. I won't argue the point. It is consistent with the confusion I perceive in the left generally, but if Tyr doesn't want to identify himself that way, he's welcome to exclude himself from the reference. Regardless, it is my impression that the left is generally confused about the meaning and implications of Trump's election.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:41 AM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Even if true, I fail to see how that makes her significantly different from many Presidents and Presidential candidates we've had in the past.

It certainly doesn't in comparison with Trump. In that contest she'd come off by far the best.




It seems to me that being "a genius of marketing" is a stellar recommendation for a politician.

And business acumen has always been touted as an important, even preferred qualification for the office by Republicans.

They couldn't stop insisting on that during the Trump campaign. It was one of the few qualifications they had to try to brag about for him, sullied only by the fact that in Trump's case it was demonstrably untrue.

Unlike Trump, who came into his wealth the old fashioned way ... by having the right parents, Winfrey started from abject, hard-scrabble poverty and pretty much single-handedly built herself a multi-billion dollar business empire. All while suffering from the handicap of being a black female.

That certainly shows some rather excellent organizational skills and a firm grasp of reality, at least as far as business is concerned. And according to the Republicans that is enough to make a good President.

I can't think of a single one of the horde of candidates that the GOP fielded last year who had the demonstrable business skills and organizational acumen which Winfrey has repeatedly proven herself to have.

Against any field like that I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
And I'd be willing to put up with a little woo-slinging, in order to get someone who was a competent human being and not an establishment politician into office. Most politicians sling some kind of woo anyway, so I don't see that I'd be making much of a trade-off there.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:25 AM   #61
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,944
For what it's worth, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I still disagree, but I can see why you're prioritizing differently and it's not completely unreasonable grounds.

As far as my confusion echoing the confusion of the left in general, that's probably true to some degree. The left is confused about Trump's election. So is the right. The most confused in my experience have been those who are sure they know for what reasons he was elected, usually contradictory to the other people who are sure they know why.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:46 AM   #62
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,956
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 07:53 PM   #63
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,298
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You aren't a swing voter.

It depends on whether or not there is something to swing at.

The GOP has been racing to the bottom for years now.

The question posed in this thread is if they have finally found it or not.

Last year's crop was as close as they had gotten so far.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:22 PM   #64
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
It depends on whether or not there is something to swing at.

The GOP has been racing to the bottom for years now.

The question posed in this thread is if they have finally found it or not.
Looking back over the first half dozen posts or so, I don't think that's the question being posed in this thread at all.

The question is whether more people "like Trump" will run for president in the future. And, more broadly, what it means to be a "qualified" candidate.

ETA: It's also worth noting that whatever direction the GOP has been heading, Donald Trump wasn't really part of it. He blindsided them almost as badly as he blindsided the Dems.

The thing is, I don't think there are a lot of potential candidates "like Trump" out there. His combination of incompetence and arrogance is pretty unique. Most failed businesspeople simply fail, and fade away long before reaching the point where they could plausibly mount a presidential campaign. And successful businesspeople usually have better things to do than run for president--Like running a successful business.

Take Oprah, for example: She'd be an idiot to run for President. It's not a job you want if you have something else worth doing. I mean, look at our recent run of Presidents: Actors, Lawyers, Governors... all of them career politicians. All of them establishment douchebags to one degree or another. The only reason for Oprah to walk away from a successful and rewarding career and run for President would be if she sincerely believed that she had something of value to offer the nation. Some insight, or principle, or vision that was worth giving up years of her life and her vocation, to bring to fruition for the nation's benefit.

Obviously she doesn't believe she has anything special to offer. If she did, she wouldn't be talking about how she doesn't have any qualifications to run for president. She'd be talking about how she has the only qualification that really matters. She'd be talking about having the same qualification that *any* citizen should feel empowered to bring forward and seek the nomination. For generations, the career politicians have been pushing the lie that only a politician can possibly weigh questions of policy. Only a politician can consider matters of diplomacy and trade.

I'm tired of the lie. I'm tired of citizens being told that all they're good for is to shut up and vote for their betters. Donald Trump is a lying, corrupt, incompetent douchebag. But he's not a lying, corrupt, incompetent establishment douchebag. For me, in 2016, that's a good start. If Oprah Winfrey were to look at Trump's candidacy and say, I could do that--I could do better than that!--it would be another step in the right direction. But she doesn't say that, because like the rest of the left, she's confused. She doesn't see what Trump being president could mean about future presidents. She doesn't see what it should mean.

Last edited by theprestige; 21st April 2017 at 08:50 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 04:58 AM   #65
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,298
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Looking back over the first half dozen posts or so, I don't think that's the question being posed in this thread at all.

The question is whether more people "like Trump" will run for president in the future. And, more broadly, what it means to be a "qualified" candidate.

I see the distinction you are making, but it isn't clear that an actual difference exists.

Quote:

ETA: It's also worth noting that whatever direction the GOP has been heading, Donald Trump wasn't really part of it. He blindsided them almost as badly as he blindsided the Dems.

The thing is, I don't think there are a lot of potential candidates "like Trump" out there. His combination of incompetence and arrogance is pretty unique. Most failed businesspeople simply fail, and fade away long before reaching the point where they could plausibly mount a presidential campaign. And successful businesspeople usually have better things to do than run for president--Like running a successful business.

Take Oprah, for example: She'd be an idiot to run for President. It's not a job you want if you have something else worth doing.

I can agree with that.

Quote:
I mean, look at our recent run of Presidents: Actors, Lawyers, Governors... all of them career politicians. All of them establishment douchebags to one degree or another. The only reason for Oprah to walk away from a successful and rewarding career and run for President would be if she sincerely believed that she had something of value to offer the nation. Some insight, or principle, or vision that was worth giving up years of her life and her vocation, to bring to fruition for the nation's benefit.

It could be that she does. I think it takes a certain amount of vision for someone to get where she has from the place she started.

Quote:

Obviously she doesn't believe she has anything special to offer. If she did, she wouldn't be talking about how she doesn't have any qualifications to run for president.

She was saying that that is what she had thought in the past, but seeing Trump in the White House has caused her to consider re-evaluating that assumption.

Quote:
She'd be talking about how she has the only qualification that really matters. She'd be talking about having the same qualification that *any* citizen should feel empowered to bring forward and seek the nomination. For generations, the career politicians have been pushing the lie that only a politician can possibly weigh questions of policy. Only a politician can consider matters of diplomacy and trade.

Good point. You should suggest it to her, if she hasn't already thought of it herself.

Quote:

I'm tired of the lie. I'm tired of citizens being told that all they're good for is to shut up and vote for their betters. Donald Trump is a lying, corrupt, incompetent douchebag. But he's not a lying, corrupt, incompetent establishment douchebag. For me, in 2016, that's a good start. If Oprah Winfrey were to look at Trump's candidacy and say, I could do that--I could do better than that!--it would be another step in the right direction. But she doesn't say that, because like the rest of the left, she's confused. She doesn't see what Trump being president could mean about future presidents. She doesn't see what it should mean.

You were doing okay until you degenerated into a knee-jerk rant against "the left". And stuffed Oprah into your pet out group for no discernible
cause..

It pretty much spoils the value of the rest of the post.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 07:45 AM   #66
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,881
Damn, some of you people are windbags.

Trump's election means glib borderline psychopaths have an advantage in the game of politics. That's all it means.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 11:25 AM   #67
Varanid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's cute that you think this started with Trump.
It's cute that you're pretending Trump's flagrant lies are in the same galaxy as standard boilerplate campaign-promise fudging.

And to get ahead of you, there is also a difference between Trump's lies and those made by others, who fully intended on X, but were unable to make it happen.
__________________
"I love the poorly educated" -- Donald Trump
Varanid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 11:30 AM   #68
Varanid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Personalize the debate, you mean? I'd prefer to keep that to a minimum. I'm sure you understand.
I'm so sick of disingenuous ********.

I'm sick of people obviously missing the point, and then acting as if the rest of us don't know that they are full of ****.

It's like watching a Spicer press conference.
__________________
"I love the poorly educated" -- Donald Trump
Varanid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 12:38 PM   #69
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,718
Originally Posted by Varanid View Post
I'm so sick of disingenuous ********.

I'm sick of people obviously missing the point, and then acting as if the rest of us don't know that they are full of ****.

It's like watching a Spicer press conference.
That's cool. If you didn't like that bit, I say a bunch of other stuff too. Feel free to engage with whatever bits you wish.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 05:36 PM   #70
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,944
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Looking back over the first half dozen posts or so, I don't think that's the question being posed in this thread at all.

The question is whether more people "like Trump" will run for president in the future. And, more broadly, what it means to be a "qualified" candidate.

ETA: It's also worth noting that whatever direction the GOP has been heading, Donald Trump wasn't really part of it. He blindsided them almost as badly as he blindsided the Dems.

The thing is, I don't think there are a lot of potential candidates "like Trump" out there. His combination of incompetence and arrogance is pretty unique. Most failed businesspeople simply fail, and fade away long before reaching the point where they could plausibly mount a presidential campaign. And successful businesspeople usually have better things to do than run for president--Like running a successful business.

Take Oprah, for example: She'd be an idiot to run for President. It's not a job you want if you have something else worth doing. I mean, look at our recent run of Presidents: Actors, Lawyers, Governors... all of them career politicians. All of them establishment douchebags to one degree or another. The only reason for Oprah to walk away from a successful and rewarding career and run for President would be if she sincerely believed that she had something of value to offer the nation. Some insight, or principle, or vision that was worth giving up years of her life and her vocation, to bring to fruition for the nation's benefit.

Obviously she doesn't believe she has anything special to offer. If she did, she wouldn't be talking about how she doesn't have any qualifications to run for president. She'd be talking about how she has the only qualification that really matters. She'd be talking about having the same qualification that *any* citizen should feel empowered to bring forward and seek the nomination. For generations, the career politicians have been pushing the lie that only a politician can possibly weigh questions of policy. Only a politician can consider matters of diplomacy and trade.

I'm tired of the lie. I'm tired of citizens being told that all they're good for is to shut up and vote for their betters. Donald Trump is a lying, corrupt, incompetent douchebag. But he's not a lying, corrupt, incompetent establishment douchebag. For me, in 2016, that's a good start. If Oprah Winfrey were to look at Trump's candidacy and say, I could do that--I could do better than that!--it would be another step in the right direction. But she doesn't say that, because like the rest of the left, she's confused. She doesn't see what Trump being president could mean about future presidents. She doesn't see what it should mean.

Yeah, no. He's been an actor for a long ass time. He's not that different in that regard.

And if you want anti-establishment politicians to gain traction, why would you cheer someone like Trump getting the most attention for being one? He'll bankrupt the political capital of that brand faster than he can lose money on a casino. The backlash risk is massive.

I get and agree with your idea that having politics be a 'citizen's calling' to offer something back is a worthwhile ideal. But, that's a key reason why politicians become politicians. At one time or another, they thought they could offer something in the job. As much as we like to rag on them, all the people I've personally known who have held office have done so because they thought it was something good and worthwhile to do. More than that, it appears exactly why Hillary Clinton got into politics.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.