Trump - Clown Genius

[Chad]

@IlliniDave
I don't entirely disagree concerning actual legislation to be passed. However, I'm extremely concerned "horrified" by stuff like this:

Not explicitly backing Article 5 in the NATO agreement:
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-na ... e-5-2017-6

The unbelievable amount of lying. Every politician lies, but this is at levels above what others have done:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ality.html

Also, the blatant attacks on science. I could pick out a ton of other stuff.

It's the stuff that can potentially permanently change our culture and the foreign missteps with long time allies that bother me. These are bigger threats than much of his proposed legislation, not that I even remotely like his legislation.

Hopefully, as Jenny noted, this scares both parties straight, but that seems like taking your life savings to the casino and placing it all on one spin of the roulette wheel. Sure, it could work, but it's not likely.

[IlliniDave]

Hopefully, as Jenny noted, this scares both parties straight, but that seems like taking your life savings to the casino and placing it all on one spin of the roulette wheel. Sure, it could work, but it's not likely.

Well, that would be nice but both parties seem to be disintegrating. I don't think parties matter any more other than they act as baubles to keep the population distracted.

[Dragline]

I don't even pay that much attention to Trump, it's what's going on in the government around him, especially the unelected part, that I think is interesting. As far as Trump goes, his biggest problem might be that he stoops to the level of his opponents/critics, something that's pretty "unpresedential" even when the opposition/criticism is a bit more civilized, and that is now cemented as his persona. I'm sort of surprised people who don't like his political agenda aren't pleased with this. My prediction now is that he will succeed at nothing legislation-wise, and anything he does by EO can be quickly undone by the next president. If he'd have "cleaned up good" once in the WH he could have gotten a lot done that would have been difficult to undo.

Sinking from incompetence into irrelevance. Well, that's probably about the best we can hope for. Flynn is gone and Bannon appears to be neutered. Here's hoping they stay that way.

Wish he would just take another junket. He seems to have less access to US television news then, and consequently does less tweeting. I can't help seeing him aging quickly before our eyes, as its become obvious he just can't keep up mentally with everything going on. It was really weird today when he criticized his own Justice Department on the E.O. litigation, as if he and Sessions did not control what it was doing.

I know a couple millennials who have recently taken jobs with Senate committees. One is working with the main finance committee. The word from there is that Mnuchin/Cohn have not had time to put together a real tax plan and were essentially forced by DJT to put out the one-pager, which they hated having to do. But more significantly, there is no action planned on taxes before health care, due to the consequences a new health care bill may have on taxes and budgets. Which means is may only happen during the Reign of Queen Dick, as one of my favorite 19th Century phrases goes.

The other one is a lawyer who speaks Russian fluently and just started last week on a Foreign Relations committee . . .

[enigmaT120]

It's the stuff that can potentially permanently change our culture and the foreign missteps with long time allies that bother me. These are bigger threats than much of his proposed legislation.

Isn't the fact that our culture has changed the reason for his election, not something he is causing? I see him as a symptom.

[IlliniDave]

Isn't the fact that our culture has changed the reason for his election, not something he is causing? I see him as a symptom.

This I think is accurate, maybe that *he* is not the symptom per se, but certainly his election was a symptom. In my moderate-length life I never remember the two political parties being so irrelevant, and the unelected apparatus so prominent. So it appears that it (the election) was a swing and a miss.

[Chad]

Isn't the fact that our culture has changed the reason for his election, not something he is causing? I see him as a symptom.

Oh, definitely. The people I personally know that voted for Trump all voted because they failed to change with the culture. Of course, change by itself is not something that concerns me. I actually enjoy it when we are moving forward. However, my concern is that Trump emphasizes the negatives (racism, anti-science, rudeness, no self-awareness, fear of foreigners, anti-trade, etc.) in the constant change within society.

@Dragline
The tax story from Mnuchin/Cohn sounds quite likely, as neither of them are dumb enough to do what was done without being forced and half-assed is Trump's MO.

The Russian speaker on the Foreign Relations Committee is interesting considering what is going on.

[Riggerjack]

Which means is may only happen during the Reign of Queen Dick, as one of my favorite 19th Century phrases goes.

You lost me there. What does Trump have to do with Cromwell?

The lack of horror increases mine

As someone who doesn't support Trump, but isn't horrified, let me explain my peace and tranquility.

Trump and the Simpsons entered my life about the same time, by the same medium, so I guess it is natural that it feels like we elected the worst possible combination of Bart and Homer Simpson. But it is cartoonish buffoonery. I fully expect an "eat my shorts!" Tweet.

Now, if I thought the President was a real, powerful, leadership position, I could be alarmed. But I don't. The President is a figurehead. The powers are almost all temporary. What lasting damage has come from any of the last dozen Presidents that wasn't also endorsed by Congress? Does anyone think Trump could get ANYTHING controversial through congress? I don't. He just lacks the ability to get anything other than tweeting and outraging the left.

Since I find the left more amusing when outraged than when smug, (I'm sure they have other mental states they display in private, but as an outsider those seem to be my only options.) and since I just don't want a lot of change, I'm OK with the douchebag in office.

Now, if I feared he could be effective, I would have cause for fear, concern, even horror. But how can anyone take him seriously?

Trump attacks science? That is your concern? If science can't stand up to that level of "ATTACK", then I have misunderstood science entirely.

Trump lied? Michael Moore said it best: "How can humor be inaccurate?"

We have 3.5 years left in this vaudeville act. We have to laugh, or cry. The choice is always our own.

[BRUTE]

Now, if I thought the President was a real, powerful, leadership position, I could be alarmed.

this.

thought experiment: what if all functions of the presidency were performed by a random number generator for a full term? what could the worst possible outcome be? that's what Trump should be compared to. in brute's not so humble opinion, the downside would be quite limited. brute's confident that the nukes wouldn't actually be launched if Trump sneezed on the button.

in fact, a RNG might perform pretty well if it got lucky with the business cycle and other external system variance, and got lucky a few times. brute believes most presidents (in fact, most humans) are just pulling random levers, and their intentions have very little influence on the outcomes. the ratio of causality to noise is probably 1:10 or lower. hence, a lucky RNG would outperform the most competent president with bad luck.

[bryan]

I thought the head of the executive is the "CEO" of most agencies, "buck stops here" guy, and the guy commanding/controlling any enforcement of laws or not laws. Also, at least since I've been around, Congress has been happy to cede power to the executive. Of course it is real, powerful, and a leadership position (for better or worse)!

[Dragline]

thought experiment: what if all functions of the presidency were performed by a random number generator for a full term? what could the worst possible outcome be? that's what Trump should be compared to. in brute's not so humble opinion, the downside would be quite limited. brute's confident that the nukes wouldn't actually be launched if Trump sneezed on the button.

Historically, the worst possible outcome was Civil War, which President Buchanan practically encouraged, even though he did not have twitter.

Your model seems too Gaussian for me -- I think the tails are fatter. The real test will come when DJT starts declaring election losses to be illegitimate.

[Dragline]

Which means is may only happen during the Reign of Queen Dick, as one of my favorite 19th Century phrases goes.

You lost me there. What does Trump have to do with Cromwell?

Nothing. The phrase meant "its not going to happen". See http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Grose-Vulga ... -dick.html

[IlliniDave]

I heard a new (to me) political term: "radical centrist". The contextual implication from the hard-left utterer (I say hard-left because she appeared not to approve of the "soft-left") was that it s a villainous attribute. Since taking the diction at face value makes it almost an oxymoron to my apparently dated way of thinking, I got a chuckle out of it.

[Riggerjack]

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

But I believe that every organization is full of people, who all have their own agendas. A proper leader would be able to herd those cats in her chosen direction most of the time.

That is why Trump doesn't scare me. He has money, and has been able to buy what he needed in the past. But direct money is less effective in dealing with career government employees. I don't think Trump will learn to wrangle anyone before he's gone.

Clinton spent a lifetime finding Washington agendas and manipulating careerists. She would have accomplished something. So I'm relieved she lost. Her agenda didn't match up with anything good for me, or the country.

Electing a buffoon, or electing known corruption, which would be more damaging to the office of the presidency?

I think we did choose the lesser evil.


(Once again, for the cheap seats, "why vote for the left nut, or the right nut, when you could have the Johnson?").

[Riggerjack]

I thought the head of the executive is the "CEO" of most agencies, "buck stops here" guy, and the guy commanding/controlling any enforcement of laws or not laws. Also, at least since I've been around, Congress has been happy to cede power to the executive. Of course it is real, powerful, and a leadership position (for better or worse)!

And that probably helps you sleep at night.

But if all we had to do was pass the *right* laws, and tell officials to do the *right* things, to get the *right* results, then picking the guy or gal who said the *right* things in the campaign would be all that is needed.

But tell me, Bush Jr and Obama were about as far apart politically as you could get. What enormous changes did they make in their terms?

For that matter, do you think Obama was helped by a BATF who relaxed regulation on silencers and automatic weapons as he was giving his post sandy hook gun control executive orders speach? Or an OSR decision to remove restrictions on exporting crude oil that have been standing since the 70's?

People have a fantasy that they can elect someone who will keep them safe, and make the world do what they say. "Leader of the free world" and all that.

Simple observation should dispel that.

[black_son_of_gray]

Now, if I thought the President was a real, powerful, leadership position, I could be alarmed. But I don't. The President is a figurehead. The powers are almost all temporary.

Except that he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. When was the last time Congress checked the power of a president who wanted to start a war? Even if the justification was patently false?

Simply put, Trump can start a global war if he wants to, and Congress can't do anything about it. His own generals can't either - he can just fire them. Not that he has a history of that...

[Riggerjack]

Simply put, Trump can start a global war if he wants to

Yeah, even this is harder than it looks. Think back to how big the events leading up to the Iraq invasion were. That took Congressional approval, with 9/11 as a precursor. And a military with 10 years of peace burden.

Today, there is no Congressional support. Military is busy, and has been for 15 years. And a President with plummeting approval.

A President who can issue orders and start a war, is a movie trope. It is not reality.

Worst case scenario is Trump throws a temper tantrum, orders a missle strike, and it is carried out. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, that is hardly different from the nonstop drone barrages coming from DC for the last 15 years.

[Riggerjack]

I submit that in ten years, everyone up in arms about Trump will be able to look back, and think about this as an ugly time. Yet not be able to point to any way that a Trump presidency made a tangible difference in their lives.

Clinton got the crime bill and assault weapons ban.

Bush got tax reform and ME wars.

Obama got the ACA and maintained the bush wars, with a little Clinton side action.

And those were all professionals, with a lifetime of effort, experience, and favor trading. Trump has none of these.

Trump got elected. And I think that was his great accomplishment.

[bryan]

> That is why Trump doesn't scare me... I don't think Trump will learn to wrangle anyone before he's gone.

So someone else will fill the power void.. who? Are you afraid of them?

> So I'm relieved she lost.

Totally agree!

> And that probably helps you sleep at night.

Not really? You mean it's a nice simple model that lets the world make sense? I'm not so deluded to think so. It's apt to say the President is the CEO of the USA with some significant power to effectively steer the ship. The jury is still out on if Trump being inept is good or bad.

> But tell me, Bush Jr and Obama were about as far apart politically as you could get. What enormous changes did they make in their terms?

Bush Jr's legacy is the Patriot Act, TARP, and killing brown people. He kept the ball rolling on most everything else. Obama didn't do anything crazy (felt pretty iterative) and kept the ball rolling on most everything else. Obama looked a lot like Bush from my perspective.

[jacob]

Thinking in terms of distributions (e.g. Gaussians), the average person is not directly impacted much by any federal/presidential decision; this may explain why so few bother to vote. However, the tail ends can be directly affected ... and presidential decisions/statements can shift the curve a bit. The result of shifting the curve is that the number of tail-end people can increase/decrease dramatically.

For example ... think of a distribution of IQ scores. 50% will have an IQ below 100 and 2% will have an IQ above 132. If, however, the average IQ is shifted to 104, the number of people with an IQ over 132 nearly doubles! (+76%)

So while most people (between -1 and +1 sigma, that is, 84--116) won't see much difference (the difference between 100 and 104 is imperceptible), I fear that the "derived" effects down the line are material. Even if most people can't put their finger any one thing in particular, the small number of people who can and will put their finger on something may increase drastically (twice as many 132+ people is a significant effect). Conversely, if the average is lowered to 96, the number of 132+ people is almost cut in half. So apply this concept to other distributions than IQ... such as "the probability of becoming a terrorist/radicalized"(*) or "the probability of coming to the US in order to study engineering"(**) or "the probability of starting a successful business"(***). This effect is particularly strong in rare or extreme events. For example, the effect at 3sd (148) is +130% ... since these are the-worst-of-the-worst (e.g. radical terrorists) or alternatively the-best-of-the-best (e.g. world class scientists) their influence is larger than their numbers imply ...

What the exact probabilities are is a different matter, but you get the point ...

(*) It's anecdotal (from news) but there seems to be more white supremacist inspired domestic terrorism now than a few years ago?! Perhaps because the tone has shifted. People used to keep such stuff to themselves, but it has become more acceptable to share such sentiments at the mild levels for the average person (what people share on facebook for example)---this in turn changes the radical numbers in the tail.
(**) I've seen plenty of these examples with people (scientists and engineers) no longer considering the US option to be their default career-move. More STEM people are going back to their original country (or some other country) these days because they don't want to risk having the [visa] carpet pulled out from under them. Recall universities recommending that professors not risk going to international conferences ... or google recalling their employees.
(***) How much is one "Elon Musk" worth to the economy both in terms of direct consequences of businesses started, but also indirectly (suppliers, new ways of doing business, strategic importance i.e. NASA is now dependent on SpaceX). Compare to having three times as many of this type .. or alternatively half as many. Using Musk as an example because his businesses are very much contingent on a combination of easy entrepreneurship + energy-subsidies for the particular businesses he's starting.

While Trump doesn't have any legislation to his name, insofar he can talk distribution up or down by the equivalent of 4 points, which I believe he can, he does have cultural impact even if he hasn't had any political impact yet. I see three such areas, two of which have been noted by Chad already. These are highly connected in several ways:

Normalizing alternative facts: Agreeing on the existence of factual concrete reality used to be a common standard as recently as early 2016. For example, the size of the crowd during the inauguration. Back then partisans would certainly try to reframe, mislead, or emphasize certain aspects of that reality while others would frame it in different ways. However, now, it's become acceptable to create whatever reality fits one's desired narrative (the crowd size can be whatever you want to say it is ...) and if it doesn't, then it's "fake news". As a result people now live in different bubbles. More importantly, "reality-checks" have been reduced to "just your opinion, man". Such an epistemology (how we know what's true) makes it a lot easier to hold and adapt crazy beliefs because they simply go unchecked when truth no longer exists as a concept.

Some of the social media fake news seems to have been cleaned up, but the war on the media is ongoing. I don't know if this line of post-postmodern philosophy (where not even factual reality matters) will continue post-Trump. It's quite certain that most other "developed" countries (and politicians) struggle in dealing with this way of thinking. As far as I understand, people in some countries are used to not being able to entirely trust any official channels...(former eastern bloc, for example) so it could also become a more permanent thing that people just get used to.

Immigration: International visitors (tourism) are down 10-15% yoy!! Let that sink in for a moment. The US is seen as less welcoming to international visitors and immigrants overall, even for people deciding where to go on vacation. I could only find the tourist numbers but since they are closer to the average in the distribution, I suspect the numbers on the tail of the distribution are more adversely affected---think people making career choices.

Add: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... plications ... Yeah, what I expected. Note that the previous normal state of things was an overall upward trend/increase all the way around.

There are two effects here. One is homegrown terrorism (which accounts for almost all of it). Since thinking in bubbles is becoming more common, the probability of radicalization especially when coupled with the anti-Muslim rhetoric is more likely to increase than decrease. It increased in Europe and now homegrown terrorist attacks are a regular thing.

The second is that almost half of the STEM pipeline into American tech businesses, government, and academic research is fed by foreign students. About 50% of engineering doctorates are awarded to non-US persons and the majority of patents are also filed by non-US persons. The hassle and risk of all the chaotic and seemingly random visa regulations is making foreign STEM people question whether the risk (of being locked out after having gone to a conference ... or being deported after investing time and effort in a US company or university) is worth the reward of the US have better opportunities in this regard. Some of this tail-end would be seeking their fortunes in other countries. This would mean less STEM people in the US and more of them in other countries, especially China. Hence, this has implications for US competitiveness down the line.

International diplomacy and perceptions: The US is now out of the TPP and out of the Paris agreement. Other countries are moving ahead on them which then means that China has more clout being the largest economy in these treaties by far. It's notable that China is pivoting to the EU. It's also notable that US-Russia relations are cooling. Thus the US is more isolated now than it was before. I have no idea how/if they will or can be reverted post-Trump. It could also be that such treatises will simple disintegrate in the rest of the world as well. (See e.g. Brexit)

Again, the effect would be indirect. If you work for a US company that's directly affected, you might get fired or more likely, simply not hired because businesses that would have been founded never got founded in the first place. In that case, you'd probably be doing something else, like maybe working in the shale fields instead.

Again, hard to put a finger on it but definitely consequential. One might compare this to the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry: It's hard to put a finger on a specific thing to blame ... because the combined effect is a confluence of many factors. However, it's quite easy to determine whether a certain action is helping or not helping. In any case, the loss of manufacturing over the past 30-40 years did have a wide impact on the country as tail interactions (loss of entrepreneurs and industry leaders) spilled into the center of the distribution. In many ways, it resulted in Trump getting elected.

In terms of long-term effects, it depends on how the next President is perceived. Note that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize simply for "not being GWB". During Trump's presidency it would seem that other countries would not rely on US commitments and thus maybe less or nothing at all will get started. This would be entirely in tune with America First (everybody else second). Afterwards, I don't know ... in any case, China now has four years to pursue their goals as the new dominant geopolitical player.

That's all I have for now.

The thing I haven't quite figured out yet is after about half a year of Trump as president who or which groups are winning? And what are they winning?

[ThisDinosaur]

"fake news". As a result people now live in different bubbles. More importantly, "reality-checks" have been reduced to "just your opinion, man". Such an epistemology (how we know what's true) makes it a lot easier to hold and adapt crazy beliefs because they simply go unchecked when truth no longer exists as a concept.

Ego posted a video a couple pages ago about how this effect was used by Putin's propagandists to discredit dissidents. Is there any evidence of a way to reverse this? Like, have any post-authoritarian eastern bloc countries found a way to get society to recognize *facts* again?