Trump - Clown Genius

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jacob »

@brute - Yes, I knew you were trolling. I left a memo with a friend as I was responding pointing that out for later just in case ;-) I know your proclivities when you get bored. In any case, we're (also Riggerjack and Campitor) really talking about two different things/trying to make separate and not necessarily mutually exclusive points. I grok that Trump was very very good at getting elected for all the reasons pointed out by you guys. He too still likes to point out how good he was at getting elected from time to time even half a year later even if winning the election no longer is relevant to actually being President, because successfully getting elected and successfully being president are two different things. That's MY point.

I will also admit that I was quite surprised Trump won, mostly because I trusted the polls which were quite unequivocal. However, it this is not the first time this "I'm a soccer-mom and my candidate is a hockey-mom and based on our common experience of driving kids around in a van and taking care of a family, we therefore both understand all complexities up to and including the entire geopolitical system, at least when it comes to shouting it out from the corner of the local bar but that's also good enough for being in office"-way of folksy thinking strategy has been pursued successfully because some smart people realized that this is how very many voters ultimately think .. or alternatively don't-think. See Palin for VP2008. Very similar! (And I got more egghead theory on top of this, but lets stay simple ... ).

What surprised me was that this strategy actually/finally worked all the way through the entire process eight years later. Mea Culpa!

My point (in my response to brute) was that the way the voters' cognitive process that picks their politicians is apparently different from the process that picks their surgeons, pilots, actors, and everything else in life... all the way up the to [D/R]NCs and the electoral college (which I understand is pretty much tied by hands and feet anyway). Hence cognitive dissonance ... even if I don't think there's much dissonance going on ... I think a combination of partisan tribalism and the Dunning-Kruger effect hides most such dissonance from the particular individuals who would otherwise change their minds. Just consider the change in attitude wrt bombing Syria depending on whether a Democrat or a a Republican is bombing random airfields for exactly the same reason (use of chemical weapons on civilians) combined with the fact that most can't find Syria on a map. Sorry, but I don't think party-affiliation should be the primary variable that determines geopolitical strategy ... but I do realize that most people/voters are acting as if it should be.

I think that this tribalist tendency is a weakness of democracy, not a strength. This is also why the US was [designed as] a republic and not a technical democracy thus being subject to various constraints (the constitution most importantly) and not based on simple majority or even "winner's authority".

PS: I always feel like I'm treading a fine line between arrogant Captain Obvious and conceited Colonel Condescending respectively whenever I bring original principles into it. However, it's been my experience that the random person either disagrees with their interpretation or they have no clue about them in the first place. However, being of a philosophical bent, I kinda think they're important though and I like the original version rather than the "living" version.

@Isabel - I call "red herring" on that Soviet argument. The first country in recent history/modern times be founded based on an ab initio [here enlightenment ideals] philosophy (not many scientists around back then but Franklin does have some original scientific discoveries and inventions to his name---it was still an amateur pursuit back then) was the United States in 1776. France followed on very similar principles in 1789. Then the Soviet Union followed Marxist principles in 1922, and finally Nazi Germany followed fascist/nationalist principles in the 1930s although the latter happened slowly in a long organic slide unlike the others which followed from revolutions (Hitler was democratically elected by the previous system.). All three were copied in various parts of the world and that's what WWII and the Cold War was all about. But today, there's pretty much just the US/French version left e.g. "checks and balances" and respect/concern for the individual as the primary two principles (=constitution in most countries) even if the other two ideas still exist on the far left and far right respectively. All other countries at least until 1950 derive from those 3 ideas tacking it onto previous beliefs: Mostly monarchist systems which either became more constitutional (thanks US/France) or just kinda gave it up eventually (thanks post-WWII social democracy, not to be confused with socialism) or a combination thereof.

And ... now there's a fourth style, namely modern China coming along that's crucial to understand in order to make 21st policy ... but I really wonder how many really have an idea of that particular philosophy... maybe by 2050?

Most of the Founding Fathers where either formally educated from the top-tier (Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia) at a time when that meant a lot more than it does today except Washington who was the leader of the Continental army (military and executive experience, confirmed!!) and Franklin who was a multidisciplinary genius---and despite Franklin's lack of formal degrees, I would say he had plenty of "sophisticated, educated intelligence". I never make the mistake of confusing institutional credentials with a combination of education, sophistication, or intelligence.

Most of these guys also had plenty of skin in the game (being in the Continental Congress and essentially being traitors to the British rule). I hope we don't have to argue whether the bar is lower today? If we have to argue that too for the sake of argument, I'm forever out of this thread :?

Note (also Riggerjack and iDave) that I'm not proposing that the optimal pick for world leader is the nerd who spent the most years adding letters after their name in various institutional programs leading to a preference for too much thinking and to little doing. What I'm saying is that leading the world requires a certain level of sophistication, because problems are complicated. Several Founding Fathers had international education or travel experience. The un-credentialed Franklin in particular. Also needed is a certain level of education, because education prevents one from being myopic or lacking nuance. And a certain level of intelligence; in which case here 125 IQ points is probably optimal because it allows one to connect with the most people without requiring too many levels of spokespersons. And those need to be the kind of IQ points to grok which people to hire and fire and direct. 125 IQ points of Egyptian Calculus skills is not what I want ... I had hoped that was obvious.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by BRUTE »

jacob wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:06 pm
successfully getting elected and successfully being president are two different things
this is maybe the crux of the issue. democracy was never good at selecting for good leaders, it was just less vulnerable to being taken over and consolidation of power. its greatest strength may be its ineffectiveness.
jacob wrote:My point (in my response to brute) was that the way the voters' cognitive process that picks their politicians is apparently different from the process that picks their surgeons, pilots, actors, and everything else in life...
brute isn't sure voters use a better heuristic to determine their surgeons, pilots, or actors. has jacob really ever picked his pilot? brute hasn't. surgeons, brute would have no idea how to pick. actors? certainly no intentional deliberation involved.

these also have much lower potential to be abused, and therefore there is less incentive for power grabs. the Presidency is just about the best opportunity for power grabs in the world. which is why power hungry sociopaths compete for it.

Tyler9000
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Tyler9000 »

ffj wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:35 am
To be honest, I'm surprised Trump hasn't been a target yet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... gger-news/

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Chad »

Hopefully, that was peak crazy with that shooting. All the talk gets people riled up and, unfortunately, the nut cases hear the venom too.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jacob »

@Chad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucs ... #Political Deja vu?

D will say it's the guns. R will say it's polarization.---All in accordance with the typical value-system (see Haidt) of how people attribute cause to either the individual or society.

Of course it [a mass shooting] requires the exact combination of both. This point will likely be ignored given that it requires people to question their own deeply held values. Therefore, the stalemate will continue.

In an ironic (is that the right word?), the SHARE Act (to deregulate the ownership of silencers) was up a debate hearing on the same morning as the shooting. Duncan, who is the congressman who believed he talked to the shooter is the main sponsor of the act which included this:

http://www.guns.com/2017/06/13/hearing- ... this-week/ (from the day before the shooting)
Other additions Duncan has combined into the draft of the new SHARE Act are the elimination of the ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing,” rolling back restrictions on the importation of certain ammunition from overseas, limiting how regulators classify some shotguns, shells and rifles as “destructive devices” under the NFA, and broadening temporary interstate transfers of firearms without having to meet a sporting clause.
Wow, just wow! It's hard to make this up. It could have been so much worse.

The hearing was postponed.

bryan
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:01 am
Location: mostly Bay Area

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by bryan »

BRUTE wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:10 pm
jacob wrote:My point (in my response to brute) was that the way the voters' cognitive process that picks their politicians is apparently different from the process that picks their surgeons, pilots, actors, and everything else in life...
brute isn't sure voters use a better heuristic to determine their surgeons, pilots, or actors. has jacob really ever picked his pilot? brute hasn't. surgeons, brute would have no idea how to pick. actors? certainly no intentional deliberation involved.
Picking a pilot can really only (for the layperson) be approximated by picking your airline. This amalgamates with other factors like equipment maintenance. Would be pretty cool if it were possible to really drill-down your exact aircraft, pilot (not that important tbh), stewardess team, etc. Meh.

Picking a surgeon can be pretty important depending on the operation. I had a major operation when I was younger and my father basically mailed my medical record/reports to various surgeons across the country (so this was before the internet..) and started a dialogue with a handful of them, gathering opinions. Ultimately he picked one, we moved, and I got my surgery. In another instance I broke my collar bone. Instead of having it surgically fixed immediately by whoever, I decided to wait a few days for the holiday when I would be home where there is a surgical practice that most high-profile professional athletes in the US use.

Picking an actor seems like a common thing for laypersons. Without even trying it seems I have a proclivity for Paul Newman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, etc. And I tilt towards being the type of person that doesn't know actors.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jacob »

@brute/bryan - I think you missed my point ... or I didn't make it well.

When we pick some someone to pull out a tooth, we look to the elite of human tooth-pullers. These are called dentists and we identify them by how they have a DDS or a DMD after their name. I don't know for sure, but it could also be that "dentist" is a protected profession so that not everybody can call themselves a dentist. This way you won't have the local barber or beautician doing oral surgery. This is an example of elitism when it comes to one's teeth.

A pilot would require commercial pilot's license or some such. If you fly, you pick a company that uses such pilots; not a company that employs pilots who have 10 hours of experience in a Cessna or Flightsim-X.

When we pick movies ex ante (without knowing the actor), we're likely to pick something out of Hollywood or a professional film studio. Not a local high school production on youtube. This way we have a good chance of being right. Sure, Hollywood makes terrible movies from time to time, but amateur movies are generally terrible all the time. Put it another way ... most people would agree that you're more likely to find a good movie on Netflix than on Youtube.

This way is so obvious because picking the best humans is all automated by various procedures that just floats the most qualified people to the top.

Except, when it comes to picking politicians. The equivalent here would be in choosing who to extract your tooth, not based on whether they have a DDS or an established dental office even ... but whether you believe that "because they're good with a wrench and know how to fix cars" or "because they have a nice smile which was once used in a ad for gum" somehow translates into actual surgery skills or even the ability to tell who is a good surgeon and who is not.

Here the argument is then made that it's not the elect-auto-mechanic's job to do the actual surgery but merely to decide whether to operate and then hire the right surgeon. However, if the mechanic has nothing to go on in terms of experience or knowledge of oral surgery, how would they ever know who to hire in the first place or whether the tooth needs to be pulled? The mechanic wouldn't ... but a dental hygienist probably would have a somewhat informed opinion about both---sufficient knowledge.

This is why I'm pointing out that a functional representative democracy requires a minimum degree of education/sophistication/intelligence both in the electors and the electee. Otherwise, the system risks breaking down. There's thus an implied responsibility wrt participating in a democracy.

bryan
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:01 am
Location: mostly Bay Area

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by bryan »

Ah, yes, much more interesting point.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

jacob wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:14 pm

Except, when it comes to picking politicians.
I agree with your general premise except in principal we are picking leaders and politicking is only a part of the job. There isn't really a specific training/education/professional background for leaders. Politicians see themselves as leaders but the recent track record of that "profession" here in the US is abysmal (and you saw the field in both primaries, it's not like Trump prevailed over Abraham Lincoln or FDR), so we got one from the business world in the White House this time. What's the quip: insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result? ;)

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

ffj wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:35 am
So any thoughts on the attempted assassination of a group of Republican Congressman? If this dude had been competent with a gun and the security detail hadn't been present this would have been much, much worse. To be honest, I'm surprised Trump hasn't been a target yet, but I'm guessing the opportunity hasn't presented itself quite so easily as a bunch of guys throwing a baseball around.
There's an irony in it. People who spent a lot of time alleging the very existence of Trump would embolden the KKK and Nazism to overrun the entire country don't seem to see the same sort of connection when an almost hate-driven media rails 24-7 against Trump and anyone associated with him and subsequently the anti-right movement grows increasingly violent. They sell it as a gun control issue. I can only imagine the narrative that would be out there if the guy was from Alabama and shot up a bunch of Democrats.

Hopefully the guy just had some issues and isn't the first in a series of people poised to go over the edge.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Chad »

Or, the hysteria is only a small part of this. It's not like there wasn't hysteria during Obama, it just wasn't covered as much by the big news agencies except Fox (definitely heavily covered by secondary news sites). I would assume we could probably go back and find statements on here suggesting this lack of coverage was disturbing. Now it's disturbing because of too much coverage? I'm not arguing either way, just pointing out incongruity.

I'm also not suggesting I'm above reproach on being incongruous with my statements. Especially, immediately after the election.

There are plenty of assassination threats, attempts, plans, etc. on every president and to a lesser extent on congress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... rack_Obama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threateni ... ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _in_office

Or, the hysteria is the same on both sides: By no means is this the first one against a someone from congress or is it limited to one party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by IlliniDave »

ffj wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:30 pm
@dave
Since the shooter was fond of MSNBC and Maddow and company, I glanced at their web page a minute ago. Nothing on their possible culpability, and the only story I could find (barely on the front page) about the shooting was Trump's statement on the congressman's condition. Plenty about Russia though. Plenty about Trump. :roll:
Not a surprise. The leaks about the special prosecutor investigating DT for "obstruction of justice" arrived just in the nick of time to save them from having to do follow-up coverage on an awkward story. Funny how often that seems to happen. :)

I should clarify that I'm not blaming the media/celebrity wing of the Democratic party for this, just pointing out what I see as the irony. There were a lot of people who disliked BO, and there was an underbelly of expression out there I found clearly objectionable, but it was a different beast than what we're seeing now with the widespread actions (some downright vile) of public figures, celebrities, and persons affiliated with news media towards the current administration. To find lunatic hatred of BO you pretty much had to go looking for it. You'd have to go nearly off-grid to avoid the lunatic hatred of Trump.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by enigmaT120 »

Ted Nugent thought it was pretty funny to (hopefully) joke about hanging Hillary and lynching Obama.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by BRUTE »

brute has changed his position on abortion, and has reached a compromise - against-choice and against-life. all humans MUST have abortions.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by jennypenny »

uncle

Miss Lonelyhearts
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Miss Lonelyhearts »

I consider genius a stretch.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3180
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Riggerjack »

In an ironic (is that the right word?), the SHARE Act (to deregulate the ownership of silencers) was up a debate hearing on the same morning as the shooting. Duncan, who is the congressman who believed he talked to the shooter is the main sponsor of the act which included this:

http://www.guns.com/2017/06/13/hearing- ... this-week/ (from the day before the shooting)

Other additions Duncan has combined into the draft of the new SHARE Act are the elimination of the ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing,” rolling back restrictions on the importation of certain ammunition from overseas, limiting how regulators classify some shotguns, shells and rifles as “destructive devices” under the NFA, and broadening temporary interstate transfers of firearms without having to meet a sporting clause.

Wow, just wow! It's hard to make this up. It could have been so much worse.

The hearing was postponed.[/weapon

I know this sounds strange to a European, but the weapons they are talking about are crazy regulated, and the BATF has massively abused their power in this area. It works because these are in the hands of the most absolutely law abiding citizens we have. The last time a legally owned NFA weapon was used in a crime was a deputy who shot his wife, back in the 40's IIRC. BATF used abuse of NFA weapon regulation to kick off both Ruby ridge, and Waco, and under Obama, they relaxed the rules on silencers, because they were concerned about the whole mess being thrown out as unconstitutional. (Specifically, they gave chief law enforcement officers the ability to deny without reason anyone in their jurisdiction trying to get an NFA weapon. This was routinely happening in Urban areas.) This set of rules is what the hearing was about.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Campitor »

Miss Lonelyhearts wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:41 pm
I consider genius a stretch.
Genius definition per Merriam Webster:

  1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.
    "she was a teacher of genius"
    synonyms: brilliance, intelligence, intellect, ability, cleverness, brains, erudition, wisdom, fine mind; More

  2. a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect.
    "one of the great musical geniuses of the 20th century"
    synonyms: brilliant person, gifted person, mastermind, Einstein, intellectual, great intellect, brain, mind; More
    adjectiveinformal

  3. very clever or ingenious.
    "a genius marketing ploy"
I would say he fits into bullet #2: creative, either generally or in some particular respect. I didn't vote for the great bloviator but painting him out to be a clown or idiot only reinforces the narrative that he can be easily dismissed and is without skill - this is how he got elected. He's smart as in Tammany Hall smart. He's a business man who uses thug tactics and demagoguery - he's dangerous because he's underestimated. And you don't get ultra-rich by being stupid or avoiding coalitions. The entire Pussy-Grabbing monologue shows that he's manipulative and opportunistic. Trump POTUS 2.0 groundwork is being built by the Left. The only hope is to take him seriously or pray that Bill Clinton is grooming a Slick Willy that can match Trump blow for blow. And whoever he's up against better be clean or Trump will dirty him up good.
Last edited by Campitor on Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by Dragline »

IlliniDave wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:33 am
[To find lunatic hatred of BO you pretty much had to go looking for it. You'd have to go nearly off-grid to avoid the lunatic hatred of Trump.
Um, no, this is incorrect. The whole Tea Party movement was lunatic hatred of BO. The whole Birther Movement, championed by Donald Trump, was lunatic hatred of BO. It was in our face almost every day. Every single day.

DT would get off easy if he would stop watching TV and tweeting about it. I know more about what's on TV from DT's tweets than any other source. Because DT loves TV and loves the media, deep down. He does not exist in his own mind, but for the media. That's the irony of it.

EdithKeeler
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Trump - Clown Genius

Post by EdithKeeler »

To find lunatic hatred of BO you pretty much had to go looking for it. You'd have to go nearly off-grid to avoid the lunatic hatred of Trump.
Go looking for hatred of Obama? I guess you and I must hang with different people, but from where I sit, the hatred of Obama was common and ever-present; the guy couldn't do anything right, and he tried to run a low-key White House. Trump stirs up crap every single day, and while i think the media coverage of his tweets is overblown, I guess I'm glad for it because I know what's going on. The stuff against Obama was very often overtly racist and not based on anything he did or didn't do. Political cartoons about "watermelon flavored toothpaste," Obama as a pimp, cartoons involving lynchings, the perpetual allegations of his lack of citizenship, he's a Muslim, millions of comparisons of both he and his wife to monkeys or gorillas.... The list goes on. NONE of those things were about policy or about international relations or anything else--there were about HIM as a man, a BLACK man.

Sure, there was stuff directed at Obama about policy stuff--the Affordable Care Act, Benghazi, etc.

But little that he brought on himself because of his behavior. Trump brings the scrutiny upon himself because of how he acts and what he does. If he stayed of the twitter, he'd give his critics a little less fuel to work with. If he had more competent spokespeople (I think Sean Spicer is the best of them, and he's not good) instead of Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway... you know, people who could give coherent, informed answers rather than the gibberish they spout half the time, well, Trump would look better.

I admit that I liked Obama, but didn't agree with everything he did and didn't do, and in my opinion Trump is... a terrible, terrible mistake. I think Trump deserves almost everything he's getting (though the Kathy Griffin thing went too far), but what worries me is what is happening behind the scenes. When all the cameras and microphones are pointed at the latest trainwreck, what dirty deal is going down in the back room? Sometimes it seems that all of this crazy has got to just be a big diversion for something really sinister. Are they all really that inept???

Locked