User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Question about US Election campaign


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Question about US Election campaign
Page 58 of 61 First Previous 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61  Next Thread Tools
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-26, 14:49

Anyone want to guys how this would go down if the roles were reversed?

Oh wait, we already know don't we since they were reversed. I'm sure the broad brush will be applied and it will implicate Gov Brown and the entire Democratic Party with regard to their treatment of women and immigrants. Why all the Sunday talk shows were probably discussing it and the 24 hour news shows I'm sure have spent hours of "analysis" on it the last two days.

Or..... probably not.......

Now this doesn't really mean much either way as it didn't with Warren.

However I have many friends and I highlight things like this so they don't keep basically existing in a state of personal anguish. They believe political motive and actions are really only a one way street and that there is only one right path and one right way.

So just some points to ponder.....
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-26, 15:49

Yeah. She was given he opportunity to speak at a later time, spoke out of turn and was removed when she didn't comply with the rules of the state senate. Shades of Warren but not the same: Warren was reading testimony about Sessions relevant to the business before the US Senate and was silenced because it could be interpreted as critical of a currently serving Senator. If you cannot see the difference between these two events, I am truly sorry you are so debilitated.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-26, 18:47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Yeah. She was given he opportunity to speak at a later time, spoke out of turn and was removed when she didn't comply with the rules of the state senate. Shades of Warren but not the same: Warren was reading testimony about Sessions relevant to the business before the US Senate and was silenced because it could be interpreted as critical of a currently serving Senator. If you cannot see the difference between these two events, I am truly sorry you are so debilitated.
NPR must be equally debilitated.

Perhaps you could do with a little rule 19 practice yourself. It is possible to disagree with someone, even strongly without resorting to the labeling and name-calling.

The real point remains. Rule 19 is there for a reason. The decorum in the California Senate which has similar rules is there for a reason. People believe their causes and positions are somehow above the rules or the system and thus they should tear the system down to get their win.

How has that been working out for Democrats so far? Did destroying the filibuster get them what they wanted in terms of Trump cabinet or judges now that he has won? Have you looked at the Democratic prospects for the next midterm election for the Senate? The Democrats have to defend 23 seats and the Republicans 9. Perhaps rule 19 should be suspended so that Republicans can just reduce the chamber to pure politics and pick off a dozen or so Democrats using their majority power to control the chamber speech for the next two years or so.

It's called the big picture and calling big names with big words doesn't get around the fact that for many people, they don't get it. They get win a day of twitter trends and lose the election. Wise up!
  quote
dglow
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-02-26, 20:02

What up, El Gallo, you can dish it but you can't take it?
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-26, 20:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gallo View Post
NPR must be equally debilitated.

Perhaps you could do with a little rule 19 practice yourself. It is possible to disagree with someone, even strongly without resorting to the labeling and name-calling.

The real point remains. Rule 19 is there for a reason. The decorum in the California Senate which has similar rules is there for a reason. People believe their causes and positions are somehow above the rules or the system and thus they should tear the system down to get their win.

How has that been working out for Democrats so far? Did destroying the filibuster get them what they wanted in terms of Trump cabinet or judges now that he has won? Have you looked at the Democratic prospects for the next midterm election for the Senate? The Democrats have to defend 23 seats and the Republicans 9. Perhaps rule 19 should be suspended so that Republicans can just reduce the chamber to pure politics and pick off a dozen or so Democrats using their majority power to control the chamber speech for the next two years or so.

It's called the big picture and calling big names with big words doesn't get around the fact that for many people, they don't get it. They get win a day of twitter trends and lose the election. Wise up!
Your post proves my point: Nguyen wasn't in violation of anything like a rule 19; she was provided a later speaking time, and violated rules around that. You think this is about Warren (the NPR piece is about her and for obvious temporal and substantive reasons doesn't cover the Nguyen event), but actually it is about how *you* constantly stretch credulity with your comparisons. Your big picture is muddled by your myopia.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-26, 23:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by dglow View Post
What up, El Gallo, you can dish it but you can't take it?
Take what exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Yeah. She was given he opportunity to speak at a later time, spoke out of turn and was removed when she didn't comply with the rules of the state senate. Shades of Warren but not the same: Warren was reading testimony about Sessions relevant to the business before the US Senate and was silenced because it could be interpreted as critical of a currently serving Senator. If you cannot see the difference between these two events, I am truly sorry you are so debilitated.
Warren was silenced because she broke Rule 19 clearly.

"No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."

Reading a letter by a third party is clearly doing this in an indirect manner. It is clear as day.

No she wasn't. She was told she could not address his views and statements because it wouldn't be respectful to others. (but what about being respectful to her) and he isn't alive anymore so it need not be addressed. She was told to post it to her social media feeds instead. There is a time where people are allowed to discuss whatever they desire and you are correct that she could have mentioned it then but she wanted to address it in the context of the issues on the floor.

Also there is disagreement. She declares she wasn't allowed to address the matter at all period.

" Nguyen said she was told by Democratic leaders of the Senate to post her statement online, and not offer it during Thursday's floor session. Later, they suggested she speak after the adjournment motions, but Nguyen said she was told by parliamentary rules officials she could not do so.

"I was told I cannot speak on the issue at all," she said. "

I'm sure you wouldn't apply the same reasoning in reverse, that Warren could just post a link to her statement on Twitter or read her statement during a time when the Senate wasn't discussing Sessions and his qualifications to be in the cabinet. However she wanted it addressed and read during the time they were addressing the business at hand. Rule 19 was clear on the matter. The California matter was much less so in that the impugned state that Hayden inflicted upon the Vietnamese people wasn't willing to be recognized by the Democratic leadership.

Here's a bit of her statement on the matter....

"As you may be aware, Tom Hayden chose to work directly with the Communist North Vietnamese Government to oppose the efforts of United States forces in South Vietnam.

Mr. Hayden sided with a communist government that enslaved and/or killed millions of Vietnamese, including members of my own family. Mr. Hayden’s actions are viewed by many as harmful to democratic values and hateful towards those who sought the very freedoms on which this nation is founded."

As for me being debilitated, I continue to be just fine thanks. I see the world and the events unfolding in it pretty well. It wasn't me having the WTF morning on November 10th. I'm not the one living in fear of nonsense generated by the media. I've called both of these events items that won't matter much either way but I am using them to illustrate how a Democratic Party won't self-examine, and instead use the media to help maintain their delusion. These see these items as one way. That evil Trump has created a world where Warren is silenced and all like her will never be allowed to speak. The reverse is also true but neither of them are grand conspiracies nor indicative of general trends. THAT is the point.

Understand there is still a media crafting narratives of actual national guard forces getting ready to work with ICE to sweep up 11 million immigrants and put them in camps to slave away for Putin or some other sort of incomprehensible nonsense. Trump is Hitler but a very ineffective, incompetent and chaotic Hitler who is secretly controlled by Bannon and Putin and maybe Pence or god knows who. Right? It doesn't even make sense.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-27, 02:32

It doesn't make sense because you are crafting the concept of a party or its supporters yourself. It is almost as if you cannot see your own straw man for what it is... frankly, it's pathetic.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-27, 08:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
It doesn't make sense because you are crafting the concept of a party or its supporters yourself. It is almost as if you cannot see your own straw man for what it is... frankly, it's pathetic.
That phrasing is a bit Trumpian. You might have to clarify it though honestly you are sounding a bit like it is time for the ignore list again. Your last several posts have been nothing but dismissals and name calling.

Here's a nice TED talk you can enjoy.
It's by a heavyset but whiny 5'10" woman who has a PhD in History and complains she is single while being heavyset, which is of course not acceptable to note or say, has a massive list of expectations which she claims to have now put aside, is progressive but she demands her future spouse be taller than her, etc. It's a slow motion fun bit of failure.

She's getting older. She's the only "settling" in reducing her list. She's the martyr of course.

It's a good metaphor for the Democratic Party right now.

If you don't enjoy it I'm sure you can think up some more labels and names to call so it's all good.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-27, 09:05

Nick, you are as ever full of shit.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-27, 10:08

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Nick, you are as ever full of shit.

George agrees with you.


Quote:
Beyond the untruths lie Trump’s genius for messaging, such as his recent contention that the free press is the enemy of the American people.

“The press did something really dumb after that happened,” Lakoff said. “They came out with a Twitter (post): ‘Not the enemy.’ Nixon said, ‘I am not a crook.’ Everybody thought he was a crook. (Say) ‘Not the enemy,’ and you’re going to think of them as the enemy. The reason is very simple. In order to negate something, you have to activate in your brain what is being negated. And every time you activate something in your brain, it becomes stronger. So the more you negate something, the stronger it gets.”

Somewhere Crooked Hillary nods her head knowingly.

That’s called framing an argument, and it’s one of Trump’s go-to ploys. Another is floating a trial Twitter balloon. And yet another is the good, old-fashioned diversion.

“The question arose about the emoluments clause and whether he should be thrown out of office because of it,” Lakoff said. “So what does he do? He talks about Meryl Streep. The media, like dogs following a ball … ”


Go Fetch!
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-27, 12:31

Good luck with that, Nick. Celebrating that some rando agrees with you is certainly a sign of a person with full facilities engaged...
  quote
dglow
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-02-28, 01:53

1. George Lakoff is not 'some rando'. Google him.
2. I may not dig El Gallo's tone, but nothing he says justifies insults and ad hominem attacks.

This is why we can't have nice things in this country.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-28, 02:11

if Lakoff was of the opinion that trump's linguistic skills were those of a small unread child, we wouldn't be hearing a peep about him fom Nick. Hence, rando. Also: the reason you do not like Nick's tone is that it is full of implicit ad hominem, strawman arguments, and other logical fallacies including unsubstantiated personal annecdotes about his liberal friends (as if these people were anything more than Facebook acquaintances) and begging the arguments in basically every single post... he has always been like this -- https://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=32730; it is better to simply call him out on his bullshit until he grows weary of further engagement (as in, implicitly calling me a dog who gets distracted by Trumps minuscule balls and then fucking off to some other forum he trolls).

Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2017-02-28 at 02:35.
  quote
crazychester
Dick in the Abstentia, The
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-02-28, 02:34

Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gallo
That phrasing is a bit Trumpian.
Yeah, nah too many big words.

Quote:

Here's a nice TED talk you can enjoy.
It's by a heavyset but whiny 5'10" woman who has a PhD in History and complains she is single while being heavyset, which is of course not acceptable to note or say, has a massive list of expectations which she claims to have now put aside, is progressive but she demands her future spouse be taller than her, etc. It's a slow motion fun bit of failure.
Damn I would've guessed she wasn't an inch over 5' 6".

I say we keep this thread open for ever and ever. In the words of Jackie Kennedy, "let them see the horror". Yeah I'm serious, let's ride this baby to the end.

<grabs double major in history, runs away>

<Not to self, history degrees make you fat heavyset.>



Ok I admit I got no fucking idea what's going on here. Y'all keep drifting off into the finer points of US politics. And just quietly, that really doesn't seem necessary when there are plenty of big picture issues that I'm very interested to read all your opinions on. Especially when they may well affect me but which, unfortunately, I have no say in.

So, questions:

1. Is El Gallo's post about the fat, tall history PhD even remotely serious? Cause it kinda looks like it is.....
2. I don't understand the ad hom. It surely can't be "rando". Surely it's gotta be the second half of that sentence.

In which case, pretty piss weak ad hom billybob. I expect better from you!

I think the time when I have to admit I'm "getting older" and that I have to give up the Internet (or the internets as us old people like to call them) may be nigh.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-28, 03:04

I wasn't trying for an ad hom, rather reiterating the point that Nick is off his game and failing to be convincing of anything, but disappointment noted. I will do better next time as long as you stick around crazy...

That said, I am surprised you didn't point out 'massive' in that sentence as a synonym to heavyset. We will all recall Nick's false complaints about his own heavyset wife, so there seems to be some story arc here...
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-28, 09:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
No. Just no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
If you cannot see the difference between these two events, I am truly sorry you are so debilitated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Your big picture is muddled by your myopia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
It is almost as if you cannot see your own straw man for what it is... frankly, it's pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Nick, you are as ever full of shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Good luck with that, Nick. Celebrating that some rando agrees with you is certainly a sign of a person with full facilities engaged...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
it is better to simply call him out on his bullshit until he grows weary of further engagement (as in, implicitly calling me a dog who gets distracted by Trumps minuscule balls and then fucking off to some other forum he trolls).
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazychester View Post
1. Is El Gallo's post about the fat, tall history PhD even remotely serious? Cause it kinda looks like it is.....
It's probably half serious. However you can see clarified above what it is in response to with regard to this. Basically I'm not going to call him a bunch of names in return. So I try to have a little fun and still address the topic at hand.

So as an example, I've been noting (perhaps harping who knows) about how Trump's messaging seems very intentional to me. Lakoff agrees. The article I linked noted that "Even at 3 a.m., Lakoff said, “He knows exactly what he’s doing in every single tweet.”"

Lakoff notes that the media is basically played by Trump using their own blindspots. They have a job they could be doing but if Trump calls Meryl Streep "overrated" they will lose their minds, chase the ball and basically lose any real point they could make.

When I see some smart people, people with whom I disagree but do enjoy having a discussion with starting to lose their minds with repeated ad-homs, and I know they've been banned in the past, I try to bring it up in a secondary manner. If it could be addressed in the primary manner they wouldn't have been banned across two forums in the past.

So half-serious at best. However there is a message there. Did you watch her video? I mean this as the serious part. The serious question is, can a very smart person engage in self-sabotage? Can their intelligence still leave them with a blind spot? Her video is a painful exercise in self-sabotage. Did you look at her list in the video? Her number one on the list, tall. (A woman declaring she will only date tall men is like a man declaring he will only date a woman with big tits) Here's the top six. Tall, handsome, smart, educated, athletic and outdoorsy. I mean we could digress from this digression and note the ridiculous of having a list about who you are going to fall in love with in the first place. However to have those on her list reads like the lead of a rom-com. The list is almost a pure stereotype and this is coming from someone who is trying to enlighten us with a PhD in History. You know, that topic you are supposed to learn from so you aren't doomed to repeat it. So her attitude is, all I'm asking for is Hugh Jackman (who at 6'2" might still be a bit too short to let her wear her heels.) Now that time has passed and he hasn't knocked on my door, I'll "settle" for well....less than Hugh as long as he is still taller than her, smart, ambitious, etc. She continues to martyr herself through the video literally not seeing how unattractive her own attitude and unrealistic expectations happen to be all while decrying societial attitudes and unrealistic expectations. You should and would hope she is only half serious at best because the irony is terrible.

So sure if I also find a TED talk with a man with a PhD in women's studies who has a list for what he wants in his wife and the top six are busty, sexy, smart, educated, girly, and loves the salon. Then I'm going to post it because it too will illustrate a slow motion fun bit of failure. Especially if later in the video he notes how he has narrowed the list to busty, sexy and girly because damn it, he can't be too picky now as he gets older and he's such a victim for having to narrow that list!

Now back to the point at hand, politics. These are analogs for the Democratic Party because right now, please understand this, they are basically still arguing about whether they need the rust state voters back. You know because you don't need voters to win elections right? They've put in Schumer, Pelosi and the Clinton pick Tom Perez for DNC chair. So they've changed nothing in terms of their leadership. The 2018 Senate midterm will see them defending 23 seats to 9 for the GOP. Go to the link. Look at the 2014 PVI. Look at the predictions and see where the toss ups are (Indiana as an example) and as you said you want to discuss, look at the big picture.

The big picture and the narrative from it looks like this so far. Trump is discrediting the media using their own biases Lakoff notes that when you negate something your brain reinforces it. Think about how much time the media is spending on the phrase "fake news." So Trump is proving effective all while distracting his opponents by tossing balls, aka tweets or purposefully engineered statements that play to their preconceptions. (He's an idiot and a bigot and etc.) He beat Clinton clearly (to me at least) by getting a much better return on his electoral dollars spent and in votes earned. His analytics had to be much, much better because he won with half the money she had and with fewer voters.

Now take this view of mine, real or imagined, and roll it forward to the next midterm. The Democrats do the same thing or worse, double down. There are several Senate and House Seats in areas that either lean Republican or are toss ups. You've got a party leader who can win with half the money and very targeted messaging. Also this time the voter turn out favors them as does the electoral map. What are the outcomes and the narratives that comes from that?

Big picture it for me please.
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2017-02-28, 10:47

I think the issue here is you're ascribing full bore uber Machiavellian traits to a guy who clearly is not in full control of himself.

Either he's the smartest guy and he's fooling 95% of the population, or he's an idiot surrounded by people using him as a blunt instrument.

Between the two, one is certainly much more believable than the other short of extraordinary evidence otherwise.

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-02-28, 11:08

The man eats aged New York strip well-done. With ketchup.

I'm going with the latter.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-02-28, 12:32

What this theory needs is critical data: Trump's poll numbers are getting worse than they were already; the marginal voters who voted for him over Clinton because 'Clinton' are already speaking out loudly that they weren't expecting this nonsense. His party has control over both houses of Congress and have moved on almost exactly zero of his policy initiatives. His governance by fiat has fallen flat -- chosen for the optics of 'doing stuff,' it now looks like they are sitting on their hands while they wait for the big boys to provide the policy initiatives. It's 30 plus days into his first 100, and we're sitting here arguing about whether he is damaging the media/Democrats by twiddling his thumbs. Seriously?

I know you mean this to be an illuminating conversation, Nick, and it is, but not in the way you want it to be: The ball chasers may well be the people who twist themselves into knots about how brilliant Trump must secretly be. The thing about brilliance... it tends to make itself known. And Trump is known for a few things: bullying, not paying contractors, and getting other people to bully for him, none of which seem particularly brilliant.

Would your theory be different, Nick, if the Democrats were going out of their way to reformulate their message to appeal to the Trump voters? Or would it be that Trump can get the Democrats to piss themselves with a few choice tweets? Basically: is there any way you could be convinced that Trump is not actually doing very well?

Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2017-02-28 at 12:45.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-02-28, 15:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by alcimedes View Post
Between the two, one is certainly much more believable than the other short of extraordinary evidence otherwise.
Well I've already stated that the best evidence is that as a non-politician he beat all the other Republicans in the primary and then went and beat Clinton in the general election with half the money she had. So whether it is him or the machine behind him, someone had to show some pretty good brains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post
The man eats aged New York strip well-done. With ketchup.

I'm going with the latter.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
I know you mean this to be an illuminating conversation, Nick, and it is, but not in the way you want it to be: The ball chasers may well be the people who twist themselves into knots about how brilliant Trump must secretly be. The thing about brilliance... it tends to make itself known. And Trump is known for a few things: bullying, not paying contractors, and getting other people to bully for him, none of which seem particularly brilliant.

Would your theory be different, Nick, if the Democrats were going out of their way to reformulate their message to appeal to the Trump voters? Or would it be that Trump can get the Democrats to piss themselves with a few choice tweets? Basically: is there any way you could be convinced that Trump is not actually doing very well?
Hey I like this much, much more and thank you for the contribution to this bit of speculating for fun and out loud.

First your point about brilliance. In many ways the point about it is that the people who are brilliant make what they do look ordinary and pedestrian. Do you look at Warren Buffet with his folksy talk, penchant for sweets and think greatest stock trader ever? Also most of his moves appear very ordinary. Take an athlete brilliant at a sport or musician who writes hit after hit or actor who can make the sternest face crack a tear. How often do they smash you with a dazzling intellect? I find quite the opposite that aside from their area of brilliance they are almost depressingly and profoundly ordinary.

So how could Trump not be doing very well. Well the news and all their analysis are background noise. The Republicans have one Supreme Court justice in the can and it is likely they will get another pick or possibly two in the first term. That alone is reason to keep stay the course for most Republicans. However the real issues will be fundraising and votes. You remember the vote about the wall from 2006 I mentioned as the basis of the Trump executive order? That sort of vote isn't for real action but to provide cover for positions in an election. So I'd say if you start hearing serious squeaking from Republican sources about people sitting on their wallets and likewise you see a series of strange votes a year or so from now to provide cover for positions, they you'll know Trump is getting in trouble. I say this because most of the polling on Trump's positions actually does quite well so I suspect much like in the last election people will continue to pull the lever for the positions even if they declare they can't stomach the man. Also polling about Presidential Approval is pointless because there is no basis of comparison. That happens during elections. How's your wife? Compared to what?

Regardless of who is president though I'm still of the view that the shit is going to hit the fan. We have bubbles in the stock market, housing market, student loans and car market. We also are $20 trillion in debt. My personal view is that no Republican or Democrat can fix this and that the fix will be large doses of inflation which will be lied about and called moderate or small. The only positive is the Euro and Yuan are worse off.

Speaking in that area though we have to remember that the vast majority of people give zero shits about politics right now. They've gone back to tuning it out for the most part. They'll give a crap again after Labor Day of 2020. If the economy takes a big hit. (It will) and hasn't recovered well enough by then, then Trump could be in serious trouble just as any politician would be in that climate. However Trump isn't actually very conservative on deficits and budgets. He likes deals and has already floated a trillion dollar infrastructure program. Adding more and calling it a infrastructure/stimulus plan would probably be enough there.

Have you read any of the health care proposals that "leaked" out from a half dozen sources around four days ago? What do your think about what is being proposed there?

Did you see this Stewart bit from last night? I thought you'd like it.
  quote
dglow
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-02-28, 16:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
The thing about brilliance... it tends to make itself known. And Trump is known for a few things: bullying, not paying contractors, and getting other people to bully for him, none of which seem particularly brilliant.
Trump doesn't need to be brilliant, only those who surround him do. The effect is the same.

It's the same story as W and Reagan.
  quote
crazychester
Dick in the Abstentia, The
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-02-28, 17:01

Oh it's that Nick. I don't get out much anymore. I'd actually forgotten he exists.

Still doing the same schtick he was doing as far back as the AI days, huh? More evidence for my latest theory that trolls are gonna wreck the internet not by causing outrage and offence but simply by boring us all to death.
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2017-02-28, 17:56

Quote:
Do you look at Warren Buffet with his folksy talk, penchant for sweets and think greatest stock trader ever?
Perhaps not, but I also can't recall listening to Warren Buffet and thinking "What an F'ing moron" either.

He can also back up his "great stock trader" talk with the tax returns to show it.

We still only have Trump's word regarding his business success, no real evidence to back it up. The only publicly available documents show massive, repeated business failures, bailouts and lack of payments to contractors. Most of which were side effects of his getting sued.

(and Trump's word has been shown time and again to be worth nothing, since he'll say whatever crap feels right to him, facts be damned.)

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-03-01, 09:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gallo View Post
First your point about brilliance. In many ways the point about it is that the people who are brilliant make what they do look ordinary and pedestrian. Do you look at Warren Buffet with his folksy talk, penchant for sweets and think greatest stock trader ever? Also most of his moves appear very ordinary. Take an athlete brilliant at a sport or musician who writes hit after hit or actor who can make the sternest face crack a tear. How often do they smash you with a dazzling intellect? I find quite the opposite that aside from their area of brilliance they are almost depressingly and profoundly ordinary.
It is interesting how you throw away evidence of their brilliance, and then declare brilliance hard to see. Well of course if you restrict yourself to blindly guessing after getting rid of evidence, you're gonna have trouble (I am secretly laughing at how you thought this was a reasonable argument). The thing is in none of your hypothetical cases nor in the case of Trump do we have to throw away evidence of brilliance -- it's just that when we look at Trump what evidence should we be taking as brilliance? People see what they want in him, but that isn't because of anything he has done, or rather he only continues to support this external concept of Don Jon 'Teflon' Trump by never saying the same thing twice. Is it brilliant not to have a solid opinion on any subject? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2017-03-01, 10:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post
The man eats aged New York strip well-done. With ketchup.

I'm going with the latter.


I really did laugh out loud on this one.
  quote
dglow
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-03-01, 14:09

But this ketchup is fantastic. Best ever.

Believe me. Believe me.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-03-01, 17:02

Wow 2018 is already getting damn interesting.

Quote:
The Indian-born Fulbright scholar—who holds four degrees from MIT in the fields of computer science and engineering—most recently made headlines for suing media outlets that cast doubt on his claim of having invented email.
I guess we don't have to worry about his being brilliant. That said some of his background reads in a rather interesting manner.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-03-02, 01:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by alcimedes View Post
Perhaps not, but I also can't recall listening to Warren Buffet and thinking "What an F'ing moron" either.

He can also back up his "great stock trader" talk with the tax returns to show it.

We still only have Trump's word regarding his business success, no real evidence to back it up. The only publicly available documents show massive, repeated business failures, bailouts and lack of payments to contractors. Most of which were side effects of his getting sued.

(and Trump's word has been shown time and again to be worth nothing, since he'll say whatever crap feels right to him, facts be damned.)
There are plenty of independent attempts at determining Trump's net worth. There is plenty of evidence because since it is real estate the places actually exist. Forbes places his net worth at $3.7 billion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
It is interesting how you throw away evidence of their brilliance, and then declare brilliance hard to see. Well of course if you restrict yourself to blindly guessing after getting rid of evidence, you're gonna have trouble (I am secretly laughing at how you thought this was a reasonable argument). The thing is in none of your hypothetical cases nor in the case of Trump do we have to throw away evidence of brilliance -- it's just that when we look at Trump what evidence should we be taking as brilliance? People see what they want in him, but that isn't because of anything he has done, or rather he only continues to support this external concept of Don Jon 'Teflon' Trump by never saying the same thing twice. Is it brilliant not to have a solid opinion on any subject? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
Your response is troubling. I didn't throw it away. I noted that it is often exclusive to one area and doesn't just transfer over to other areas. An example that has happened so often it is almost a stereotype is athletes and entertainers being bad with their money. Can they sing that song like no other and perform brilliantly? Absolutely! Does that mean they know what is happening with their bank account, often not so much.

Trump is a billionaire with a worldwide brand. He is the 45th president of the United States and he defeated 16 other candidates and Hillary Clinton to make that happen. Does that mean he is the world's greatest public speaker, not at all.

Let me ask you what made President Barack Obama brilliant aside from being adept from reading with a teleprompter. One of his books is claimed to have been written by Bill Ayers and that isn't some sketchy fake news. Ayers himself made the claim. Democrats lost hundreds of seats under his watch.

However let's take it a step further. What qualifies you to determine brilliance? What made Hillary Clinton so brilliant that she lost major leads and elections for president twice?

Maybe it is just my own background but public speaking just isn't that huge an indicator for me. I've done an extensive amount of performing and I've met plenty a performer who could render a monologue perfectly and then didn't have gas money to get home from the show.

Finally let us ponder if you are in fact correct. Let's just somehow assume that Trump is merely average but plods along with a good system. One good enough to beat Hillary Clinton and amass a few billion dollars when given a great start in life. Is that some sort of great tragedy? There is plenty wrong at the federal level and plenty of low hanging fruit to fix in terms of problems.

Additionally who are the brilliant people who bested him or should replace him or that we should listen to instead and why? Clinton? She got whipped twice and honestly outside of public service and marrying Bill what has she really done that is tangible? Sanders gives a great speech but clearly knew the deck was stacked and did nothing about it? He caved and did nothing to change anything even within the Democratic Party with all the support he received. Pelosi? Schumer? Perhaps Obama should stick his face back into the picture so he can give us an eloquent speech and the Democrats can lose another round of elections.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-03-02, 04:22

You really think this is about speeches?
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2017-03-02, 04:52

As a second more minor post, because it remains clear you are neck deep in the ongoing reality con of the American conservative movement -- Ayers clearly was joking about his authorship of Dreams of My Father. Not that this matters, because Obama's brilliance is not in question, nor is Clintons or any other politician, except Trump.

Further, you insult a large number of previous excellent presidents by declaring that a lifetime of public service doesn't count as doing something. You then fall into the classic error of equating lifetime success with money accrued (Trump, leaving his inheritance alone to accrue value at the average market growth rate would be better off today than he is -- i.e. He destroyed value by his actions).

Honestly, Nick, you are struggling here to convey a coherent reality based concept of the world. You mix conspiracy theories pulled from the depths of right wing bullshit with your convenient ignorance of facts and easy dismissal of contrary data. Continuing discussions with you are pointless as you cannot even engage with a singular subject. Here and now Trump's supposed (by you) brilliance (at what?).

Finally, there are several media darlings attempting to run against Warren. Your choice candidate with credentials to match has been and remains a con artist -- he did not invent email, and he has spent most of his adult life seeking publicity. Talk about a distracting shiny bauble... you should have recognized his con immediately...
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 58 of 61 First Previous 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama's new campaign ad... PKIDelirium AppleOutsider 21 2018-11-15 13:29
Election Day theme kieran Feedback 30 2008-11-06 00:32
How are YOU watching the election? Fahrenheit AppleOutsider 58 2008-11-05 03:45
New Mac ad campaign defaultmike Speculation and Rumors 40 2006-07-13 07:10
The Campaign (the new iMac, not the other one) psmith2.0 General Discussion 51 2004-09-09 21:43


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:35.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova