The absurdity of Donald Trump

[lumberjim]

the whole shit show is an indictment on our society. That we, as a people are indolent and apathetic enough to allow either of these fictitious characters to represent America to the rest of the world.

Reality TV meets Government is right.

[Pico and ME]

'People' have always been and will always be flawed in that way. One thousand years from now, if still in existence, the story will be the same.

[BigV]

Very well put sexobon.

"We'll fix it in post" -- Sarah Silverman. Just, without the irony. It's abundantly clear that he's had a lifetime of success talking this way, much of it, probably all of it unscripted. And these are his ideas, his words. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that seeks out the advice of experts, least of all people who tell him what to say. He's had a lifetime of having people reward him with their attention, from near and far, sycophants well represented, I'm sure.

And now we're seeing more of the same. Why fuck with success? But as you pointed out, he is in a different milieu. I think Clinton's observation that we're seeing the "real Donald Trump" is on the money. We're seeing a very candid presentation of what we could expect as POTUS (God help us -- Bloomberg).

There are those who find this candor refreshing, and imagine his outsider-ness to politics as the medicine to cure our political ills. I could not disagree more. Let's follow his logic, but from the other direction. Dear Trump supporter, Hillary Clinton has had a lifetime of public service, never having worked a day in her life in the private sector. So, she's the best possible candidate to step in as CEO and Chairman of the Board of MEGACORP, Inc, that is in bankruptcy, covered in lawsuits, has lost it's market share, has a product line that is old and busted, etc etc. *Because* Clinton isn't tainted by private enterprise, she's the best man for the job here.

Amirite?

No, that's absurd too, but it matches Trump's "logic" precisely, it's just plain wrong.

Taking his remark from the OP, think about this. Why would we want a President that is so reliably bad at expressing what he "really means"? How in the world could this possibly be in our nation's best interest?

[sexobon]

To me your analogy is flawed, it's apples and oranges. The President of the United States is* the Chief Executive Officer. Candidate Trump has been a successful CEO. Candidate Clinton has not.

The analogy would be that if one could expect Trump, with his megacorp CEO experience, would be successful at running the country; then, OBAMA, with his POTUS CEO experience would be successful at running a megacorp. That's true (but no guarantee). If Clinton wouldn't make a good CEO of a megacorp, she probably wouldn't make a good President. There's more to running a country than foreign diplomacy.

This doesn't mean someone without previous megacorp CEO experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.

Nor does it mean that someone without foreign diplomacy experience can't learn how to be a successful President on the job. Some have done it.

Obama had neither megacorp CEO experience nor foreign diplomacy experience and he did it (more or less).

After being situated as President, it would take Trump a heck of a lot less time to go through speech therapy (pun intended) than it would for Clinton to go through business school at a time when the public's focus is shifting more towards domestic development and away from foreign relations except for international trade. Trump would have minions for that.

(* Depending on what your definition of is, is.)

[BigV]

Trump says Obama is the founder of ISIS.

This guy needs better material, better writers. This is *more* shark-jumping by Trump. And he's eating it up, he's loving the attention.

Absurd?

I think so. I'd love to hear a rational re-imagining of his remarks.

[sexobon]

Tw, that Trump didn't diffuse the situation is a benign character flaw at worst. He doesn't have groupies who are going to kill for him. It would be like saying Black Lives Matter is responsible for any killings by black people. It's conspiracy theory fusion paranoia.

BigV, Trump speaks in hyperbole for publicity. Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

Happy Monkey, the sophisticated level of malice being attributed to Trump's Second Amendment people statement, one statement crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences, and stupidity as expressed in Hanlon's Razor ARE mutually exclusive.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

snip--

BigV, Trump speaks in hyperbole for publicity. Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

--snip

Donald Trump disagrees.

Originally Posted by Hugh Hewitt and Donald Trump

HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?
DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.
HH: I did. I did. I played it.
DT: I gave her the co-founder.
HH: I know what you’re arguing…
DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that’s okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.
HH: That’s…
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.
HH: That’s true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.

Between you and me, Trump's milk tongue is hyperbole. We agree. But statements like this are an abuse of the language. Yes, he's speaking hyperbolically. Yes, outrage is his jam. But tw hit upon something quite true, that the same words spoken by Trump are heard differently by different audiences. I know this, and I still find him almost incomprehensible. About all I get from his is LOOK AT ME!, self aggrandizement, pomposity, ... It's kind of sickening. What I grok from today's episode of "Orange is the new Blech!" is "HEY! EYES AND EARS HERE! Keep channeling your generalized, simmering dissatisfaction with your life at Obama, it's his fault! And he's the reason you need to be afraid, he's the source, the fountainhead of your fear. I, and I alone, can fix everything. Never forget Trump! TRUUUUMP!!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Happy Monkey, the sophisticated level of malice being attributed to Trump's Second Amendment people statement, one statement crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences, and stupidity as expressed in Hanlon's Razor ARE mutually exclusive.

It doesn't have multiple meanings. Trump's people had muiltiple explanations after the fact, but it was a joke about killing Clinton the whole time.

[sexobon]

Trump's a rascal; but, it works for him. Keep in mind that when it comes to the Presidency, Trump can take it or leave it. Hillary has all her eggs in one basket. That's why Trump not only doesn't have to be politically correct, he can be outrageous! If it backfires in the general election, I don't think he'll be too upset.

In the case of ISIS, Obama knew the void in Iraq would be filled. That region has a history of such occurrences. He may have even figured that a rising regional threat would distract key elements in that region from attacking the West by preoccupying them. If creating the circumstances for an organization to come together and thrive can loosely make one a founder; then, that wasn't Trump's biggest stretch. Trump didn't disagree with what I said, he just didn't limit it to that.

[sexobon]

When I posted the term Hanlon's Razor, it was in response to tw's post (part of which I quoted) implying that Trump's statement was crafted to have different meanings for different target audiences. You say "It doesn't have multiple meanings." Your disagreement is with tw, not with me. I would suggest you take it up with; but, he probably doesn't want to waste too much time with you either.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq; because, he couldn't get certain concessions in a Status of Forces Agreement. That withdrawal opened the door for ISIS.

Even with American withdrawal, Daesh was (should not have been) a threat. But this problem began when officials in the George Jr administration openly declared that Maliki was, well, from the Washington Post on 3 Jul 2014:

When Maliki was an obscure member of parliament, I was among the very few Americans in Baghdad who took his phone calls. In 2006, I helped introduce him to the U.S. ambassador, recommending him as a promising option for prime minister. In 2008, I organized his medevac when he fell ill, and I accompanied him for treatment in London, spending 18 hours a day with him at Wellington Hospital. In 2009, I lobbied skeptical regional royals to support Maliki’s government.

By 2010, however, I was urging the vice president of the United States and the White House senior staff to withdraw their support for Maliki. I had come to realize that if he remained in office, he would create a divisive, despotic and sectarian government that would rip the country apart and devastate American interests.

Maliki was George Jr's choosen man. George Jr's response to his own staff (who strongly recommended his removal) was to spend 2 hours daily on a video conference to teach Maliki politics.

Eventually Maliki made war with Sunnis and with Sahdr's army. What he did next made Daesh possible in Iraq.

Maliki ... began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and replace it with his private office and his political party. He sacked professional generals and replaced them with those personally loyal to him. He coerced Iraq’s chief justice to bar some of his rivals from participating in the elections in March 2010. After the results were announced and Maliki lost to a moderate, pro-Western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethno-sectarian groups, the judge issued a ruling that awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government, ushering in more tensions and violence.

Does this not sound like the government of S Vietnam? Even Turkmen, Kurds, and Christians were ostracized and obstructed for a deficient dictator's benefit. He consolidated power at the expense of Iraq. What remained was a weak but the only remaining leader.

Worse a legendary Iranian Gen Soleimani, who tried repeatedly to work with Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan, now had the inside track on Maliki. George Jr successfully converted Gen Soleimani from a potential American ally into an American enemy. Soleimani said so personally by literally saying George Jr blew it.

Maliki was beholden to Soleimani because even Americans said he was a bad leader. Due to Maliki, Iraq was on the verge of a civil war. He even used American supplied M1A1 tanks to arrest Sunni leaders in their homes. A wonderful alliance forged by Petraeus that empowered Sunnis to drive out Al Qaeda was destroyed by Maliki - who only craved power. Maliki needed Americans out or subject to Iraqi laws that Maliki could change at will. As sexobon demonstrated, America had to remove all troops even though Obama did not want to. To protect American servicemen from Maliki.

Daesh sent a few hundred soldiers to attack a prison in Mosul. Daesh often used these tiny 'hit and run' attacks to obtain more recruits. Since Maliki was a self serving dictator who replaced American trained officers with political cronies, then three Iraqi divisions (maybe 30,000 men with artillery and M1A1 tanks) dropped all their weapons and ran from Mosul. Even Daesh could not believe how pathetic Iraq had become. America spend more on training the Iraq army than was spend on America's most expensive weapon system - F-22 Raptor. But we know 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Who would ever suspect Maliki was that incompetent since even George Jr personally trained him?

That is Iraq today. It still has too many incompetent Generals and leaders. Even fewer Kurds with less weapons are responsible for most of Iraq's victories against Daesh. We now live with a legacy created ten plus years ago when we alienated Gen Soleimani and installed an incompetent Maliki. Iraq is now so dominated by incompetent leaders and Sunni-Shia hate that it cannot even retake Mosul without American and Gulf State air power.

What a mess. We put in power what eventually became what even Daesh could only pray for. Apparently Muslims can pray for and get the worst leaders. Daesh exists because we put Maliki in power. And then could not remove him until Daesh threatened to conquer Baghdad.

[elSicomoro]

Every day, I am further amused and confused by Mr Trump. This was a tweet from last night:

"I have always been the same person-remain true to self.The media wants me to change but it would be very dishonest to supporters to do so!"

OK, but your ship seems to be taking on a LOT of water...

[tw]

Originally Posted by elSicomoro

OK, but your ship seems to be taking on a LOT of water...

Never ignore lesson from history. That is what educated people said in 1930 Germany. Hitler preached same illogical nonsense. But he was not preaching to logical people. He was preaching to emotionally manipulated people. That is where he got his support - from emotions tied to ridiculous comments. In the middle and late 1930s, the intelligent people eventually succumbed to mostly support Hitler.

Trump does not yet need intelligent people to support him. That is not his target audience. Those will come later - according to lessons from history.

Scary thing is to go to a Trump or Sanders rally. Absolutely amazing the blind an dedicated support - and not one idea what even a Federal Reserve is. They preach soundbytes. Even get angry when confronted by questions that require underlying details. And yes, I saw same blind support among Sanders supporters.

Rather scary. Reminded me of a most Googled question the day after. "What is the EU?"

[elSicomoro]

Unfortunately, we are a world that doesn't like logic and reasoning very often...especially our country. And people only dig in harder when you point out flaws.

[tw]

Originally Posted by elSicomoro

Unfortunately, we are a world that doesn't like logic and reasoning very often...

Nothing changed. Well over 60% of all Americans knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Even though a 1950 science study proved conclusively otherwise. 60% of the population is not officer material - then and now. They entertain their emotions up to 'irrefutable' conclusions rather first learning facts before making a conclusion.

Again I cite a perfect example that all long time Cellar Dwellars are familiar with. No facts said Saddam had WMDs. Reams of facts posted here said otherwise. But emotions "trumped" facts. Go figure.