or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 184

post #2746 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggs View Post

I still care about politics, but I spend so much time reading the news just because I like seeing how the "system" works. It's the same reason I enjoy watching House of Cards. There are just a few issues that really get to me.

Persuasion has little to do with reasoning. Trump is most definitely persuasive. This stuff fascinates me because I work in marketing. I love seeing someone like Hillary who changes what she says based on polling and focus groups go against someone like Trump who just has this persuasive instinct that's present even in candid conversations and debates.

Congrats on your IQ test idea. I decided to go easy on you and not counter offer a dick measuring contest.

1) Persuasion should have a logical/rational basis (the logos component in Aristotelian rhetoric). It should go without saying that this basis is important for all sorts of practical and ethical reasons.

2) Trump lies at the middle of a crossover. The American right (with its alliance with religious fundamentalism) talks a big game about truth; in the culture wars of the 90s, the right considered (some superficially understood version of) postmodernism as a bogeyman because it was supposed to erode truth. But it's just a truism now that the right is all about the venal persuasion that you describe--make stuff up and then make it the truth as best as you can. The American left, meanwhile, is left propping up a Habermasian model of public, shared reason--with all of its strengths (let's, uhh, try science) and its weaknesses (people are stupid and believe a great many unreasonable things). (The irony being that the left is--at least from the viewpoint of its detractors--supposed to be more guilty of populist rabblerousing or whatever.) This pattern at least makes partially visible why Trump is successful on the right even though he's also inimical to the right.

3) Your own appeal to marketing points to the engine that drives the evacuation of reason and truth (as opposed to venal and even just stupid forms of persuasion) from public life. Marketing doesn't have to be reasonable--in fact, it can be avowedly unreasonable in its bid for popularity.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Hurr hurr dicks hurr durr


Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Trump is persuasive. He poses the IQ challenge because there's absolutely no way it could work against him. First, whoever he challenges won't take the bait. Even if they did, the test couldn't be conducted in a fair manner. Trump could have someone take it for him, so could the other guy. Unless the two of them meet in a room somewhere and they take a hard copy version, administered by an impartial 3rd party, the results would be meaningless. IQ doesn't = automatic good leader, but that's beside the point.

Anyway, I gave up on one question because I had a meeting. I now challenge you to toe and finger proportion contest.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I needled Reggs not just to point out that the IQ challenge is stupid, but also to point out that his enthusiastic support for Trump is curious because it's so easy to put him (i.e., Reggs) on the opposite/wrong end of Trump's stupid posturing. I think something like this helps to explain the batshit illogical identification with Trump (I'm an angry voter who wants American workers to be represented, so I love the billionaire with inherited wealth who screws over his own workers!) and why it generates so much enthusiasm precisely because it's illogical.
post #2747 of 8748
If all is left is a unshamefull crook caught in mutilpe leaks and scandals as Hillary loaded with financial sector lobby money doing their biddings allowing the the circus of 2008 and jokes running still at large,allowing revolving doors from SEC clowns to the rest ,and who clearly said will continue neocon and aipac biddings in international arena, basically continuing same legacy as the her husband, and other clown obama.
In regard to the other clown which uses double speak, even as immigrant would never vote for. His stances speak for its own.
We had enough wars from neocons lobby in middle east Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia and the lattest in EU, Ukraine with victoria nuland and company, and the lattest in middle east again creating international humanitarian crisis in Syria by arming different rebel group who than join isis al nursa ect.

The media as CNN spins 24/7 propaganda and Jeff Zucker is good at that protecting those policies through endless propaganda.

The only choice is no vote or Trump.
Edited by satrorianogreco - 5/24/16 at 8:35am
post #2748 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

This is a very weak arguement, there are multiple studies how vast majority of lottery winners go bunkrupt within few years of winning money. "Small loan of million of dollars" wouldn't amount for much if Trump's dady didn't teach him how to do buisness. So he was spoon fed because he was given both money and know-how, which is something lottery winners don't get along with their money. He was for sure forunate to be born in wealthy family but still his background is an asset to a potential voter as he managed to keep and expand his father's buisness- that's way more than most politicans can put on their resume.

This is a problem with a lot of Trump criticsm, you concentrate on Trump's strength and sell it as a weakness instead of for example attacking his inexcusable stance on torture. This is the very definition of logically ass-backwards.

ps. grats on your IQ test results guys cheers.gif

It's not ass-backwards if you take it as a claim about personal merit and skill. (As an immigrant, I'm very American this way in clinging to some desire for meritocracy.) That is, because Trump inherited both money and business practices, he has a higher hurdle to clear. And I think his track record of doing well with the considerable financial/infrastructural assets he inherited is kind of shitty. And hard to ascertain for certain since he obfuscates his wealth. And also unseemly since he has documented mob ties. None of this speaks very well for his personal talents as a businessman, especially in the context of his political positions & rhetoric (of not being corrupt).
post #2749 of 8748
Let's address the IQ results before we move on.

Staying on SF: TS and Piob.

Voted off the island: Reggs and EtO.
post #2750 of 8748
Sorry, internet genius, but you failed to sign your documents. Deportation for you.
post #2751 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Sorry, internet genius, but you failed to sign your documents. Deportation for you.

Citizen now, brah. POTUS Trump is stuck with me.
post #2752 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

It's not ass-backwards if you take it as a claim about personal merit and skill. (As an immigrant, I'm very American this way in clinging to some desire for meritocracy.) That is, because Trump inherited both money and business practices, he has a higher hurdle to clear.

Yeah well Yao Ming has also a higher hurdle to clear since he didn't do jack to be 7'6" and it's unfair to all people out there who are 6foot or less. but still Yao is more suitable for the job of basketball player. Fact is that Trump is a competent buisnessman and that's an obvious advantage of his candidacy.

Anyway I would vote Trump vs Clinton for other reasons;
- he is less likely to start another pointless war, outline of his foreign policy is less interventionist than Hillary's
- if he would do at least half of what he says for american workers, regular people could benefit from it(doubtful he would do even half of what he says), still beats pro-TPP corporate sell-out Hillary, it'd take 1% chance of success over 0%
- it would be ultimate slap to the face of PC police, feminazis and all this SJW crowd I despise
post #2753 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Yeah well Yao Ming has also a higher hurdle to clear since he didn't do jack to be 7'6" and it's unfair to all people out there who are 6foot or less. but still Yao is more suitable for the job of basketball player. Fact is that Trump is a competent buisnessman and that's an obvious advantage of his candidacy.

So you want to talk about shitty argumentation?

1) Argument by fiat ("Fact is") is shitty. Trump's competence as a businessman is debatable--in part because he has gone to great lengths to conceal exactly how successful or unsuccessful he is.

2) The idea that being a good businessman is an advantage when it comes to the presidency isn't an "obvious" fact at all. It's a relatively recent product of late-capitalist ideology where everything reduces to "entrepreneurship." See: Jefferson as relatively shitty with his money, or the long tradition of small-r republicanism (from which America supposedly derives) that values small-scale frugality in the private lives of leaders and is suspicious of financial ambitions.

3) Before you go off spouting about weak vs. strong logical arguments, you might consider that analogical reasoning is susceptible to all sorts of errors. Being tall and thus being very good at putting the ball through a hoop or blocking shots are "obvious" requisites for being an NBA center--regardless of whether those skills derive from genetic disposition or personal training. But the requisites for being a president aren't as clear-cut. Notice that you're not even particularly careful in setting up the vehicle of your analogy. Yao Ming's mix of genetics and personal skills does not render him fit to be a great basketball player in general. He'd be a godawful point guard; his freakish height makes him *only* good at being a center. The point being that Yao Ming is freakishly qualified to fill one very particular position; Trump's qualifications--whatever they are--don't render him fit to be president unless you think that position is one of tacky marketing and asinine reality TV show posturing. Your analogy (successful basketball player traits - successful presidential traits) is shitty enough, concealing the heart of the matter (what voters in a republic should want in a president), but it manages to be even shittier than you realize.
Edited by erictheobscure - 5/24/16 at 10:08am
post #2754 of 8748
^^ LOL


((((∃x)(φx)) ⊃ (q)) ⊃ ((((∃x) (φx)) v (r)) ⊃ (q v r)))
post #2755 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post


apparently, if you refuse to think, this is the logical conclusion.

Many people persuaded by political artistry refuse to think, especially when the persuader has no consistent history. Maybe we are arguing about two different things, or I missed some of the backstory behind this argument. Are we really disagreeing on whether or not Trump is a persuasive person?
post #2756 of 8748

I liked MrG's better.  Judges, am I off the island?

post #2757 of 8748
Maybe some one should remind Hillary few mainstream neoliberal policies her husband followed for financial sector without geeting (into shitty "regulations" and deregulations ,revolving doors, and other goodies as policies that led to subprime mortgage crisis, ect ect,) I mean middle class: http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

https://www.citizen.org/documents/CAFTA_Liaisons_Report1.pdf


There are plenty she plants to follow further for the middle class votter or majority and even minorities, as her peer clown obama is doing in many sectors and policies:

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

Dejavu all over.
Edited by satrorianogreco - 5/24/16 at 9:50am
post #2758 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

1) Argument by fiat ("Fact is") is shitty. Trump's competence as a businessman is debatable--in part because he has gone to great lengths to conceal exactly how successful or unsuccessful he is.

2) The idea that being a good businessman is an advantage when it comes to the presidency isn't an "obvious" fact at all. It's a relatively recent product of late-capitalist ideology where everything reduces to "entrepreneurship." See: Jefferson as relatively shitty with his money, or the long tradition of small-r republicanism (from which America supposedly derives) that values small-scale frugality in the private lives of leaders and is suspicious of financial ambitions.

3) Before you go off spouting about weak vs. strong logical arguments, you might consider that analogical reasoning is susceptible to all sorts of errors. Being tall and thus being very good at putting the ball through a hoop or blocking shots are "obvious" requisites for being an NBA center--regardless of whether those skills derive from genetic disposition or personal training. But the requisites for being a president aren't as clear-cut. Notice that you're even particularly careful in setting up the vehicle of your analogy. Yao Ming's mix of genetics and personal skills does not render him fit to be a great basketball player in general. He'd be a godawful point guard; his freakish height makes him *only* good at being a center. The point being that Yao Ming is freakishly qualified to fill one very particular position; Trump's qualifications--whatever they are--don't render him fit to be president unless you think that position is one of tacky marketing and asinine reality TV show posturing. Your analogy (successful basketball player traits - successful presidential traits) is shitty enough, concealing the heart of the matter (what voters in a republic should want in a president), but it manages to be even shittier than you realize.

ad1. Forbes have him at half of what he says(http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#37180280790b) circa 4,5bln. He is in top200 richest people in the USA, 145# at forbes list. Even if he is worth 1bln it is objectively speaking a lot of money. His father at his death was worth estimated 250-300mln and not all of it went to Donald(also Donald by that time was already a billionare), he has 4 siblings none of them had careers comprable to Donald. I don't see how his financial success seems debatable to a sane person.

ad2. It is an advantage but it doesn't automatically make you a good leader or make someone who is poor a bad leader. It's advantage because people see you as a success and are more likely to back you, that's why Donald is attacked on being bad buisness man eventhough it's bogus accusation.

ad3. you clearly misunderstood what i said, first of all we're discussing Donald Trump buisness ability and at no point I suggested that because he is good buisnessman he will be a good president. Just like Yao, he was fortunate at birth- but it doesn;t change the fact he became successful at his job eventhough he was clearly lucky.
post #2759 of 8748
We have certainly come a long way from Pat Nixons republican cloth coat
post #2760 of 8748
LOL internet IQ tests
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field