Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

Here's the shortened url to the original article by the original researcher, Matthew C. MacWilliams...
http://bit.ly/1KFzeC0
...According to the article,

Thanks for the link. Still, this article is about a survey; the article itself is loaded with normative statements. The author sets out to correlate what he calls authoritarianism and Trump support:

...My survey, conducted under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, uses a simple battery of four questions to identify authoritarians.

...four questions which the author curiously does not feel the need to include in this particular article about the survey.

Looking elsewhere, which I hoped to avoid, the same author produces a summary of the questions that define the authoritarian viewpoint as used in the article:

...These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian...

The author acknowledges the possibility of skepticism about the link to child rearing, and establishes another set of questions that purport to show, "Trump supporters kick the fundamental tenets of Madisonian democracy to the curb". What might those fundamentals be? Favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming (27% of Democrats)? Students at U's, favor speech codes (51% to 31%)? No, the author's fundamentals are questions about Mosque closures and suspension of Habeas Corpus. I have the idea that this author's cultural positioning would give the like of a Chavez or a Castro a glowing report, showing no authoritarian tendencies.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To redirect subject from aberrant psychology back toward title of this thread:

Agreed. Dissimulation is not unprecedented.
Trump was speaking to taquiyya .when he advised circumspection regarding Muslim immigrants.
Ben Carson was more blunt about it , actually using the term.

Glad to hear you agree with them.

I'm not aware our exchange ever became about the subject of aberrant psychology, and, I didn't raise the issue of dissimilation in regards to muslims. I raised it in regard to the advisability of judging Trump to be a compassionate person based on a short list of 'good works' he's done.

You quoted Hoffer:

Compassion is probably the only antitoxin of the soul. Where there is compassion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless.One would rather see the world run by men who set their hearts on toys but are accessible to pity, than by men animated by lofty ideals whose dedication makes them ruthless. In the chemistry of man's soul, almost all noble attributes — courage, honor, hope, faith, duty, loyalty, etc. — can be transmuted into ruthlessness. Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil proceeding within us.

And then you linked to a list of good things Trump has done as if these prove he is that essentially compassionate person whose most poisonous impulses will remain relatively harmless, as per Hoffer. In other words, you seem to think that some demonstrable good deeds are automatic proof someone is essentially a compassionate person. I replied with examples that show that is not always historically the case, and that therefore you can't use good deeds as a metric of someone's inner goodness.

You said, in reply, you could speculate Hilary Clinton shot someone, which was an off the wall response, and now you're mentioning muslims are allowed to dissimilate their being muslims, which is also a non-sequitur. Neither has anything in particular to do with judging Trump to be a compassionate person by virtue of some good deeds.

I get the feeling you think my argument against judging Trump that way was flip or somehow unfair so you're trying to counter that with flip, unfair responses. However,the fact is, my argument was sound: you can't judge a person's compassion that way. It's a flawed metric. And, I haven't even touched on the possibility of Hoffer's assessment of compassion being a prophylactic against ruthlessness might be totally off the mark.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The author acknowledges the possibility of skepticism about the link to child rearing, and establishes another set of questions that purport to show, "Trump supporters kick the fundamental tenets of Madisonian democracy to the curb". What might those fundamentals be? Favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming (27% of Democrats)?

Following your link, I see you are you are misrepresenting this by the way you phrase it here: "Favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming". The call for prosecution is for the prosecution of scientists who commit fraud by accepting money from special interests to dismiss or down play the dangers of global warming. It's not a call to prosecute people who actually don't agree with it.

Students at U's, favor speech codes (51% to 31%)?

There is no indication the author wouldn't consider this a susceptibility to authoritarian thinking. Whether he does or doesn't is an unknown to me at this point, but two of his colleagues write:

In the years following 9/11, surveys have revealed high levels of public support for policies related to the war on terror that, many argue, contravene long-standing American ideals. Extant research would suggest that such preferences result from the activation of authoritarianism. That is, the terrorist attacks caused those predisposed toward intolerance and aggression to become even more intolerant and aggressive. However, using data from two national surveys, we find that those who score high in authoritarianism do not become more hawkish or less supportive of civil liberties in response to perceived threat from terrorism; they tend to have such preferences even in the absence of threat. Instead, those who are less authoritarian adopt more restrictive and aggressive policy stands when they perceive threat from terrorism. In other words, many average Americans become susceptible to “authoritarian thinking” when they perceive a grave threat to their safety.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00514.x/abstract
So, some among those studying this believe even the "less authoritarian" can become authoritarian when they are sufficiently scared.
MacWilliams says:

While authoritarians can be found among self-identified Democrats and Independents, their slow but steady movement over time to the Republican Party may have created the conditions for a candidate with an authoritarian message like Trump’s to emerge.

All these authors are exploring a right-wing centered authoritarianism simply because that's how it's playing out in the U.S. at this point. There is no reason to believe they would exonerate Castro supporters of authoritarian tendencies and no reason to believe they're ignoring what authoritarian tendencies exist in "left leaners," in order to 'frame' Trump supporters.

 

[mheslep]

Following your link, I see you are you are misrepresenting this by the way you phrase it here: "Favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming". The call for prosecution is for the prosecution of scientists who commit fraud by accepting money from special interests to dismiss or down play the dangers of global warming. It's not a call to prosecute people who actually don't agree with it.

The exact quote from the summary article:

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

All these authors are exploring a right-wing centered authoritarianism...

No, MacWilliams attempts to define authoritarianism, period, and then to detect it among a group. He does so by going beyond the literature on child-rearing based detection and inventing his own right-wing biased questions, under the label of violations of the "fundamental tenets of Madisonian democracy "

...because that's how it's playing out in the U.S. at this point...

So you say.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The exact quote from the summary article:

Pretty much a straw man, since I didn't claim you misquoted your source, I claimed you misrepresented what was actually happening, which was this:

WASHINGTON (February 25, 2015) – Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today sent letters to 100 fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations to determine whether they are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution, and whether the funded scientists fail to disclose the sources of their funding in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.
This investigation follows the revelations regarding one of the chief climate denial researchers, Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, from documents released by Greenpeace showing that Soon received more than $1 million from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, and others to produce what he termed “deliverables” to push back on climate science or carbon-cutting policies in papers or Congressional testimony. Soon did not disclose this funding to peer-reviewed scientific journals that require such disclosure…

http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/p...imate-denial-organizations-on-science-funding
And, I got to that story by following links from your link.

No, MacWilliams attempts to define authoritarianism, period, and then to detect it among a group. He does so by going beyond the literature on child-rearing based detection and inventing his own right-wing biased questions, under the label of violations of the "fundamental tenets of Madisonian democracy ".

He never defines authoritarianism. In fact, I found that to be the major weakness of the article.

You claim I cannot lump him with the others because he's gone outside the the literature. But he's talking about two different tests, of two different things. The 'canonical' 4 child rearing questions are "to measure individual disposition to authoritarianism." That was, in fact, applied to Trump supporters, and Trump supporters score authoritarian. That established, they are, in a separate poll ("fundamental tenets of Madisonian democracy"), tested for "authoritarian behavior," that is, whether or not the alleged tendencies actually play out in reality. Metaphorically: he found the gene but then needs to examine the organism to see if it actually got expressed. You are mistaking him as substituting the second for the first. So, he stayed within the literature, after all. He tested them for authoritarian tendencies, and later for authoritarian behavior.

So you say.

So they say:
Here's a quote from a blog that quotes the 2009 book "Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics":

And although there is a strong connection between authoritarianism and conservatism (and thus Republicanism), as Hetherington and Weiler caution, authoritarianism is not bounded by party: Among 2008 Democratic primary voters there were significant splits on issues of race and immigration, smacking of authoritarian impulses, that played a role in support for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. “There is strong suggestive evidence that authoritarianism was a core reason for the voting behavior of nonblacks” in the Democratic primary, they conclude.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/authoritarianism-in-american-politics/

Assuming, tentatively, the blogger, [full disclosure]who is a friend of one of the authors[/full disclosure] is not mischaracterizing or misquoting, you can see these authors aren't claiming this is only a right-wing phenomenon, only that that is where it's the current American expression of it is focused.

 

[mheslep]

Pretty much a straw man, since I didn't claim you misquoted your source, I claimed you misrepresented what was actually happening, ...

Zs, above I've referenced opinion surveys. Both Mac Williamson on authoritarianism and Rasmussen surveys. You know this. I accurately paraphrased the Rassmusen survey response, which clearly includes reference to prosecution. I did not say "what was actually happening", as if such a vague notion could be accurately defined. I'm tired of chasing around vague pronouns.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zs, above I've referenced opinion surveys. Both Mac Williamson on authoritarianism and Rasmussen surveys. You know this. I accurately paraphrased the Rassmusen survey response, which clearly includes reference to prosecution. I did not say "what was actually happening", as if such a vague notion could be accurately defined. I'm tired of chasing around vague pronouns.

2* Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?

What do the poll results even mean unless we know whether the students understood the investigation was for fraud("what's actually happening") and not for the belief? If the majority of the 27% understood by then current news stories it was for fraud, what's your issue? Fraud is fraud. If all 27% thought it was for the belief, what's your issue? Because, there's no indication MacWilliams et al would not find that latter case to be authoritarian behavior, and there is some clear indication they would.

I take it you understood what I pointed out about you having conflated two different tests.

 

[DiracPool]

It's Trump update time again, or dare I say, Trumpdate? going into this recent SuperTuesday...

So initially, I was like everyone else who thought the whole Trump thing was a joke and a publicity stunt. Then I became a little worried when he kept winning that he may actually become the republican nominee. Then I started waxing a little Stockholm syndrome and started to warm up to Trump like Jim Hardy, thinking I may even actually vote for him. After all, I did like all the rhetoric about how we were getting "killed" in trade deals with China and everyone else, how everyone was "walking all over us" in terms of manipulating currency, and how we don't enforce even our own laws on immigration, and so on.

However, in the past week, I got snapped out of my Manchurian candidate trance and realized that Trump is not the guy. There's no way he's going to win the presidency. Why? Because he doesn't want to win the presidency. It's back to stage one, this is all just a publicity stunt. Trump is not seriously running for president. He wouldn't act in the way he is doing if he seriously was. For instance, he already mobilized the white supremacists, doomsday preppers, and closet politically incorrect crowd a long time ago. He's already got them wrapped up, so why is he still pushing the envelope even further? This is stupid. It's turning off a lot of people to see these riots at the rallies and him not taking responsibility for it. If he were serious about being president he'd tone it down, but he isn't. He's playing the same, stupid defiant pose even when it is now hurting him. It may be energizing a very small extreme base, but it's turning off and scaring a much larger populace that doesn't want to see a repeat of a Rodney King race riot or even larger race war. It turned me off permanently to Trump and, as I said, I was really on the fence there for a second.

After watching a lot of Trump rallies over the past month and dozens of interviews, I've come to a conclusion about what this madness is all about. First of all, we can state unequivocally that the chaos that exists right now in the republican race and the violent unrest is not so much Trumps fault as it is the media's fault. In fact, it is almost entirely the media's fault. If they reported on the substantive issues that candidates had to offer instead of playing into the sensationalism, Trump would have been exposed as being not qualified to run for office a long time ago. Again, closer scrutiny of his interviews reveals that he equivocates on almost every issue. It's the same formula every time. This is a game for him, a weird fetish. What he likes to do is say something outrageous and then try to talk his way out of it in news interviews. I see this time and time again. He gets hammered by the interviewers on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. I mean they hammer him, and he sticks around for the punishment. Why? Is it because he's so fair and balanced? No. It's because it's a game to him. He likes it. I sit there watching this and wonder why he doesn't just hang up the phone and exit the interview. But this isn't what it's about.

So, again, it's the same format every time. Getting accused of being a Nazi doesn't slow him down and give him pause, it presents to him a greater challenge to see if he can talk his way out of this one, too. This is the chronic "Art of deal" consciousness that is built into Trump. It's not about what's best for the country, it's all about whether or not Trump can out negotiate the interviewer. It's always the same thing, he gets presented with evidence that he's done something unethical, and then he starts going into generalizations and diversionary measures such as "these were bad people," "what people are angry about is the lack of jobs" (even though not one banner anywhere says anyone is protesting against a lack of jobs), the military is "going to hell," the economy "is a disaster." etc. In Trump's world, everything is either a disaster or is going to hell. That tells us a lot. But, hey, there's a "lot of love" at the rallies, and he gets "tremendous support" from here and there and everywhere. This is BS, he doesn't want to be president. That's the only explanation for why he's driving his (presidential) race car even faster into a brick wall recently. He wants to lose and then sit on his heels and blame everyone for something or another and use the publicity to start another reality TV show. Just my opinion, but decide for yourself:





I think this upcoming SuperTuesday will be very telling. My prediction is that Trump's time is up and he's not going to do so well after these riots. We'll see. I think we'll get a good sense as to how deep the pent-up politically correct frustration is in this country after this Tuesday. This will be tell tale. I think it's not going to be good for Trump, but I may be proven wrong. I'm actually hoping he wins Florida and Ohio because I think it will be a much more interesting political season going into the summer. But in the end we'll be OK because Trump vs Hillary is going to be a landslide for Hillary, so no worries.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

My prediction is that Trump's time is up and he's not going to do so well after these riots.

His GOP nomination base might not mind, but his general election base will.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Trump is not seriously running for president. He wouldn't act in the way he is doing if he seriously was.

I think his behavior is pretty well explained here:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-suffers-two-primary-201804568.html

On Saturday, Rubio – who is currently in third place in the GOP race – was declared the winner of the Washington D.C. caucus, nabbing the district's 10 delegates all for himself. Meanwhile, Cruz won nine on Wyoming's 11 delegates, with Trump and Rubio each earning one delegate each. The state's 14 other delegates will be elected at the April 16 state convention.

While Trump is still clearly the frontrunner with 460 delegates, Cruz is quickly catching up with a total of 369 delegates. Rubio, meanwhile, follows with 163 while John Kasich has nabbed 63. The Republican candidates need 1,237 total delegates to win the nomination.

Cruz may catch up. Rubio is far behind and Kasich even further. Apparently Romney is campaigning with Kasich in Ohio, and meanwhile Kasich's campaign is asking Rubio's team to withdraw a lawsuit challenging some signatures in Pennsylvania.

In the wake of some violence at Trump rallies, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich have backed away from any support for Trump down the road.

 

[Dembadon]

For instance, he already mobilized the white supremacists, doomsday preppers, and closet politically incorrect crowd a long time ago. He's already got them wrapped up, so why is he still pushing the envelope even further?

I believe it's because he has no idea what he's talking about. Rubio did well in exposing his worthless answer last debate regarding whether diplomatic negotiations with Cuba should be continued¹. Trump showed, yet again, his inability to provide substantive answers to issues that don't hand him an opportunity to sensationalize on a silver platter. Why is he continuing? It's not necessarily because it's a game to him, he might actually be giving it his best, but his political vocabulary and knowledge is so limited that all he's left with is what we've been seeing.

Compare the responses of Rubio and Trump to the Cuban negotiations I mentioned above²:

All that stuff has to be agreed to now. We don't want to get sued after the deal is made. So I don't agree with President Obama, I do agree something should be -- should take place. After 50 years, it's enough time, folks. But we have to make a good deal and we have to get rid of all the litigation that's going to happen.

This was just a little story but it was a big story to me because I said oh, here we go, we make a deal, then get sued for a tremendous amount of money for reparations. So I want to do something, but it's got to be done intelligently. We have to make good deal.

BASH: Senator Rubio, I know you want to get in. But just to be clear, Mr. Trump, are you saying that if you were president, you would continue the diplomatic relations or would you reverse them?

TRUMP: I would want to make a good deal, I would want to make a strong, solid, good deal because right now, everything is in Cuba's favor. Right now, everything, every single aspect of this deal is in Cuba's favor. It the same way as the Iran deal.

We never walked -- we never -- all we do is keep giving. We give and give and give.

BASH: But Mr. Trump, just to be clear, there is an embassy that you would have to decide whether it would be open or whether you would close it. Which would it be? In Havana.

TRUMP: I would probably have the embassy closed until such time as a really good deal was made and struck by the United States.

emphasis mine

I cannot believe that is an acceptable response, for the people supporting him, for someone running for the POTUS. This is the same language we've seen from him over and over again since the primaries began. That entire "answer" in the quote above was a waste of everyone's time.

Here's Rubio's response:

RUBIO: All right, first of all, the embassy is the former consulate. It's the same building. So it could just go back to being called a consulate. We don't have to close it that way. Second of all, I don't know where Cuba is going to sue (sic), but if they sue us in a court in Miami, they're going to lose.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

Third, on the issue of a good deal, I know what the good deal. I'll tell you what the good deal now, it's already codified. Here's a good deal -- Cuba has free elections, Cuba stops putting people in jail for speaking out, Cuba has freedom of the press, Cuba kicks out the Russians from Lourdes (ph) and kicks out the Chinese listening station in Berupal (ph) Cuba stops helping North Korea evade U.N. sanctions, Cuba takes all of those fugitives of America justice, including that cop killer from New Jersey, and send her back to the United States and to jail where she belongs. And you know what? Then we can have a relationship with Cuba. That's a good deal.

Whether or not you agree with his solution, at least he came out and said something worth listening to. It's really depressing that a legitimate candidate like Rubio is so far behind this attention-starved manchild.

¹ http://www.vox.com/2016/3/10/11200034/donald-trump-marco-rubio-cuba
² http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/republican-debate-transcript-full-text/index.html (there are quite a few typos, best to watch the video in the vox.com link)

 

[DiracPool]

I cannot believe that is an acceptable response, for the people supporting him, for someone running for the POTUS. This is the same language we've seen from him over and over again since the primaries began. That entire "answer" in the quote above was a waste of everyone's time.

Yeah, I agree with you, it's pretty much just a bunch of blustering nonsense, and it looks even worse in type without his Trump gestures to distract you.

Why is he continuing? It's not necessarily because it's a game to him, he might actually be giving it his best

I disagree with this. I don't think Trump is so stupid as to think that not "disavowing" violence at his rallies is going to help his campaign. This just seems absurd to me. I mean, if he were clever, he'd do something to incite a riot to get the publicity but then back off and disavow it. You know, the old bait and switch good cop bad cop thing. Even the dumbest politicians know that playbook. I think there's something else going on here.

but his political vocabulary and knowledge is so limited that all he's left with is what we've been seeing.

I think you're right here, but that doesn't worry me too much. I can accept that he may not be politically savvy either in local or international politics and even in sandbagging his efforts to learn them until he's fairly confident he has a shot at the white house. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that he doesn't seem to be frank with the American people on this fact. All he has to do is say is that he's focused on the campaign now but he's assembled a team that is putting together the "big political picture" for him and he will get more specific on policy as the race progresses. But he doesn't do this. He just blusters and vagues his way through everything.

Whether or not you agree with his solution, at least he came out and said something worth listening to. It's really depressing that a legitimate candidate like Rubio is so far behind this attention-starved manchild.

Again, I agree with you here. I like Rubio, but he suffers from a freshman approach to this political race. I like the content of what he says very much (post the hands and spray on tan incidents). Most of his presentations, though, seem scarred by a "scripted" quality to them. I don't know, it's just a feeling. They're just too flawlessly and robotically presented to make them feel like it's coming from some intuitive sense of executive brilliance. Contrast this with Trump. I don't think for a second that his presentations are scripted at all (or especially that they're coming from some intuitive sense of executive brilliance). I'm just saying that I think Rubio will be a force to be reckoned with once he get's a little older and has paid some more dues. But not this election. He's getting a good education this time around, though.

And I think he's getting better. I think he's learning. For instance, I just watched this interview with him today and was very impressed with his characterization of the Trump phenomenon, which may in part have motivated my above post #289. It didn't seem scripted, it felt natural and well considered:

 

[jim hardy]

I think his behavior is pretty well explained here:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Politics makes strange bedfellows

ELECTION 2016
Glenn Beck slams Trump as 'psychopath'

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/glenn-beck-slams-trump-as-psychopath/

No point, just found it amusing .

 

[mheslep]

... I like Rubio, but he suffers from a freshman approach to this political race.

I've heard this before. Yet Trump has never been elected dog catcher. At debates, he's clearly the most ill-equipped to do more than bluster. Rubio has beaten some tough competition, incumbents, to get his seat. And he's supposed to be the rookie? Trump can't go two sentences without a cliche on "deals" or "b'lieve me", and Rubio is a robot?

 

[Tobias Funke]

For instance, he already mobilized the white supremacists, doomsday preppers, and closet politically incorrect crowd a long time ago. He's already got them wrapped up, so why is he still pushing the envelope even further?

And there are enough of them to explain his popularity, so I don't see what the problem is (from his perspective). But I wish more people would just be willing to say that he's mobilized the Republicans, because what else can explain his success? I mentioned it a few months ago and my post was deleted! Sure, most of his peers don't like him, but he's saying just what Joe Schmoe (Joe the Plumber?) Republican wants to hear.

But in the end we'll be OK because Trump vs Hillary is going to be a landslide for Hillary, so no worries.

I wish I could be as confident as you, but I'm not so sure about that. Let's hope so at least.

 

[Dembadon]

But I wish more people would just be willing to say that he's mobilized the Republicans, because what else can explain his success? I mentioned it a few months ago and my post was deleted!

I can see why. It's a ridiculous statement.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I can see why. It's a ridiculous statement.

I'd love to hear why. He's looking like the Republican candidate for president, yet he hasn't mobilized the Republicans? Maybe we have different definitions of "mobilize," but he's done something. Do you think it's ridiculous to say that he's saying things that Republicans want to hear, or do I have to qualify it as "enough Republicans to make him a serious contender for president?"

 

[zoobyshoe]

@DiracPool: a lot of your post #289 boils down to you saying "I can't understand how a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore Trump is not serious."

Consider, though:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

[mheslep]

And there are enough of them to explain his popularity, so I don't see what the problem is (from his perspective). But I wish more people would just be willing to say that he's mobilized the Republicans, because what else can explain his success? I mentioned it a few months ago and my post was deleted! Sure, most of his peers don't like him, but he's saying just what Joe Schmoe (Joe the Plumber?) Republican wants to hear.

Trump has been averaging around a third of the vote, with 450 out of some 1050 total delegates. If not for some winner-take-all states he'd have fewer still. If Trump fails to win either Ohio or Florida it becomes unlikely he will have the the required 50% going to the convention. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that Trump mobilizes *the* Republicans, versus a particular minority?

 

[Dembadon]

I'd love to hear why. He's looking like the Republican candidate for president, yet he hasn't mobilized the Republicans?

"Mobilizing the Republicans" in this context is so general it isn't really worth saying outside of a sly attempt to assign values or preferences to parts of the Republican base to whom they don't belong.

Maybe we have different definitions of "mobilize," but he's done something.

It's not really our definitions of "mobilize" that don't agree, it's that you've chosen to use it so generally it isn't really worth saying.

Do you think it's ridiculous to say that he's saying things that Republicans want to hear, or do I have to qualify it as "enough Republicans to make him a serious contender for president?"

Qualifiers are good, otherwise people might think you're trying to be inflammatory and ask you to clarify. Given your current explanation, every single Republican candidate ever has "mobilized the Republicans". Do you think that's really worth saying?

 

[Tobias Funke]

"Mobilizing the Republicans" in this context is so general it isn't really worth saying outside of a sly attempt to assign values or preferences to parts of the Republican base to whom they don't belong...

Qualifiers are good, otherwise people might think you're trying to be inflammatory and ask you to clarify. Given your current explanation, every single Republican candidate ever has "mobilized the Republicans". Do you think that's really worth saying?

I think it's much closer to the truth than to pretend that he only has the support of virulent racists and not "real" Republicans. People have been trying to say that for what, a year, now? I know that you didn't say it, btw, and I don't even think Dirac is a Republican if I remember correctly, so it's not like he's trying to cover for them or something. Anyway, Trump is the Republican front-runner and he has been for some time. Like it or not, he reflects Republican values as much as anybody else at this point.

 

[DiracPool]

@DiracPool: a lot of your post #289 boils down to you saying "I can't understand how a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore Trump is not serious."

Is that what you got from my post #289? Ok, let me rephrase it like this, then, "I do not think that a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore, I do not think that Trump is serious." Is that better?

 

[Dembadon]

Anyway, Trump is the Republican front-runner and he has been for some time. Like it or not, he reflects Republican values as much as anybody else at this point.

This statement is logically irreversible.

It also ignores the fact that the approval/disapproval of how a candidate is behaving during the primary implies the acceptance/rejection of the Republican party's platform. Just because someone disapproves of how Trump is behaving does not mean they are rejecting the core values or current platform of the party.

There are too many variables involved in choosing and supporting a candidate. There are differences between:

1) Values that have been established and documented by the Republican party's platform
2) Values that someone who registered and voted as a Republican actually hold
3) The methods each candidate intends to employ in an effort to uphold those values

That is not an exhaustive list, but it should be enough to understand why painting with a broad brush is bad when it comes to defining a party's base.

 

[Tobias Funke]

This statement is logically irreversible.

I have no idea what this means. It seems like some kind of computing term but I've never seen it before.

That is not an exhaustive list, but it should be enough to understand why painting with a broad brush is bad when it comes to defining a party's base.

Well, there has to be some generalizing. I'll give you that Trump "mobilizing" the Republicans may be too strong a statement, but Trump leading this far in the race says something about Republicans--their beliefs, their values, however you want to phrase it. To say otherwise is borderline absurd, but you seem heavily invested in denying it. I don't think I should have to explicitly state that I don't literally mean every single Repubican, either, and I think that it's clear enough what "the" Republicans means in context. But if not, we might as well just say that there are 320 million political parties in the country and no candidate is representative of any group of people.

 

[Dembadon]

Trump leading this far in the race says something about Republicans

mheslep had a fine explanation, in post #301, for why it doesn't say much.

I don't think I should have to explicitly state that I don't literally mean every single Repubican, either, and I think that it's clear enough what "the" Republicans means in context.

You wanted people to move from "mobilizing [a portion of the Republican base]" to "the Republicans." What other context is there in your request to indicate something other than "some" to "all"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is that what you got from my post #289? Ok, let me rephrase it like this, then, "I do not think that a serious candidate would do X. Trump did X. Therefore, I do not think that Trump is serious." Is that better?

Yes, that's better.

Let me ask you, though, why don't you think a serious candidate would do X? What assumptions are you making about 1.) your serious candidate detection powers, and 2.)serious candidates?

 

[DiracPool]

Let me ask you, though, why don't you think a serious candidate would do X?

Because doing X is superfluous and counterproductive, as I agonizingly detailed out in my post#289 and others.

What assumptions are you making about 1.) your serious candidate detection powers

You answered your own question there; I'm assuming I have serious (and superior) candidate detection powers. While you're looking for a logical fallacy to blast that statement, let me just say my assumption is stipulating a first principle, so good luck there.

What assumptions are you making about 2.)serious candidates?

I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today. Now he's scared, he doesn't know what to do. It wasn't supposed to go this far but there's no way out. He's in it too deep. He can't just drop out. But what CAN he do? Yes, he can just blow it all up by causing race riots at his assemblies. That's a good one. It's either that or he simply doesn't have any other game plan than to be confrontative and provocative. So that's why I'm saying he's not serious. What do you think?

Either way, in 24 hours we will have a good prospect on how this is all going to play out...

 

[Tobias Funke]

mheslep had a fine explanation, in post #301, for why it doesn't say much.

Not really. Of course if less people voted for him he'd be in a different position, and of course if people stop voting for him he won't be the nominee. That doesn't really say anything at all. Averaging around a third of the vote is a much better point, but then again, it's enough to put him in the lead.

You wanted people to move from "mobilizing [a portion of the Republican base]" to "the Republicans." What other context is there in your request to indicate something other than "some" to "all"?

I already said I'll take back my mobilizing comment (it's not really essential), but you're still trivializing that "portion" of the Republican base. I don't think the difference between "he represents the Republicans right now" and "he represents enough Republicans to make him the likely candidate" is really essential, or that anyone could take it as literally as you are unless they make a real effort. But we're getting nowhere, so I'll agree to disagree. If Trump ends up not being the nominee, I'll return and gladly post that he doesn't represent modern Republicans.

 

[mheslep]

Also, wrt who Trump represents:
Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump

 

[zoobyshoe]

Because doing X is superfluous and counterproductive, as I agonizingly detailed out in my post#289 and others.
You answered your own question there; I'm assuming I have serious (and superior) candidate detection powers. While you're looking for a logical fallacy to blast that statement, let me just say my assumption is stipulating a first principle, so good luck there.
I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today. Now he's scared, he doesn't know what to do. It wasn't supposed to go this far but there's no way out. He's in it too deep. He can't just drop out. But what CAN he do? Yes, he just blow it all up by causing race riots at his assemblies. That's a good one. It's either that or he simply doesn't have any other game plan than to be confrontative and provocative. So that's why I'm saying he's not serious. What do you think?

Where I was going with the second question, "What assumptions are you making about serious candidates?" is that you're assuming they are rational. I thought you might know about von Neuman's game theory. He thought he had it all worked out. But when he tested it on people, people didn't act according to his expectations. His theory about how games should turn out fell apart, he realized, when the players are not rational. So, he declared his theory a success, but only on the condition that both players were rational.

Trump may not be serious, or, it could be he's just not rational. The sociopathic list I posted gives some possible motivations for things he does that seem to be counterproductive. If, for example, a person has a grandiose sense of self, he may assume all his decisions are perfect, and not vet them. A person who is callous and lacking empathy may have no idea how to properly fein those qualities and appear absurdly, even humorously, blunt, when he's actually quite serious.

 

[WWGD]

Also, wrt who Trump represents:
Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump

Then based on back-of-envelope calculations from data in the article, assuming same number of liberal as conservative voters
would give trump a national victory since around 14% of Conservatives would vote for hillary.

 

[DiracPool]

Trump may not be serious, or, it could be he's just not rational.

Well, that's kind of what our tete-a-tete here is all about, isn't it. I'm making the argument that he is not serious. Are you making the counter argument that he is just not rational? You could even say it's a bit of both or none at all. I outlined above in some detail my current take on the situation:

I'm assuming that Trump started this whole thing as a joke to get publicity for himself and as a chance to spam his political opinions on the public in the same way he did his "birther" thing with Obama. The way he got into the news with the Obama thing was to go over the top and just be absurd and non-sensical. It worked though, and Trump thought he'd up the ante a bit this "season" and go over the top even higher by spewing a bunch of sensationalistic comments in the early primaries, again, just to get some attention. I don't think he believed any more than anyone else that this was going to be what it is today.

I'll say it again, what do YOU think?

Let me add to that...I don't think he was initially serious about becoming president. I think he's as serious as f#%$ now wondering what the hell he got himself into. So maybe the cult of personality had overtaken him at some point and now he's a (even more delusional) megalomaniac. That could explain his reckless behavior also...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, that's kind of what our tete-a-tete here is all about, isn't it. I'm making the argument that he is not serious. Are you making the counter argument that he is just not rational?

Pretty much, yeah, in the sense a sociopath is not ultimately rational: grandiose, impulsive, irresponsible. All the things you initially saw as "not serious" look to me like the tell tales of a sociopath:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Here Trump simultaneously flatters his blue-collar white audience "...they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. (i.e., 'the best')," and demonizes the invaders: criminals, drug addicts, and rapists, who have been "sent" (The Great Mexican Conspiracy? What's he talking about, "sent"?) into the US. But he shows his generous fairness at the end by allowing that some are good people. Hence:

GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARMThe tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

PATHOLOGICAL LYING — Can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

You name the outrageous thing he said, and when I heard it I didn't think, "Not serious." I thought, "Wow. Sociopath!" So many of his "classics" are so due to his being, "not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything," combined with "deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest," etc elements.

Let me add to that...I don't think he was initially serious about becoming president. I think he's as serious as f#%$ now wondering what the hell he got himself into. So maybe the cult of personality had overtaken him at some point and now he's a (even more delusional) megalomaniac. That could explain his reckless behavior also...

He was reckless out of the starting gate, though, wasn't he? On the other hand, as for wondering what he got himself into, I think the protester thing was a turn of events he didn't anticipate, and it has rattled him. Between the huge protester crowd in Chicago and the guy who rushed the platform at the one after that, I would assume he's now pondering that he could be killed. I'm not sure how he's going to proceed with that in mind. But I'm thinking he's realized he got people too angry for his own good.

 

[WWGD]

Still, the degree of alienation of his followers seems itself worrisome, a lesson to be remembered.