Trump shows himself, once again, as a complete nincompoop

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's well-known he was admitted to Wharton as a favour, this has been repeatedly established. He has never been an intellectual high flyer, in any way.
    This in no way counters what I said. If two people exist, one who went to university, and one who didn't, the former individual would be better educated, regardless of how they got into that university.

    Yes, he clearly is a moron. The modern, uber-individualistic sense of "Oh we can't criticise someone's intellect because then stupid people will feel insecure" is ludicrous. I'm not running for office in America so I don't have to flatter ignorant hicks by avoiding pointing out how dim they are.
    No, it's got nothing to do with insecurities. It is just puerile, and some of the claims you have made, such as accusing him of saying "bigly" would seem to be wrong.

    Trump's intellect is highly relevant to whether he would be a good president. The way someone speaks, barring disability, is an excellent way to judge their intelligence. And Trump speaks like someone who has never had an original thought in their life.
    The way someone speaks can reflect their ethnicity, their class and the area/region where they were raised. Different dialects of English are commonly spoken in the southern states of America.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Many advanced countries have a higher minimum wage than the United States, and do not have the 20% unemployment that free market dogmatists claim will result from any increase. Where the private sector is generally profitable and competitive, increasing minimum wage is usually paid for a a decline in the profit margin as companies are not in a position to lay off workers and retain market share.

    Every rise in the minimum wage in the United States was accompanied by hysteria that it would lead to mass layoffs. The introduction of the minimum wage here resulted in similar doom-laden warnings. In any case, Clinton's proposal for a $12 minimum wage is pretty modest compared to many state minimum wages. As for a rise in the minimum wage leading to more manufacturing going offshore, it behooves you to know what you're talking about on this; there is very little low-value manufacturing still in the United States. The vast majority is of high-value added and technologically-advanced manufactures where employees already earn significantly more than the minimum wage. The idea that the labour cost for unskilled employees will significantly affect that sector is erroneous. It's a pretext for opposition to it by people who are opposing it because they want labour costs to be low, not because they are looking out for the country's best interests

    As for the state covering tuition fees, that is how many countries fund tertiary education and how it was done in Britain until fairly recently. College debt has become completely unsustainable, it's not feasible for someone to come out of college and grad school aged 22 or 23 with $350,000 of debt. Tuition fees in the United States are far higher than is warranted, shown very handily by the fact that universities in the US ranked much lower than Oxford and Cambridge in global rankings charge five times as much for a degree

    In any case, the point is that you said that both their policies were soundbites. You might disagree with Clinton's policies, but they're obviously not soundbites. She's written a book precisely outlining and evidencing her plans, why she believes they are the best path for the country. The idea that this, irrespective of whether you agree or not (which is pretty much a function of where you are on the political spectrum), is at all analogous to Trump saying something stupid like "China is taking all our money. When I'm president I will get that money back" (which is ludicrous as China is a US creditor) is laughable. They are not even in the same universe of credibility

    To pretend that they are suggests bad faith
    I don't think a candidate can say for definite that they are going to protect both sides affected by a policy, especially one that is drastic. On one side they are saying they will protect jobs, but oppositely raising the minimum wage which we know would accelerate the outflow of jobs to countries with cheaper labour cost. This applies to all sectors, not just manufacturing.

    These considerations were not stated in the debate, which is why I'm saying their policies are mainly soundbites without considering the overall effects of the policies.

    Tuition fee is a very big expense and someone will be paying for the bill. This again is a supply and demand issue, not just domestically but globally. One can claim to address it by subsiding for abolishing tuition fees, but all that it will do is to shift the cost partly or completely to someone else. This is simply a magic pill solution, it does not address the underlying problem of affordability, it is merely diluting the problem on a mass scale by asking the taxpayers to absorb the responsibility (and accountability).

    I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining, I want details on the underlying problems and I want consideration of implications. Even if they do not cover the entire big picture I want either of them to at least start admitting and start talking about the real challenges of politics.

    It is no good to give a list of 10 policies while 8 out of 10 of the policies will counteract each other to certain extents. These 10 policies will also create 100 implications which will need addressing.

    I want someone to acknowledge that the main challenge of government is not to throw attractive soundbites to the public, but to actively balancing the dynamic effects of their policies. Both candidates are not doing that or even attempting to. Even in Clinton's latest book, it is mainly on manifesto messages and why she thinks her policies will work, there is no acknowledge of the realistic implications.

    For me, it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with either candidate because they are not saying much with their grand plans. Both candidates are just throwing spaghetti on the wall and hope that some of them will stick.

    I respect your preference for Hillary though, I just find that both candidates' policies are too simplistic to really assess them by their merits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well, you say that, but when Dan Quayle failed to spell a word correctly during an appearance before the 92 (I think?) election it all but confirmed his loss.
    you say potato

    i say potatoe

    :teehee: *
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for correcting the record. $0.05 has been deposited into your account
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    In the debate last night, he used the word "bigly"
    What's wrong with newspeak?

    I did find Clinton hilarious though, suggesting that lower tax rates do not attract business (last I checked businesses were wanting to move OUT of the US to Europe and other places with lower taxes, not the other way around) and suggested that the subprime mortgage crisis was because of tax cuts... Typical Dems.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's well-known he was admitted to Wharton as a favour, this has been repeatedly established. He has never been an intellectual high flyer, in any way.

    Yes, he clearly is a moron. The modern, uber-individualistic sense of "Oh we can't criticise someone's intellect because then stupid people will feel insecure" is ludicrous. I'm not running for office in America so I don't have to flatter ignorant hicks by avoiding pointing out how dim they are.

    Trump's intellect is highly relevant to whether he would be a good president. The way someone speaks, barring disability, is an excellent way to judge their intelligence. And Trump speaks like someone who has never had an original thought in their life.

    As for policies, what policies? Saying things that will appeal to stupid people who don't know or understand anything about economics or foreign policy, like that "China is taking our money, when I'm president we're going to get our money back" (despite the fact that China is actually a creditor of the United States), doesn't constitute serious policy work.

    Trump's bizarre foreign policy, that NATO should be run as a protection racket (the other members should have to pay the United States, he said that again last night) and his chaotic, confused assertions that on the one hand, he thinks all involvement in the middle east is undesirable and promotes isolationism (at one point saying they should allow Syria to become a "free zone for ISIS", and then saying things like "We're going to bomb the hell out of ISIS when I'm president" and that he will order the torture of the family member's of terrorists... nobody who has any inkling of intellect could be impressed by this charlatan.
    A moron cannot convert a business worth millions, into a business worth billions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think Trump comes across better in this type of thing because he lends to speak more fluidly. Clinton's tendency to hesitate suggests dishonesty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    The way someone speaks, barring disability, is an excellent way to judge their intelligence.
    That's probably the most snobbish thing I've heard anyone say in months.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquid Cat)
    That's probably the most snobbish thing I've head anyone say in months.
    Really, who is likely more intelligent, somebody who can barely string a sentence together or one who can adapt to the target audience and speak effectively accordingly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Lol I agree, Clinton wiped the floor with him.
    Hmm... did they use Mr.Muscle or Cif?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Lol I agree, Clinton wiped the floor with him.
    That's not difficult considering (1) Clinton knew all the questions in advance, (2) there were no questions directed at Clinton's misdemeanors and (3) she was being advised through a hidden earpiece. All she knows is cheating and lying and the American public have seen through this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    These considerations were not stated in the debate, which is why I'm saying their policies are mainly soundbites without considering the overall effects of the policies.
    Their presentation in the debate might be soundbites, that's somewhat necessary due to the format. But that doesn't mean the policy itself is a soundbite; the policy and its presentation are two different things.

    Have you read Clinton's book? If not, then it seems incumbent on you to cease criticising before you have done so; she lays out her policies in great detail in the book and evidences them extensively. Once you've actually seen what she's proposing, then you'd be in a position to refute it (or "refudiate", as Sarah Palin said)

    Until then it just seems like you're speaking of something about which you do not know
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Their presentation in the debate might be soundbites, that's somewhat necessary due to the format. But that doesn't mean the policy itself is a soundbite; the policy and its presentation are two different things.

    Have you read Clinton's book? If not, then it seems incumbent on you to cease criticising before you have done so; she lays out her policies in great detail in the book and evidences them extensively. Once you've actually seen what she's proposing, then you'd be in a position to refute it (or "refudiate", as Sarah Palin said)

    Until then it just seems like you're speaking of something about which you do not know
    I have actually read her latest book (Stronger Together), which is basically an outline of her policies and why she wants to implement them. On most issues, she did not address the potential implications of policies and the overall consideration of balancing the impacts. She did provide some foreground on some policies and why it motivated her to come up with the policy, but that's not saying much.

    As for the debate, I understand that the format gives very little time for in depth analysis of issues but I'd like to see an attempt to do so. It really doesn't take that much time to address the implications briefly.

    For example, I'm all for reducing college debts, I think it's great if it can be achieved. However I am also aware that the issue cannot be simply solved by fully subsidising the fees, which is what Clinton is promising to do for families with income up to $125k. The high fees could be due to lack of regulations on degrees costs and quality, lack of competitiveness compared to overseas Universities etc. Subsiding it is only a magic pill solution, not addressing the source of problem. She also isn't addressing the impacts of shifting the tuition fees costs onto the 'rich', how is she going to manage that potential impact.

    Again I want to point out you are making assumption on me, which I am surprised given that you are a frequent poster in this debating forum and you should know well that assumptions have no place in debates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The man completely embarrassed me and left me red in the face.

    I've been campaigning for him for months now.

    I believe that when comparing policies and ideals; Trump's platform comes out far on top.

    I despise Clinton, for me she brings out the very worst from both left and right wing politics. Yet, she wiped the floor with the guy. She was calm and spoke well-rehearsed soundbites that sounded plausible. And the truth is, she is highly intelligent and knows what shes's doing. The problem is that she does not act in the interests of the American or worlds' population.

    How hard was it for him to rehearse soundbites to questions that were bound to come up. Instead of ranting like an ignoramus. Is the man truly that incompetent!?

    Pick anyone to take his place. Nigel, Boris, May; literally anyone and it would have been a blood bath.

    If I were American I would be worried. The choice is between an evil manipulator who is guaranteed to wage war, open borders and sell your rights to moneyed interests or a well-intentioned moron.

    My only hope for him in office is that he has talented back-room staff and he reads off a teleprompter. Whilst having the strength to implement his policies behind the scenes. Or is that risk too far?

    I can't defend this for example:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Really, who is likely more intelligent, somebody who can barely string a sentence together or one who can adapt to the target audience and speak effectively accordingly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    init

    but yes I agree here as I see this a lot with young people incapable of forming a sentence in English without some god awful 'slang' thrown in
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    don't care - I'm not going to swing my non-existent vote based on a fake word.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pra99)
    A moron cannot convert a business worth millions, into a business worth billions.
    You mean "Billions"
    Are you a trump supporter?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's got the vocabulary at about 4th grade level (ages 9-10). That explains his appeal to the uneducated.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    He's got the vocabulary at about 4th grade level (ages 9-10). That explains his appeal to the uneducated.
    The general trend is presidential addresses has been to lower grades, for a few reasons, the biggest one is that the franchise has extended from just the landed gentry who today would be university educated at the best universities, to now having to be accessible to the average idiot.



    The other big thing is that now the speeches are easily accessible, they're widely watched on TV and online, and listened to on the radio, and transcripts are easy to get your hands on, on the other hand two centuries ago you were highly educated and there, or highly educated and read it. The last few presidents have all been broadly in grade 6-10.

    Further, the best speeches are the simplest, you will get your point across to people so much more effectively if you use short, simple sentences rather than engaging in a long and complex statement, perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this is by looking at Washington's first inaugural address, firstly putting what he said, and then what it meant in just a few words:

    1) "Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month."

    I received a letter a few weeks ago that made me conflicted.


    2) "On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time."

    You interrupted my exquisite and much-needed retirement by electing me as your president.

    3)"On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies."

    "Folks, it's hard to be President"

    Fourth grade is slightly lower than normal, but far from unheard off and far from a stupid thing to do. KISS resonates as well with smart people as it does with dumb people.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 30, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.