Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Trump shows himself, once again, as a complete nincompoop Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In the debate last night, he used the word "bigly" (as in the adjective of big). In complaining about stop-and-frisk being ruled unconstitutional, he said the decision was made by a "very against police judge".

    When the DNC hack by his friends in Russia (which he amazingly tried to deny on their behalf) was discussed, he said it could have been done "by a 400 pound fat man" and not the Russians.

    When asked about his use of planned bankruptcy and phoenixing of companies (using the fact that companies have limited liability to buy services, property etc on account, then transfer those assets to a new company and allow the company that bought them to go into liquidation... in other words, not paying all the people who provided services to it.... it's not that much different from mafia bust outs where they do that to small companies they take over). And Trump then bragged about it! He said "I take advantage of the laws of this country, that makes me smart".

    The strangest line of the night was when he was attacking Clinton on foreign policy (about which he clearly has absolutely no idea), he bizarrely said "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS all your adult life". Wait, wut? No wonder you've been fighting ISIS all your adult life? Hillary Clinton was born in 1947. She became a full adult in American terms in 1968. The ISIS/Sunni uprising occurred in 2013.

    All he could talk about was "I'm extremely strong. I'm so vigorous. I will be an extremely strong leader, I can do deals with Chaina. Crooked Hillary is weak, bring back the jobs and make America great again".

    I usually hate the tendency to ascribe stupidity or maliciousness to one's political enemies. I always say that it is perfectly valid for someone to look at the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion. Not this time. If you support Trump, you're a nihilistic moron.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It was also interesting how Trump claimed Clinton doesn't have the stamina for the job. He was sniffling throughout the whole debate, and taking swigs of water. She didn't take a single sip of water.

    He clearly flagged toward the end, and was obviously extremely tired (during a question about cyberwarfare, he started babbling about how his 10 year old son is very good with computers). Clinton remained calm and in control throughout.

    With all Trump's sniffling and harrumphing, it seems like he may not be very well.

    Offline

    3
    But that simply can't be true!

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the Presidential contest is not about their spelling abilities

    :facepalm2:*
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You're just jealous Daddy isn't a war criminal who silenced his husband's rape victims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What are you on about OP?

    Donald Trump made some really good points last night. We all know it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It was also interesting how Trump claimed Clinton doesn't have the stamina for the job. He was sniffling throughout the whole debate, and taking swigs of water. She didn't take a single sip of water.

    He clearly flagged toward the end, and was obviously extremely tired (during a question about cyberwarfare, he started babbling about how his 10 year old son is very good with computers). Clinton remained calm and in control throughout.

    With all Trump's sniffling and harrumphing, it seems like he may not be very well.

    Well, fresher's flu is rife this time of year. Cut the man some slack.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the Presidential contest is not about their spelling abilities
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    In the debate last night, he used the word "bigly" (as in the adjective of big).
    To be fair, it seems quite likely that he said "big league" and not "bigly". In fact, he uses this particular phrase quite frequently on twitter, whereas as far as I am aware, he had never used the word "bigly" on twitter.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lol I agree, Clinton wiped the floor with him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, I use the word bigly and it is a word. Actually I'm surprised this is that uncommon.

    Also I have to say he said 'big league' which was quite clearly spoken and he's used the term several times on Twitter before.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Well, fresher's flu is rife this time of year. Cut the man some slack.
    He gets no slack. He is being held to the standard he himself set, after subscribing to all that ludicrous conspiracy theories about Clinton's health.

    She looked calm and in control throughout the evening. He looked extremely weak, sniffling and gasping for air, and having to take repeated drinks of water while she went without the entire night.

    Hoist by his own petard, I say.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    What are you on about OP?

    Donald Trump made some really good points last night. We all know it.
    Good points? Like what?

    Like saying in response to a cyberwarfare question, "My 10 year old son is very good with computers"? Or saying the DNC hack might have been carried out by a fat man in a basement? Or saying to Clinton "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your whole adult life"?

    Do tell, which good points did he make?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As for the debate, I think both of their performances were pretty abysmal.

    They talked a lot about their 'policies' but it's clear that they were all soundbites without much analysis behind them. Maybe this is just normal American politics or Americans are really that dumbed down. Either way I feel sorry for the voters.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    X
    How would "bigly" be out of character for a man who uses formulations like "The case had a very against police judge". He's a moron. He makes George Bush look intelligent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    They talked a lot about their 'policies'
    What Trump policies? Like ranting about how "China is taking all our money" when in fact a very significant proportion of US T-bills are held by Chinese investors (in other words, China lends the US money)?

    Like claiming he will bring jobs back to the US by imposing tariffs and putting up trade barriers of the sort we haven't seen since the 1970s? What Trump policies did he talk about that were not sound bites or appeals to stupid people with nationalistic rhetoric that sounds good but has no substance?

    By contrast, I don't see how you can seriously call Clinton's policies "sound bites". They're policies; they've been developed, costed out and you can look at them in detail (like raising the minimum wage, allowing students to go to college debt free, etc).

    There's an increasing tendency for people who aren't very bright and don't know much about politics to make themselves seem more knowledgeable and worldly by adopting this sort of cynical, "Oh they're all as bad as each other". Whenever you ask them to be specific, they're never able to because "they're all as bad as each other" is really, "I don't know anything about politics but I want to sound like I do so I'll just say they're the same. Oh that will make me sound so above it all"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    How would "bigly" be out of character for a man who uses formulations like "The case had a very against police judge". He's a moron. He makes George Bush look intelligent.
    I didn't say whether or not it would be out of character for him. I just stated that it is quite possible he said "big league" and not "bigly" and that he was possibly misunderstood by people, especially those who are looking for faults to mock him for.

    He's better educated than me, having attended an Ivy League university, so I personally avoid brandishing around such terms and calling him a moron. I'd much rather criticise him for his policies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    He's better educated than me, having attended an Ivy League university, so I personally avoid brandishing around such terms and calling him a moron. I'd much rather criticise him for his policies.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What Trump policies? Like ranting about how "China is taking all our money" when in fact a very significant proportion of US T-bills are held by Chinese investors (in other words, China lends the US money)?

    Like claiming he will bring jobs back to the US by imposing tariffs and putting up trade barriers of the sort we haven't seen since the 1970s? What Trump policies did he talk about that were not sound bites or appeals to stupid people with nationalistic rhetoric that sounds good but has no substance?

    By contrast, I don't see how you can seriously call Clinton's policies "sound bites". They're policies; they've been developed, costed out and you can look at them in detail (like raising the minimum wage, allowing students to go to college debt free, etc).

    There's an increasing tendency for people who aren't very bright and don't know much about politics to make themselves seem more knowledgeable and worldly by adopting this sort of cynical, "Oh they're all as bad as each other". Whenever you ask them to be specific, they're never able to because "they're all as bad as each other" is really, "I don't know anything about politics but I want to sound like I do so I'll just say they're the same. Oh that will make me sound so above it all"
    It's easy to say you are going to do something, and x policy is going to do it. This never happens in real politics, most successful heads of state would know that policies always require a mixed and gradual approach. Drastic economic policy changes will almost always shock the market and destabilise the economy. They are trying to solve global supply and demand issues by offering 'magic pill' solution. You can raise minimum wage, but that will be counteracted by outflow of jobs and more manufacturing moving to China. You can remove tuition fees, but that will mean the state will subsidise the fees and shifting the responsibility (higher taxes) to other people who should not be responsible for the fees. If you change the balance of responsibility in a society, will that affect incentives to work and create wealth... the implications go on.

    You have to understand that social and economic issues are highly dynamic issues, especially the ones they claim they will tackle. I don't believe in soundbites and they do not tell a lot about the details of their policies. How will that be implemented, at what cost, what is the potential return, how it will be enforced, what are you potential implications and how do you address them also. These are the details I want to hear if I am a voter.

    I know you are unhappy with me not approving either candidates, but there is no need for the rude undertone. Please don't claim the intellectual high ground against others just because you are not comfortable with accepting people's judgement on issues. If you feel that you are bright then good for you. However one thing I also notice (feel free to disagree) is that people who are not that bright and lacking in intellectual flexibility, are usually the ones bringing people's intelligence into a debate. I never bring this up but since you initiated it, I'll offer my two cents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    You can raise minimum wage, but that will be counteracted by outflow of jobs and more manufacturing moving to China. You can remove tuition fees, but that will mean the state will subsidise the fees and shifting the responsibility (higher taxes) to other people who should not be responsible for the fees.
    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
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: September 29, 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
How are you feeling about Results Day?
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.