Who are you voting for?

[n_i_c_u]

I'm sort of tired of this. Like, I don't like Trump, but pretending he's something either new or uniquely authoritarian seems utterly misguided.

Seriously, he is literally no worse than Hillary.

Well, you seem better at wording than most people I know and you don't have much of a political affiliation that you can waver with or against (kudos), and I'm really not trying to cause you to have to defend yourself for 3 pages of this stuff, but if might ask, who is your ideal candidate (I must have missed it. A person? or is the system so fucked up that there is no person)? Also not trying to appeal to your ego. So, given that these two peeps aren't good, who or what would be good (and please don't say yourself).

 

[Osmia]

Trump has named a team of economic advisors. Thirteen men (no women, and they appear to be all white).

"The list includes strikingly few academic policy experts, usually the bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams. Instead, the advisory team of 13 men — and no women — reflects a wide range of people from the higher echelons of American finance, including hedge fund managers and real estate investors. The median net worth of Trump's official economic advisers appears to be at least several hundred million dollars."​

So, these will be the ones advising Trump on how to implement his populist, save-the-middle-class campaign promises.. Ok.

 

[Behemoth]

Well, you seem better at wording than most people I know and you don't have much of a political affiliation that you can waver with or against (kudos), and I'm really not trying to cause you to have to defend yourself for 3 pages of this stuff, but if might ask, who is your ideal candidate (I must have missed it. A person? or is the system so fucked up that there is no person)? Also not trying to appeal to your ego. So, given that these two peeps aren't good, who or what would be good (and please don't say yourself).

None, I'm an anarchist. I believe in self-rule based on voluntary interactions. Of course, that is fairly unrealistic for folks to just jump on board, but there hasn't really been a single really good stepping stone to real freedom because by its nature the system selects against it. IE: the system isn't going to support people seeking to minimize, let alone destroy it.

So yes, there is no real person, in my view.

Trump has named a team of economic advisors. Thirteen men (no women, and they appear to be all white).

"The list includes strikingly few academic policy experts, usually the bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams. Instead, the advisory team of 13 men — and no women — reflects a wide range of people from the higher echelons of American finance, including hedge fund managers and real estate investors. The median net worth of Trump's official economic advisers appears to be at least several hundred million dollars."​

So, these will be the ones advising Trump on how to implement his populist, save-the-middle-class campaign promises.. Ok.

Yes, and? You seem to have forgotten to make a point. Again, its abudantly clear that I'm not a Trump supporter, but this comes off lazy. Are you implying because they're rich, and "economically successful," they can't advise on the economy? Because here is the thing about Trump. There is one thing that sets him apart from other politcians, and again, I must stress this is no defense of him, but he has been in the real of business, so of course his advisors are business as well.

The very quote you put, I feel, actually is why a large chunk of the establishment really hates him. Its correct, he eschews academics, the usual "bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams," and he eschews the media, and the political class, in favor of his own. I think many oppose him more because they're out of a job if he wins, and that he's not paying them now either.

Again, not a defense of Trump, merely an observation.

 

[Osmia]

....
Yes, and? You seem to have forgotten to make a point. Again, its abudantly clear that I'm not a Trump supporter, but this comes off lazy. Are you implying because they're rich, and "economically successful," they can't advise on the economy? Because here is the thing about Trump. There is one thing that sets him apart from other politcians, and again, I must stress this is no defense of him, but he has been in the real of business, so of course his advisors are business as well.

The very quote you put, I feel, actually is why a large chunk of the establishment really hates him. Its correct, he eschews academics, the usual "bread-and-butter of campaign policy teams," and he eschews the media, and the political class, in favor of his own. I think many oppose him more because they're out of a job if he wins, and that he's not paying them now either.

Again, not a defense of Trump, merely an observation.

The point is self-evident, implied. It shouldn't be necessary to explain everything every time...

Yes, my point is that these are not the right types of people to advise him on the economy, when his economic proposals are populist and pro-middle/working class (or more accurately, he markets his policies that way). Substantively, a group of extremely wealthy CEOs, bankers, hedge fund managers, real estate investors, and financiers are not very likely to have usable knowledge or expertise on growing the economy for those below the top 1%. Businesspeople at this level typically favor top-down (trickle down) approaches, because it's market oriented and just happens to benefit them disproportionately.

From a "non-substantive" (optics) perspective, it just looks bad, as if Trump isn't even trying to live up to his populist shtick, or appeal to anyone except white men. That's fine with me, because I want him to lose, but anyone with any political sense would have made some very different choices. In the end, I doubt very much whether Trump will even listen to these "advisors."

His choices, and Trump himself, are another example of the fallacy that expertise and accomplishment in one domain (real estate, finance, etc.) are transferable to a high-level political contest.

As to Trump's business acumen, here's a very interesting article written by a former WSJ reporter (later a hedge fund manager), who covered Trump extensively starting more than 25 years ago.

 

[Mila_]

The point is self-evident, implied. It shouldn't be necessary to explain everything every time...

Yes, my point is that these are not the right types of people to advise him on the economy, when his economic proposals are populist and pro-middle/working class (or more accurately, he markets his policies that way). Substantively, a group of extremely wealthy CEOs, bankers, hedge fund managers, real estate investors, and financiers are not very likely to have usable knowledge or expertise on growing the economy for those below the top 1%. Businesspeople at this level typically favor top-down (trickle down) approaches, because it's market oriented and just happens to benefit them disproportionately.

You don't have to be middle class in order to know what policies will help the middle class do better. I know it sounds more bueno to hire people from different backgrounds because DiVeRsItY! but I feel much more confident in a candidate hiring people who understood how the economy works well enough to make a fortune for themselves than hiring some tenured professor from a University who has a lot of book smarts but who has never applied any of it in the real world. Or worse yet, someone from the middle class who is stuck there. Because in the end, in spite of all the drama and the bombastic words and the media bullshit parade, I do believe Trump wants a shot at fixing America's problem. If only for his ego, to make his legacy important. And I think the way to do that is not by doing what is nice but what doing what works.

 

[Osmia]

You don't have to be middle class in order to know what policies will help the middle class do better. I know it sounds more bueno to hire people from different backgrounds because DiVeRsItY! but I feel much more confident in a candidate hiring people who understood how the economy works well enough to make a fortune for themselves than hiring some tenured professor from a University who has a lot of book smarts but who has never applied any of it in the real world. Or worse yet, someone from the middle class who is stuck there. Because in the end, in spite of all the drama and the bombastic words and the media bullshit parade, I do believe Trump wants a shot at fixing America's problem. If only for his ego, to make his legacy important. And I think the way to do that is not by doing what is nice but what doing what works.

I would feel a lot better about the substance of Trump's team if, in addition to being rich, white men (a given with Trump), they arose from modest circumstances and therefore knew what making a living is like for the people whom Trump purports to be an advocate for. Such people are more likely to have empathy (not sympathy) for the working/middle class, while still understanding how the economy works. Trump is a "master of the universe" type, born into privilege. I haven't done background checks on Trump's new economic team, but looking at their race, sex and occupations, I think it's likely that they are predominantly people much like Trump himself.

As to academics being advisors, let's get past the "ivory tower" book-learnin epithet (which is such a well-worn trope on the right). Two points: (1) A lot of academics, at least those who might be considered for high-level advisory positions like this, are very accomplished in the real world, and may move back and forth from academia to government to private sector. I'm thinking of people like Larry Summers, Ashton Carter or Steven Chu. (2) Even if an academic doesn't have "real world" (i.e., business) experience, he or she knows the workings of the nuts and bolts of the economy, how to analyze the data and model the effects of a proposed policy, or how to achieve a specified policy goal. Someone like that would be invaluable as an advisor, though not necessarily as a public face.

 

[LuckySmiles]

I would feel a lot better about the substance of Trump's team if, in addition to being rich, white men (a given with Trump), they arose from modest circumstances and therefore knew what making a living is like for the people whom Trump purports to be an advocate for. Such people are more likely to have empathy (not sympathy) for the working/middle class, while still understanding how the economy works. Trump is a "master of the universe" type, born into privilege. I haven't done background checks on Trump's new economic team, but looking at their race, sex and occupations, I think it's likely that they are predominantly people much like Trump himself.

.. funny you mention that because upon a cursory examination of this list the first name that jumps out is Harold Hamm... Self Made Billionaire from Modest Beginnings

youngest of 13 children... skipping college... working 100 hours a week as a teenager...

Or is this irrelevant because he's a white guy?
That's a super silly way to look at things IMO

 

[Mila_]

I would feel a lot better about the substance of Trump's team if, in addition to being rich, white men (a given with Trump), they arose from modest circumstances and therefore knew what making a living is like for the people whom Trump purports to be an advocate for. Such people are more likely to have empathy (not sympathy) for the working/middle class, while still understanding how the economy works. Trump is a "master of the universe" type, born into privilege. I haven't done background checks on Trump's new economic team, but looking at their race, sex and occupations, I think it's likely that they are predominantly people much like Trump himself.

As to academics being advisors, let's get past the "ivory tower" book-learnin epithet (which is such a well-worn trope on the right). Two points: (1) A lot of academics, at least those who might be considered for high-level advisory positions like this, are very accomplished in the real world, and may move back and forth from academia to government to private sector. I'm thinking of people like Larry Summers, Ashton Carter or Steven Chu. (2) Even if an academic doesn't have "real world" (i.e., business) experience, he or she knows the workings of the nuts and bolts of the economy, how to analyze the data and model the effects of a proposed policy, or how to achieve a specified policy goal. Someone like that would be invaluable as an advisor, though not necessarily as a public face.

The middle class is a broad term, but I think we can agree that the biggest chunk of it is employees... some are highly educated professionals in managerial positions and some are white collared workers. The entrepreneurial or small business owner fraction is the smallest. So... to fix the problems of the majority of the middle class you need to fix the job market first so they can find jobs. And fixing the job market would be helped greatly by bringing all the companies who moved their production overseas back into the US while at the same time making it difficult for them to hire foreigner H1B visa holders to fill in those spots. That way they will actually have to employ american citizens and pay them a livable wage, and they will have to compete among themselves to keep their employees and thus raise their salaries over time.

If you want to bring companies back to America it is better to understand them first. Understand why they left, what company owners want, what they fear, and what your leverage is as the Government of the US. And I personally believe people who have companies themselves and have been tempted or have gone through moving their company's production overseas have a lot of insight to offer simply because by being in their own shoes they understand why this happens and how to avoid it. They probably have a good idea of what they would need to hear to bring their companies back, whether it is persuasion or coercion or a little bit of both. And because of this they can advice on how to do the same with all the big companies that have moved production abroad. They could also know more things than the average man about how the economy works, it makes sense, right? because that is what you have to do when you have to juggle all the problems an international company has to keep it afloat. And then there is a case to be made about trust and whether you should hire someone because it sounds good, or because you trust them. I think that could also be an important factor that should drive any candidate's choices: having worked with their team in the past, have relationships with them based on trust. I don't know whether Trump has worked with these men in the past or not, frankly I haven't looked that up, but it would be nice if his choice was also made on those grounds.

A professor could have important things to say, I don't doubt that, but it wouldn't be my first choice simply because I believe in hands on experience. To give an example related to ACF, many people think they understand what makes a camgirl successful because they watch a lot of cams and have formed their own opinion over hours of watching things develop, or because they read a book written by a camgirl, and they come here to offer their unsolicited advice to us, and time and time again I have to say, the experience of an actual camgirl wins. Because she actually has to deal with real life scenarios every day, and it is her skin and her wallet she is risking. If a professor has hands-on experience in the world of business I would choose him for his experience, not because he is a professor, and in that sense I think the people who are most qualified rarely hold tenures.

The idea of choosing men with rags-to-riches stories sounds really good, but I don't know whether or not it is relevant to the position. Because the majority of the middle class are employees and an entrepreneur no matter how successful is not. Therefore they might share the same upbringing but their experience is not related to the problems of the majority of the middle class. Simply because the percentage of the middle class that is entrepreneurial or who owns small businesses is such a small fragment. You want to help the middle class by helping employees. Helping small business owners is also good, but in the list of priorities should come second to fixing the job market if you want to help the middle class.

 

[Osmia]

.. funny you mention that because upon a cursory examination of this list the first name that jumps out is Harold Hamm... Self Made Billionaire from Modest Beginnings

youngest of 13 children... skipping college... working 100 hours a week as a teenager...

Or is this irrelevant because he's a white guy?
That's a super silly way to look at things IMO

No, it's not irrelevant, and thank you for pointing that out. I haven't cross-checked the lists or looked them up in wikipedia. It's my hunch, and I stand by it ;-)

I know the right detests identity politics, so all I can say is that being a white man does matter in the context of Trump selecting 13 white men. The politically wise thing to do would be to put 2 or 3 women, and a couple of p.o.c. on the team. Sure, Trump isn't obligated to do that, and I'm sure he and his supporters see his selection as a f$ck-you-liberals point of pride. His core supporters will support him no matter what. But for Trump to have any chance at winning, he needs to peel off a lot of undecided voters who are not from his white male core demographic. Having a "diverse" advisory team would help in that regard, even if he never consulted them. Again, Trump prides himself on being apolitical or anti-political, but if he wants to actually win, he's got to be a political animal like the rest of them.

 

[Ms_Diane]

To be fair, his behavior does mirror some of the behaviors that would cause a doctor to consider a diagnosis of dementia. I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable, but it should be at least considered, especially since the behaviors are getting worse and worse and more extreme. They're not saying "oh, he might be bipolar" they're saying "his brain might be falling apart" and I don't think that lumps him in with those of us struggling with mental health issues; dementia/alzheimer's is a whole different ball field than depression/schizophrenia/ADHD/etc and I don't think anyone will think the same of people struggling with those problems if it does come out that he's suffering from deteriorating mental faculties.

I have so much I want to say about this - not just in response to your post, @SexySteph, but in general. I could write an essay about this! But I totally won't.

Here's the thing, as much I dislike Trump, I don't think it is fair to judge the mental health of a public figure in general. We don't get the whole picture and can never really know what is going on behind the scenes. But I get that people are saying, he's a presidential candidate so that gives us the right to question his mental faculties. One one level, yes, people will vote for a candidate who they think will make good decisions. This can be done without calling for him to get a mental health assessment and asking for the results to be made public (talk about crazy!).

The problem is that the narrative around his mental state, the things that are coming out of the mouths of voters and politicians (both democratic and republican) and the media too, is so negative and demoralizing. Even if he does have mental health problems, diagnosed or not diagnosed, people are not politely asking if he has dementia. He has been called "plain crazy", "mentally unfit", and accused of having a personality disorder, just to name a few. The petition calling for a psychological diagnosis is preposterous. It is nothing but a tactic by people who are anti-Trump to discredit him and it probably won't have any effect on him anyway. It's a veiled attempt to attack his reputation. They are trying to scare people away from voting for him because he might have narcissistic personality disorder. It is akin to telling people to be afraid of people with serious mental illnesses, or people who you think might have a serious mental illness. Sorry if I am repetitive, but this is only continuing to enable the public commentary that makes it ok to stigmatize mental illness.

The other thing is, as @Osmia mentioned, despite all his shady business dealings, the guy is still successful in many ways and is clearly high functioning enough and aware of how to play to the media and the public. He should be held accountable. A person's political views and opinions are not symptoms of mental illness. It's a misguided tactic that allows him to get away with saying whatever he wants.

For anyone who really thinks his mental state makes him unfit, then I gotta ask, what about all of the people who want to vote for him? It seems like there's a ton of people who have said he is giving their views a voice, who are cheering him on when he is making sexist and racist comments and talking about banning people who are Muslim and building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. All those people are not mentally ill obviously, and discrediting Trump by calling him mentally ill does nothing to address the hate and fear that is embedded in his campaign.

 

[SexySteph]

I have so much I want to say about this - not just in response to your post, @SexySteph, but in general. I could write an essay about this! But I totally won't.

Here's the thing, as much I dislike Trump, I don't think it is fair to judge the mental health of a public figure in general. We don't get the whole picture and can never really know what is going on behind the scenes. But I get that people are saying, he's a presidential candidate so that gives us the right to question his mental faculties. One one level, yes, people will vote for a candidate who they think will make good decisions. This can be done without calling for him to get a mental health assessment and asking for the results to be made public (talk about crazy!).

The problem is that the narrative around his mental state, the things that are coming out of the mouths of voters and politicians (both democratic and republican) and the media too, is so negative and demoralizing. Even if he does have mental health problems, diagnosed or not diagnosed, people are not politely asking if he has dementia. He has been called "plain crazy", "mentally unfit", and accused of having a personality disorder, just to name a few. The petition calling for a psychological diagnosis is preposterous. It is nothing but a tactic by people who are anti-Trump to discredit him and it probably won't have any effect on him anyway. It's a veiled attempt to attack his reputation. They are trying to scare people away from voting for him because he might have narcissistic personality disorder. It is akin to telling people to be afraid of people with serious mental illnesses, or people who you think might have a serious mental illness. Sorry if I am repetitive, but this is only continuing to enable the public commentary that makes it ok to stigmatize mental illness.

The other thing is, as @Osmia mentioned, despite all his shady business dealings, the guy is still successful in many ways and is clearly high functioning enough and aware of how to play to the media and the public. He should be held accountable. A person's political views and opinions are not symptoms of mental illness. It's a misguided tactic that allows him to get away with saying whatever he wants.

For anyone who really thinks his mental state makes him unfit, then I gotta ask, what about all of the people who want to vote for him? It seems like there's a ton of people who have said he is giving their views a voice, who are cheering him on when he is making sexist and racist comments and talking about banning people who are Muslim and building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. All those people are not mentally ill obviously, and discrediting Trump by calling him mentally ill does nothing to address the hate and fear that is embedded in his campaign.

I get what you're saying but hypothetically IF he was suffering from dementia he would be mentally unfit for the presidency. Dementia is not like depression or bipolar disorder where you can get medication or therapy to deal with it and function like a normal human being. With dementia your brain function is getting worse and worse, your brain literally wastes away. You can go from being a fully functioning, successful person, to rambling and screaming about how the housekeeper is a "w--" who snuck across the border and is now stealing your meds. People with dementia aren't considered fit to drive a car. It's an entirely different beast than your standard mental illness. I don't think people suggesting this helps to stigmatize mental illness. All the articles I've read about the potential of Trump having a mental illness have all pointed at dementia as the suspected illness and all have experience with dementia in their families. Yes, there are some people saying Trump is "just crazy" but I don't think those people are legitimately concerned he has dementia, nor are they suggesting any other mental health issue. They just think he's a nutjob, and you can be a nut job without having a mental illness.

ETA: And I totally think it is fair to judge the mental health of a public figure if it's suspected that they're suffering from a degenerative disease that will slowly eat away at brain function. I don't know if Trump has dementia, I don't really think he does, I think he's just an idiot. But if he DID hypothetically have dementia, that's definitely something that would make someone unfit to hold office.

 

[Osmia]

The middle class is a broad term, but I think we can agree that the biggest chunk of it is employees... some are highly educated professionals in managerial positions and some are white collared workers. The entrepreneurial or small business owner fraction is the smallest. So... to fix the problems of the majority of the middle class you need to fix the job market first so they can find jobs. And fixing the job market would be helped greatly by bringing all the companies who moved their production overseas back into the US while at the same time making it difficult for them to hire foreigner H1B visa holders to fill in those spots. That way they will actually have to employ american citizens and pay them a livable wage, and they will have to compete among themselves to keep their employees and thus raise their salaries over time.

If you want to bring companies back to America it is better to understand them first. Understand why they left, what company owners want, what they fear, and what your leverage is as the Government of the US. And I personally believe people who have companies themselves and have been tempted or have gone through moving their company's production overseas have a lot of insight to offer simply because by being in their own shoes they understand why this happens and how to avoid it. They probably have a good idea of what they would need to hear to bring their companies back, whether it is persuasion or coercion or a little bit of both. And because of this they can advice on how to do the same with all the big companies that have moved production abroad. They could also know more things than the average man about how the economy works, it makes sense, right? because that is what you have to do when you have to juggle all the problems an international company has to keep it afloat. And then there is a case to be made about trust and whether you should hire someone because it sounds good, or because you trust them. I think that could also be an important factor that should drive any candidate's choices: having worked with their team in the past, have relationships with them based on trust. I don't know whether Trump has worked with these men in the past or not, frankly I haven't looked that up, but it would be nice if his choice was also made on those grounds.

A professor could have important things to say, I don't doubt that, but it wouldn't be my first choice simply because I believe in hands on experience. To give an example related to ACF, many people think they understand what makes a camgirl successful because they watch a lot of cams and have formed their own opinion over hours of watching things develop, or because they read a book written by a camgirl, and they come here to offer their unsolicited advice to us, and time and time again I have to say, the experience of an actual camgirl wins. Because she actually has to deal with real life scenarios every day, and it is her skin and her wallet she is risking. If a professor has hands-on experience in the world of business I would choose him for his experience, not because he is a professor, and in that sense I think the people who are most qualified rarely hold tenures.

The idea of choosing men with rags-to-riches stories sounds really good, but I don't know whether or not it is relevant to the position. Because the majority of the middle class are employees and an entrepreneur no matter how successful is not. Therefore they might share the same upbringing but their experience is not related to the problems of the majority of the middle class. Simply because the percentage of the middle class that is entrepreneurial or who owns small businesses is such a small fragment. You want to help the middle class by helping employees. Helping small business owners is also good, but in the list of priorities should come second to fixing the job market if you want to help the middle class.

On the issue of offshoring of manufacturing (mainly to China), I was reading something recently to the effect that there was a growing consensus that the trade opening to China was mishandled (in China's favor--i.e., that it didn't have to end up so lopsided). I have no idea how that could be rectified.

 

[Mila_]

No, it's not irrelevant, and thank you for pointing that out. I haven't cross-checked the lists or looked them up in wikipedia. It's my hunch, and I stand by it ;-)

I know the right detests identity politics, so all I can say is that being a white man does matter in the context of Trump selecting 13 white men. The politically wise thing to do would be to put 2 or 3 women, and a couple of p.o.c. on the team. Sure, Trump isn't obligated to do that, and I'm sure he and his supporters see his selection as a f$ck-you-liberals point of pride. His core supporters will support him no matter what. But for Trump to have any chance at winning, he needs to peel off a lot of undecided voters who are not from his white male core demographic. Having a "diverse" advisory team would help in that regard, even if he never consulted them. Again, Trump prides himself on being apolitical or anti-political, but if he wants to actually win, he's got to be a political animal like the rest of them.

This is the thing with the people who support Trump... they really, really, don't care what the color of your skin is. If you are qualified and you love this country that is enough for them to want you on board and support you. I cannot speak for all of Trump's supporters to be honest but my personal problem with the left is not "identity politics" although I do find it laughable half of the time. My problem is when the left tries to pigeonhole me as "a beautiful and empowered... woman!" more often than not this is what I hear from the left:

"Hey there, woman! Do you have a cooter? You do, don't you? You have a cooter! Guess what? Hillary also has a cooter! You should vote for Hill because she will fix all your cooter problems and make cooters great again."

I don't vote with my vagina. Do I care about reproductive rights? Yeah, I guess. Is it my main concern? No. And I think it is quite insulting to assume that just because I am a woman I should only care about abortion and access to birth control. Like I have no other interests or concerns other than my sex. I know I am the proud owner of a vagina but I have a brain too and my brain cares about a myriad of subjects other than my ovaries.

In the same line of thinking I give no fucks whether Trump is following the mandates of DiVeRsItY! I don't care whether he hires women or not, actually, I do care, I want him to hire the absolute best team he can gather, and I don't think God or the Universe, or genetics, or whatever you want to call it is even handed when giving out skills. It could very well be that the top most qualified people in business are all white men. Same as I wouldn't have trouble believing that the top 20 singing voices belong to black people, or that the best doctors are all jews. I don't want a woman to be occupying a spot in the list just because she is the proud owner of a cooter. It feels really shitty actually. If the most qualified people for the position are 20 white men, then by all means hire them. A woman who didnt make it into the most qualified group has no business planning the economy of the country, and I don't want people handing me shit for free just because I am a girl. It is actually quite degrading. I want a woman to be president because she happens to be the right person, not because she has a vagina.

 

[n_i_c_u]

but if he wants to actually win, he's got to be a political animal like the rest of them.

This is kind of why I like him--he doesn't want to be like the rest of them (and will probably lose because of it).

 

[LuckySmiles]

That's kinda bonkers to me. @Osmia
It's no better than the people that feel good about voting for Hillary because she's a woman.
Speaking of bonkers...

 

[Osmia]

....
ETA: And I totally think it is fair to judge the mental health of a public figure if it's suspected that they're suffering from a degenerative disease that will slowly eat away at brain function. I don't know if Trump has dementia, I don't really think he does, I think he's just an idiot. But if he DID hypothetically have dementia, that's definitely something that would make someone unfit to hold office.

I have no idea either. Has this been mentioned in the news? He's 70; he's old enough. My mother was about that age when she first started showing signs of cognitive impairment. She died of Alzheimer's about 4 years later. The symptoms depend a lot on which parts of the brain are affected.

Also, I read this interesting piece by Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist at the Washington Post. She fell down some stairs and had a concussion that left her with behavioral symptoms similar to Donald Trump's behavior.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I get what you're saying but hypothetically IF he was suffering from dementia he would be mentally unfit for the presidency. Dementia is not like depression or bipolar disorder where you can get medication or therapy to deal with it and function like a normal human being. With dementia your brain function is getting worse and worse, your brain literally wastes away. You can go from being a fully functioning, successful person, to rambling and screaming about how the housekeeper is a "w--" who snuck across the border and is now stealing your meds. People with dementia aren't considered fit to drive a car. It's an entirely different beast than your standard mental illness. I don't think people suggesting this helps to stigmatize mental illness. All the articles I've read about the potential of Trump having a mental illness have all pointed at dementia as the suspected illness and all have experience with dementia in their families. Yes, there are some people saying Trump is "just crazy" but I don't think those people are legitimately concerned he has dementia, nor are they suggesting any other mental health issue. They just think he's a nutjob, and you can be a nut job without having a mental illness.

ETA: And I totally think it is fair to judge the mental health of a public figure if it's suspected that they're suffering from a degenerative disease that will slowly eat away at brain function. I don't know if Trump has dementia, I don't really think he does, I think he's just an idiot. But if he DID hypothetically have dementia, that's definitely something that would make someone unfit to hold office.

My gripe is not about the possibility of him having dementia. It is about the narrative around his mental health. There is a lot of stuff being said that is not a level-headed discussion about dementia. So I am venting about all the stuff I'm hearing that is stigmatizing and lets him get away the awful stuff he says and does, including the vernacular "crazy" talk that seems innocuous but is also stigmatizing.

I guess I am also saying that even if he does have a mental illness, using it as a talking point for why he wouldn't be a good president, takes away from a slew of issues that I wish people would talk about instead.

Edited to add that I know I am talking about his mental health instead too! I just wish the media would steer the discussion away from it instead of towards it. The petition thing is really adding fuel to the fire too!

 

[Osmia]

....
For anyone who really thinks his mental state makes him unfit, then I gotta ask, what about all of the people who want to vote for him? It seems like there's a ton of people who have said he is giving their views a voice, who are cheering him on when he is making sexist and racist comments and talking about banning people who are Muslim and building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. All those people are not mentally ill obviously, and discrediting Trump by calling him mentally ill does nothing to address the hate and fear that is embedded in his campaign.

I think he's channeling and feeding off the energy coming from his supporters. There's nothing unusual about that for a politician; just look at Bill Clinton. The problem is that a lot of the energy coming from his supporters is hateful and negative--probably exacerbated by being in crowds. I think he's absorbed that energy, and in turn, he gives it back out to his supporters to keep them fired up. It would be interesting to know whether Trump spoke and acted in a racist way before he entered politics. I don't know, but he seems to be someone that wouldn't care about race, religion, etc. as long as they were not relevant to making money.

Here's a piece by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist who actually is (or was) a board-certified psychiatrist. He doesn't attempt to diagnose Trump with mental illness (which would be unethical without a doctor-patient relationship). Beyond that, it's hard to summarize, so you need to read it.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Boy... Trump sure seems like he's self destructing the last week or so and apparently his team and the Rep party big wigs think so too...
Considering his foot in mouth ability before, it's kind of surprising it could get worse.

 

[Osmia]

....In the same line of thinking I give no fucks whether Trump is following the mandates of DiVeRsItY! I don't care whether he hires women or not, actually, I do care, I want him to hire the absolute best team he can gather...

There are two purposes for naming an advisory group like this: (1) To get good advice, and (2) To make a statement to the country, especially to those who are on the fence, about the candidate's judgment and priorities. It doesn't matter if the group is the absolute best team he can gather, if I as a voter who's on the fence look at the team and conclude that they don't have my interests in mind, or don't understand my concerns.

It comes down to what Charles Krauthammer said (as mentioned in another post): Trump needs to meet a threshold of acceptability--not to his supporters, but to those others whose support he would need to gain to actually win. So far, he's not doing that, and actually seems to be going in the reverse direction if you look at the latest polls.

 

[SexySteph]

Boy... Trump sure seems like he's self destructing the last week or so and apparently his team and the Rep party big wigs think so too...
Considering his foot in mouth ability before, it's kind of surprising it could get worse.

It'll be interesting to see what happens! Cuz you know it is going to get worse. lol My "Vote Trump!!" family all admitted that he's an evil, awful person that they hate, but "he's the only person that can fix things" so... he definitely has the leeway to get worse and not lose supporters! lol

 

[justjoinedtopost]

but "he's the only person that can fix things" so...

Had a conversation with a store clerk yesterday, she said the same. No vote is going to fix things at this point.


Don't completely agree with Chris Hedges, but this hour I did.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think Trump's team is sabotaging him. His choice for VP makes zero sense considering how many independent voters are up for grabs. A lot of Trumps stances are middle of the road enough that if he'd chosen a middle or even lefty VP, he could have grabbed some new votes. Before the VPs were announced, I would have said he and Hillary were interchangeable, but his VP is gross.

 

[Mila_]

I think Trump's team is sabotaging him. His choice for VP makes zero sense considering how many independent voters are up for grabs. A lot of Trumps stances are middle of the road enough that if he'd chosen a middle or even lefty VP, he could have grabbed some new votes. Before the VPs were announced, I would have said he and Hillary were interchangeable, but his VP is gross.

This theory has actually been put forward by some folks. Remember Melania's speech? There is no chance in hell that speech didn't got read, and re-read a thousand times. If she was stupid enough to use Michelle Obama's words, she certainly wasn't stupid enough to ALSO add the lyrics to the Rick Astley song. Some people think her speech got sabotaged and I think they are right:

These phrases are not particularly noteworthy.

They are boilerplate, even banal.

Yet Melania Trump repeated them word for word.

These are all undisputed facts.

What are the open questions?

What possible advantage was there for Melania Trump to repeat Michelle Obama’s speech word for word?

None. Zero.

Michelle Obama’s words could be restated equally effectively with other phrasing. Using identical words makes no sense.

There is no motive here.

Nonetheless, it is barely possible that Melania Trump knowingly repeated those words from Michelle Obama’s speech, thinking no one would notice, even though tweaking a few words would have removed any hint of plagiarism.

Perhaps Melania Trump is lazy, dishonest, and very stupid, and so indifferent to the success of her husband’s campaign that she knowingly plagiarized Michelle Obama’s language.

That is one possible explanation.

It is not convincing.

However, there is more.

There is also a passage in Melania Trump’s speech which is a direct quote from a Rick Astley song.

In other words, Melania Trump’s speech was Rickrolled.

To those who do not recall the fad from 2008 or so, Rickrolling was providing a link which purported to be something else, but in fact linked to a Rick Astley video, in fact, the very video whose lyrics were included in Melania Trump’s speech.

The only plausible explanation for the presence of these lyrics is that someone who participated in the drafting of Melania Trump’s speech intentionally included the Rick Astley lyric, apparently as a signal the speech had been “hacked.”

The Rick Astley lyric is a mocking gesture, a flipped bird from the saboteur.

There is no rational explanation for Melania Trump knowingly or intentionally including the Rick Astley lyric in her speech.

Someone who knew what the Rick Astley lyric represented included it in the speech.

Others have suggested that the so-called plagiarism might have been intentional sabotage by someone involved in the speech-writing process, e.g. this article.

In fact, there is no other plausible explanation.

Either Melania Trump knowingly included the plagiarized Michelle Obama quotes in her initial draft — or she did not.

It is barely possible she did, though highly unlikely.

Either Melania Trump “Rickrolled herself” — or she did not.

That is impossible.

It makes no sense at all.

Melania Trump’s speech was intentionally sabotaged.

Source: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/53488.html

 

[Osmia]

I think Trump's team is sabotaging him. His choice for VP makes zero sense considering how many independent voters are up for grabs. A lot of Trumps stances are middle of the road enough that if he'd chosen a middle or even lefty VP, he could have grabbed some new votes. Before the VPs were announced, I would have said he and Hillary were interchangeable, but his VP is gross.

ITA, though I think his choices were severely constrained by having to choose from the small group that would actually want to be his VP.

 

[JoleneBrody]

This theory has actually been put forward by some folks. Remember Melania's speech? There is no chance in hell that speech didn't got read, and re-read a thousand times. If she was stupid enough to use Michelle Obama's words, she certainly wasn't stupid enough to ALSO add the lyrics to the Rick Astley song. Some people think her speech got sabotaged and I think they are right:



Source: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/53488.html

HAHA! I was just sitting here pondering this, hadn't seen any of the articles talking about it yet but I have honestly wondered if Trump himself is just trolling and will pull out at the last minute for a loooooong time.

Even after accepting the nomination, I still think he might just be fucking with us for publicity in the greatest PR stunt to ever be conducted.

He made millions in real estate but his non stop willingness to be loud in the public eye is how he got "famous" and Trump has NEVER been more famous than he is now.

GIMME SOME POPCORN SHITS GETTING CRAZY! WHAT IF THEY FUCKED HER SPEECH ON PURPOSE?!?!
Ohhhhhhhh!

 

[justjoinedtopost]

ITA, though I think his choices were severely constrained by having to choose from the small group that would actually want to be his VP.

Probly not The Apprentice fans.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

All this is so intense!

On a few things people have said... I've seen a few interviews with him pre dating all this saying some pretty questionable stuff, more disgustingly sexist than racist, but he he of an age group that are often kind of racist by default, so I imagine that yes he is genuinely this racist. I've been trying to work out if he's been making it more full on to rally people or if he's holding back...

As for the subject on all white male millionaires. I wouldn't trust people at the top of companies to run the economics, personally. To get to the top in such a way takes a certain type of person. Usually ruthless (and not in a good way, like fuck over whoever is in your way ruthless), and not necessarily competent or qualified for the job.
There are studies on how the least competent people are so incompetent they don't realise it, while the most competent people assume things are as easy for everyone so they don't big themselves up. Meaning you often get completely incompetent people at the head of companies in charge of very skilled people because they big themselves up, ignorantly thinking their the best. And in many situations they just got lucky, it's simply a matter of statistics. Like winning the lottery, you could win a bunch of times and think you have a special ability. In reality it's just that chance happened in your favour.

So though I do think some people at the head of companies would be good in that role, I wouldn't trust most of them to have the best interests of anyone but themselves, it just comes with the territory, and their interests are in a very small percentage.

As for there being no women or non white people, I doubt it was because there wasn't anyone suitable for the role who fit into that, or that those people chosen were the best on offer. Trump is pretty notorious for seeing women as objects and doesn't seem to hold much fondness towards anyone unlike himself. Maybe a team like that was created because it fits in with his image. Or he picked them out himself just because he felt they'd be the best, but him having so much bias their colour and sex would have been part of it.

That there aren't females or anyone non white shouldn't be disregarded, who's in the government is largely about image, as sexism and racism are big issues it does look bad that they may not ever be considered, no matter their qualifications and achievements. It sets them aside as not being good enough to run a country. And therefore sets you aside as not being equal.
We've come a long way for the better since Trump and Hillary grew up, but I'm not convinced either of them have moved with the times.

Sorry if I step on toes here, I'm more interested in friendly discussion than to insult anyone's personal views. It's not my country so I'm sure anyone from the US is far more informed than me, as it's not personal for me I'm more looking at it from a distance and enjoying reading your opinions

 

[Behemoth]

The point is self-evident, implied. It shouldn't be necessary to explain everything every time...

It was evident because I think I mostly understand your views on things, sure, but the implicit idea you didn't have to bring it up sort of stands out. IE: you not only didn't bother to make a point, you implicitly asserted that point was valid. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything, I'm sort of just pointing it out as an observation that informs a lot of things.

Yes, my point is that these are not the right types of people to advise him on the economy, when his economic proposals are populist and pro-middle/working class (or more accurately, he markets his policies that way). Substantively, a group of extremely wealthy CEOs, bankers, hedge fund managers, real estate investors, and financiers are not very likely to have usable knowledge or expertise on growing the economy for those below the top 1%. Businesspeople at this level typically favor top-down (trickle down) approaches, because it's market oriented and just happens to benefit them disproportionately.

Consider the following: the 'bread and butter' of the previous advisory teams to other campaigns and presidents have been horrible for the people, so perhaps a change is good on that regard (speaking hypothetically, mind you.) Or perhaps simply it can be acknowledged that simply BECAUSE they're rich doesn't mean they can't view the policies. To say nothing of the fact that you completely disregard the idea that 'top-down' (which isn't top-down at all) economics are bad for the middle less and 'benefit them disproportionately. Here is another assumption, and something I think you my not realize: these are not the same thing. Lets assume for a moment that what you call 'trickle down' economics DOES disproportionately benefit 'the rich.' This would not implicitly state it is bad for the middle class. IE: Lets assume one person makes $50000 a year, and another makes $100000, and the policies double the income of the former but triple that of the latter. We could say that they have 'disproportionately' benefited the latter, but the former is still substantively better off than before.

This is the old 'rising tide lifts all boats' concept.

Basically, I'm asking, does it matter if someone who is 'rich' earns three times as much, if someone who is in the middle class or poor earns double? Numbers purely for the sake of arguments, mind you.

Further, I'd argue that the reason many of these policies tend to affect the 'rich' more is because they are already shouldering a massive burden of the government. IE: the highest 20% pay like over 80% of the income taxes, and so on. I think the top %1 pay like 30 or 40% if I remember correctly. Mind you, I think that the way some folks get wealthy in our current society is bad, namely because its by manipulating the government as much as anything, but I think it's sort of loaded to say that simply because policies seem to benefit the 'wealthy' to a large degree, they're implicitly bad for those who aren't in the category 'wealthy.'

Now, I keep having to repeat myself because I think it needs to be said: I'm not defending Trump, in the sense I think he's a good candidate or right. I'm simply addressing arguments made. I'm not a fan of many of his economic proposals we've already seen. I just think these arguments are a bit faulty.

From a "non-substantive" (optics) perspective, it just looks bad, as if Trump isn't even trying to live up to his populist shtick, or appeal to anyone except white men. That's fine with me, because I want him to lose, but anyone with any political sense would have made some very different choices. In the end, I doubt very much whether Trump will even listen to these "advisors."

See, I don't think so, because I'd argue the sort of folks who would not vote for Trump for these reasons never would have in the first place. He's not trying to get those votes.

His choices, and Trump himself, are another example of the fallacy that expertise and accomplishment in one domain (real estate, finance, etc.) are transferable to a high-level political contest.

I mean, if anything, this is an indictment of the entire system, because logically a person who is successful in business is better to speak about what is good for business than a person who is merely a political agent.

Again, to answer the next bit, I'm not speaking to Trump being good or even these people being good. I'm speaking purely conceptually here.

Again, Trump prides himself on being apolitical or anti-political, but if he wants to actually win, he's got to be a political animal like the rest of them.

I only peeled this off because the rest I legit am just too lazy to respond. It's a good subject, I'm just lazy cus I woke up, but THIS part of this post stood out, because I think, honestly... it's simply not true.

It's not that Trump isn't playing by the rules, it's that Trump is showing the rules never mattered in the first place. They were never real, they never were necessary. They were a crafted illusion that Trump is shattering. Ironically, the one thing that Trump's campaign reminds me of is 'Moneyball.' It's a fascinating book and actually a pretty good movie, if no one has seen it. Not a sports fan, really, but it tells the story of how someone, on the advise of a young and brilliant strategist, to change the entire way they pick players. The similarities to Trump, I feel, are that Trump is throwing out the entire way things were done, and I frankly think he's going to win, and that'll be the end of the political rulebook as we know it. It's a paradigm shift.

 

[Osmia]

....
Basically, I'm asking, does it matter if someone who is 'rich' earns three times as much, if someone who is in the middle class or poor earns double? Numbers purely for the sake of arguments, mind you.

It matters mainly as a sign (and a cause) of how income is distributed in a society, which in turn is a sign of how people are compensated relative to the value that they add to products or services. I definitely wouldn't want to see some sort of prescribed compensation formula; that would be a crude form of socialism, and just wouldn't work.

The illustrations/examples you gave are policy approaches typically identified with conservatives, and while I tend to be skeptical of them, they have a legitimate place in U.S. political discourse. It's just that the topic of income distribution and how to reward the wealth makers in society has been debated and discussed in every conceivable forum and by everyone and his dog. I just don't feel I have anything to contribute to the discussion at this point besides my somewhat-informed opinion on the matter.

....
Further, I'd argue that the reason many of these policies tend to affect the 'rich' more is because they are already shouldering a massive burden of the government. IE: the highest 20% pay like over 80% of the income taxes, and so on. I think the top %1 pay like 30 or 40% if I remember correctly.

The wealthy pay more than the less-wealthy, sure. That's just the nature of progressive taxation. Two things, though: (1) Those tax rates are for earned ("ordinary") income, which everyone, rich and poor, has to pay (though at different rates). (2) For most non-wealthy people, ordinary income is by far their largest source of income. For the wealthy, investment income has a much larger role. And they are taxed differently: for example, capital gains are taxed at 15% (long term) and 20% (short term), much lower than ordinary income.

....
Mind you, I think that the way some folks get wealthy in our current society is bad, namely because its by manipulating the government as much as anything, but I think it's sort of loaded to say that simply because policies seem to benefit the 'wealthy' to a large degree, they're implicitly bad for those who aren't in the category 'wealthy.'

I agree with the point about "manipulating the government" (rent seeking).

I can't remember if I said that policies that benefit the wealthy are intrinsically bad for the poor. In any case, I don't believe that such policies are intrinsically or necessarily bad for the poor. It's just how they tend to be structured or implemented that makes them, in effect, much less beneficial to the poor and middle class than to the wealthy. There just seems to be an assumption that "trickle down" really does tickle down. In recent years, I've often read news items basically saying that when the wealthy receive tax cuts or their income grows, they tend to save the money rather than invest it in job-creating activities. Their reasons for doing so may be perfectly rational from their perspective--maybe in the current economy, saving it gives the best return, or at least less exposure to loss.

....
See, I don't think so, because I'd argue the sort of folks who would not vote for Trump for these reasons never would have in the first place. He's not trying to get those votes.

I disagree. I think there are a large number of voters who are/were looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton, and saw in Trump someone who was speaking to their real concerns in an attractive, populist manner. They just need a reason to be comfortable with Trump, but he's not giving it to them. The bottom line is that Trump's core of support is simply not enough to get him elected. He needs to appeal to the large group of independents/moderates who may be up for grabs. To do so, he has to be more of a politician, play the game a little more. I know that's anathema to many of his core supporters, but I have to ask, do you want to be "pure" or do you want to win? One would think that for a Trump supporter, a somewhat-moderated Trump who wins would be better than a pure Trump who loses.