LanDroid wrote: Andrew Sullivan employs Plato's Republic, Hoffer's True Believer, and more...http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

My initial response to the article was to think that there is an aspect of segregationist language. The segregationist language seems to be employed by both parties in ways that are both overt and subtle. Both parties claim to be unifiers while at the same time finger pointing at the opposition as being at fault for partisanship. Both parties have much more in common in that they seek to segregate on a host of nefarious reasons, the language politicians are using today is undermining decades of work that has been going on between the middle class working stiffs of all races, creeds and nationalities.

LanDroids linked article demonstrates my meaning, DB Roy in this thread has linked articles as well that demonstrate this segregationist language. I don't want to use the expression "race baiting" but it does seem that there is an element of that happening more and more often from media types.

I am wondering if the media and politicians are aware of the real damage they perpetrate on the minds of people who are resistant to the seeming segregationist language?.

Donald Trump just threatened to cause an unprecedented global financial crisis

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichés about the evils of federal debt accumulation. "I am the king of debt," he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it."

But he replaced fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion — a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy. "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said. "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can't lose."

5/6/16
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-t ... -debt.html

This is statement # 247 that discredits Trump from being a candidate/nominee/President. But of course after he doubles down on this stupidity, his popularity will increase.

I give up. Folks, Trump is gonna win. President King Trump. Get used to it.

I can't see him winning the presidency. He can't pitch himself to the whole of the American people the way he has to the idiots in the republican party and expect to go anywhere. The man can't pitch a decent plan to save his life and that is what the general populace will expect--a detailed policy telling us what he plans to do, how he plans to do it, how long it will take, how much it costs and where the money will come from. We haven't gotten that yet. Then he will have to go before Congress and defend that plan in all its facets and answer questions such as: "What will you do if your projected budget, which appears to be grossly underestimated, runs out before the project is completed?" "What if you complete this wall and illegals are still crossing over with impunity?" "If you dismantle the ACA, millions will lose their insurance, how will you prevent that?" He can't answer any of those questions because he has no real plans to begin with. He just says that this is what he will do and everybody claps and cheers but he's slightly short on specifics.

"The wall just got ten feet higher" is ludicrous because he's never so much as told us exactly how high it was going to be to begin with. So what does he do? Unveil a plan to make his wall 30 feet high plus an extra 10 or is the extra 10 already figured in? Trump himself has no idea how much it will cost. Every time he's asked about it he jumps the price up another $2-5 billion. Half the shit he wants to do will be declared illegal by SCOTUS (e.g. closing the borders). If he defies SCOTUS, he's opening himself up to impeachment. I can only imagine the tantrum he'll unleash if and when Congress defies him. Probably half the world's leaders will refuse to meet with him. And when they defy him, his damned head will explode. If the American people openly rebel, expect a repeat of the Tienanmen Square slaughter.

No, I don't think he will get elected. Most people can see he does not have anywhere close to the temperament to do the job. He will be the most hated man in the world two years into it at which point he will tire of the job saying people are too stupid to appreciate him and will want to go back to his rich, pampered life in New York. And we haven't even seen what miserable specimen of a human being he's going to nominate as a running mate. Right now, I'm not worried. That could change but I doubt it.

ant wrote: None of the traditional candidates brought anything new to the table and none of them were very likable to the general public, which is important for voters.
Part of Obama's success was that his personal presentation was very good. His persona was very very likable.

You may want to take note of fact that Trump is not in any way, by any stretch of even the most vivid imaginations, likable.

DB Roy wrote:

ant wrote: None of the traditional candidates brought anything new to the table and none of them were very likable to the general public, which is important for voters.
Part of Obama's success was that his personal presentation was very good. His persona was very very likable.

You may want to take note of fact that Trump is not in any way, by any stretch of even the most vivid imaginations, likable.

This is a really presumptuously stupid comment.

The 14 Republicans who at some time were in the running have been called the most able slate of candidates ever put up by a major party. So it is, still, puzzling and shocking that Trump will carry away the nomination. Along with his ineptitude, there is his lack of likability, as DB Roy said.

I like what one pundit said; it's a bit brutal but to the point. He said everyone is blaming the rise, and now triumph, of Trump on this or that phenomenon, such as the loss of good blue-collar jobs. But let's put the blame where it most belongs, on the people who voted for this guy.

I didn't scorn those who voted for Mitt Romney or even for George W. Bush. But there's no use hiding that I don't respect Trump supporters.

I really don't get the idiots who say they want Bernie Sanders but if Hillary wins then they will vote for Trump. WHAT??? That's taking the "I want a non-establishment politician in the White House" to an absurd and idiotic extreme--stupid and useless. People like that shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's like saying, "I want Gandhi over Roosevelt but if Roosevelt wins the nomination then I will vote for Hitler." I mean, WHAT????

Taylor wrote:

LanDroid wrote: Andrew Sullivan employs Plato's Republic, Hoffer's True Believer, and more...http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

My initial response to the article was to think that there is an aspect of segregationist language.

Sullivan quite usefully explains that Plato in The Republic argued that democracy leads to tyranny, because democracy produces a cultural relativism which so infuriates elitists that they install a dictator. Democracy has a levelling tendency that eliminates all discrimination, even where discernment of quality is accurate.


There is little wonder that elitist language appears segregationist. You only have to look at debates over The Bell Curve and The Closing of the American Mind. These authors argue that American exceptionalism involves a celebration of excellence, a concept which involves the negation of the ‘all must have prizes’ ethic of inclusion and esteem. Murray and to some extent Bloom reject efforts of affirmative action to overcome institutional bias. As a result they are likely to implicitly accept segregation based on money and culture, if not on law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books ... .html?_r=0 discusses the problems of the modern university culture of ditzy pomo and groveling before activists. These sort of trends are what give Trump traction, by making the anti-racist movement an object of mockery among those who question the culture of political correctness.

This analysis from The Republic helps to show why Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies regarded Plato as a proto-fascist. But the trouble now with the open mindedness advocated by Popper is that when you are too open your brains fall out. Liberalism has roots in anti-fascism, but this analysis of Plato helps to show that any ideology has internal contradictions when carried too far.

DWill wrote:The 14 Republicans who at some time were in the running have been called the most able slate of candidates ever put up by a major party. So it is, still, puzzling and shocking that Trump will carry away the nomination. Along with his ineptitude, there is his lack of likability, as DB Roy said.

I like what one pundit said; it's a bit brutal but to the point. He said everyone is blaming the rise, and now triumph, of Trump on this or that phenomenon, such as the loss of good blue-collar jobs. But let's put the blame where it most belongs, on the people who voted for this guy.

I didn't scorn those who voted for Mitt Romney or even for George W. Bush. But there's no use hiding that I don't respect Trump supporters.

I'm not a republican defending the republican party, but it's pretty obvious that "prominent" politicos on the right are not endorsing Trump, refuse to endorse him, and have stated openly they will not be attending the convention. We will see how that unfolds.

It may not be a question of 100% "likability" at all. Part of the popularity (whatever you want to call it) might very well be people being sick and tired of voting for the usual "business as usual" candidate.

No - the blame needs to be distributed. It's not as simple as finger pointing.