OMG, I suppose I should have assumed the crazy belief in 9/11 being an inside job, but might have held out hope of some rationality. And you seem to be right there with the international conspiracy by the Jews.

KS wrote:So, if Trump is so stupid, how come he won a presidential election?

His stupidity isn't in question. He's stupid.

The question that's raised is, how did we come to a point where we managed to elect a moron to the office of president? What has gone so wrong in our society that people are blind to the idiocy of the candidate they voted for?

KS wrote:He says that Trump’s tariffs, withdrawal from trade agreements and so on are moves calculated to make sure America has some manufacturing ability when the global economy crashes.

Hahaha! As if he could form such a coherent thought. It may come to pass that we're better prepared for a global economic collapse because of his tariffs. But if you think that's part of Trump's plan you're drinking too much Kool Aid. The man doesn't think beyond his shoelaces.

Interbane wrote:

KS wrote:So, if Trump is so stupid, how come he won a presidential election?

His stupidity isn't in question. He's stupid.

The question that's raised is, how did we come to a point where we managed to elect a moron to the office of president? What has gone so wrong in our society that people are blind to the idiocy of the candidate they voted for?

I think it's tough to casually dismiss Trump as stupid without also acknowledging that he is "smart"—at least in some arenas. Trump became the Republican nominee, beating the other 16 major candidates. And then he won the presidency, beating Hillary Clinton, a seasoned and intelligent politician. So how did Trump beat all odds and become POTUS, despite having a sketchy understanding of facts and demonstrating a lack of gravitas and dignity? He must have been "smart" on some level, through sheer defiance and belligerence to the extent that he resonated with voters.

And despite all the chaos of his administration, Trump can claim several accomplishments, such as cutting taxes, and improving the environment for businesses and corporations. We don't all agree these are accomplishments, but they are from a conservative perspective.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ng/535458/

I do wonder what Trump's IQ is. I would suspect it's very low. And, yet, he remains popular with his base. And he's very good at putting himself at the front and center of every controversy. His name splashes the front pages of every newspaper. He taps into a virulent tide of anti-reason, and anti-establishment that now defines the alt-right movement. This is not the usual kind of "intelligence" that we typically ascribe to knowledge and understanding of facts, but from the perspective of forwarding the conservative agenda, Trump has been very successful and, thus, "intelligent" in his own way—at least for the time being.

The only litmus test that really matters is this: will America be better or worse after Trump? The measure of success must ultimately be determined from the distance of time, looking back, from some years in the future. How will the Trump administration look in ten or twenty years? Will America's reputation be irreparably damaged on the world stage? Where will Trump's tariff war put our economy in five or ten or twenty years? And will this tide of anti-reason be stopped or stoked by the Trump era? Only time will tell.

I would argue that Trump's ignorance, and the tide of anti-rationality that put him in power, will ultimately hurt America. Knowledge and facts do matter. And though Trump may be accomplished in some areas, such as putting himself front and center of everything, and getting his base fired up, will ultimately be detriment to our values and American sensibilities that made our democracy the most successful political system ever created. It may also be true that America's democracy is already so diseased that Trump and his minions are nothing more than a symptom of a larger problem. A depressing thought to be sure.

I do wonder what Trump's IQ is. I would suspect it's very low.

No, this is wrong.

His IQ is not low. It's his emotional intelligence that is apparently low.

He's a graduate of Wharton School of Business. The very same school people like Elon Musk and Warren Buffett attended.

Interbane wrote:

KS wrote:Trump is being savaged especially hard right now because the people who own the world are losing control.

Trump is being savaged because he has the mind of an 8 year old and is severely unfit to be president. The man is a moron. That isn't a political statement. He's truly stupid.

I would have thought you'd admire his real estate empire buidling accomplishments that obviously are not due to stupidity, being the spiritual materialist that you are.

ant wrote:I would have thought you'd admire his real estate empire buidling accomplishments that obviously are not due to stupidity, being the spiritual materialist that you are.

I think his real estate empire is the ideal example of how you don't need to be smart to make it rich. Some handouts from daddy and a dunning-kruger narcissism are enough.

ant wrote:He's a graduate of Wharton School of Business. The very same school people like Elon Musk and Warren Buffett attended.

He went the undergraduate program, not the MBA program. They are very different, and unlike the MBA program at Wharton, there's nothing special about the undergrad program. And he didn't even graduate near the top of his class as he claimed.

geo wrote:how did Trump beat all odds and become POTUS, despite having a sketchy understanding of facts and demonstrating a lack of gravitas and dignity? He must have been "smart" on some level, through sheer defiance and belligerence to the extent that he resonated with voters.

My reading is that the Republican conservative base who supported Trump through the primaries feared that Clinton would have won against any of the other Republican candidates, as they believed that those moderate candidates would have failed to fire up the base in the way Trump did through extreme partisan rhetoric.

Politics is fundamentally tribal. The two tribes in the USA are essentially the Republicans and the Democrats. The dislike that conservatives feel for the social values of the Democrats is quite intense, with the alt-right attitude of disdain for RINOs creating deep suspicion towards moderation and compromise.

Robert Tulip wrote: My reading is that the Republican conservative base who supported Trump through the primaries feared that Clinton would have won against any of the other Republican candidates, as they believed that those moderate candidates would have failed to fire up the base in the way Trump did through extreme partisan rhetoric.

Politics is fundamentally tribal. The two tribes in the USA are essentially the Republicans and the Democrats. The dislike that conservatives feel for the social values of the Democrats is quite intense, with the alt-right attitude of disdain for RINOs creating deep suspicion towards moderation and compromise.

It wasn't primarily party people who brought the energy to Trump's primary campaign. That large group of disaffected voters wasn't much more enamored of the Republican party than of the Democratic. That is one reason why Trump's own shifting party affiliation didn't matter to his base and why his base enjoyed seeing Trump give the finger to the establishment types. I don't think his core voters calculated that Trump had to be the one, or else Clinton was sure to beat the mainstreamers. They were probably wrong if they did, since it seems likely to me that Trump would also have beaten any of the other Republicans. I remember hearing that Democrats were joyful at the prospect of Trump winning the nomination, as it meant easy victory for Clinton. They would have been more anxious about Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and even Cruz.

Were social values crucial in the election? Trump himself is not an exemplar of traditional values, and in the past he has even espoused liberal views on abortion and homosexuality. He did very wisely calculate that by promising to nominate conservative SC judges (i.e., ones who would weaken abortion rights and support "religious liberty"), he would get the evangelical block, without which he would have lost decisively. He also brought in "the war on Christmas," but I believe that even his base was not too incensed about that one. But the biggest part of his appeal, his nativist/nationalist message, doesn't reduce in my mind to things we categorize as social values. That appeal is quite visceral, and it "trumped" any appeal Clinton was able to come up with.

ant wrote:

I do wonder what Trump's IQ is. I would suspect it's very low.

No, this is wrong.

His IQ is not low. It's his emotional intelligence that is apparently low.

This is a good point. It could be that Trump has a relatively high IQ, but is brought down by a low emotional intelligence. Or perhaps his overall intelligence is crippled by narcissisitic personality disorder. or whatever else is going on with him.

Of course this is all speculation. But I'm thinking of his recent spectacle in Helsinki, when Trump basically sided with Putin over American intelligence in connection with the known Russian influence in our elections. It's difficult to understand how Trump could be so naive on one hand and, on the other, be so completely oblivious to the consequences of taking this stance on the public stage. It reveals an astonishing lack of judgment and, well, stupidity. This is just one of many examples that show Trump's basic lack of ability to reason.

Trump also shows a proclivity towards conspiracy thinking. For example, on the campaign trail, he said he believed that vaccinations cause autism, a thought that he has expressed in years past. It shows that once a thought comes to him, he has very little impetus to reflect on it or look for corroborating evidence to support it. There's no insight and a high level of arrogance which ultimately makes him a very stupid man, even if he has achieved remarkable success in some arenas, such as reality TV or getting elected president.

It could be that IQ and EI are decent measures of intelligence for most people. But that Trump suffers from some huge cognitive deficiency that makes him a poor subject for such measurements. Given his lack of analytical reasoning skills, I doubt that he would perform well on an IQ test. It would be very interesting to see those results though, just as it would be interesting to see an analysis of his financial empire. Trump's own statements of greatness for both are highly suspect.

DWill wrote: It wasn't primarily party people who brought the energy to Trump's primary campaign. That large group of disaffected voters wasn't much more enamored of the Republican party than of the Democratic.

Really? My impression is that Trump voters hate the Democrats with passion, while they see the Republican Party as having potential to wage culture war on their behalf if its moderate leadership can be corralled by an extremist.

DWill wrote: That is one reason why Trump's own shifting party affiliation didn't matter to his base and why his base enjoyed seeing Trump give the finger to the establishment types.

Trump could not have won with any affiliation other than Republican. Conservatives were willing to forgive Trump’s past flirtation with the Democrats as a piece of youthful exuberance, recognising that only the Republicans could be acquired to mobilise a red state majority grounded in their perceived real America.

DWill wrote:I don't think his core voters calculated that Trump had to be the one, or else Clinton was sure to beat the mainstreamers. They were probably wrong if they did, since it seems likely to me that Trump would also have beaten any of the other Republicans.

What does that mean? No other Republicans could stand for President without the nomination. My point here was that anyone other than Trump would have ended up with a lacklustre Republican campaign, without the balls to say build the wall or put her in jail. I recall the look of astonishment in Clinton’s eyes in that first debate when Trump showed he had torn up the rule book of politeness and respect. Clinton would definitely have beaten anyone other than Trump.

DWill wrote:I remember hearing that Democrats were joyful at the prospect of Trump winning the nomination, as it meant easy victory for Clinton. They would have been more anxious about Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and even Cruz.

Ha ha more fool them. Trump completely wrong-footed the Democrat strategists. They regarded him and his voters with contempt while ignoring the Electoral College voting numbers from Wisconsin.

DWill wrote: Were social values crucial in the election? Trump himself is not an exemplar of traditional values, and in the past he has even espoused liberal views on abortion and homosexuality.

Clinton made social values central by saying she deplored conservatives, indicating her acceptance of the sneering big city liberalism that sees traditional families as losers rather than social bedrock. My own view is that abortion should be legal, but that the emotional assertion that abortion is not a moral issue and is only a private matter for the mother deserves more debate. Similarly with homosexuality, there is an unstated subtext in gay marriage advocacy that bringing children into the world is immoral so barren relationships are morally superior to traditional families.

DWill wrote:He did very wisely calculate that by promising to nominate conservative SC judges (i.e., ones who would weaken abortion rights and support "religious liberty"), he would get the evangelical block, without which he would have lost decisively.

You make that sound like a tangent, when in fact it is widely recognised as the core issue. Kavanaugh’s alleged fumbling teenage party antics just show the extreme desperation the Democrats are bringing to stopping this nomination.

DWill wrote: He also brought in "the war on Christmas," but I believe that even his base was not too incensed about that one.

The secular commercial mentality that sees Christmas as only about presents and parties rather than family relationships is a key target for evangelical morality.

DWill wrote:But the biggest part of his appeal, his nativist/nationalist message, doesn't reduce in my mind to things we categorize as social values. That appeal is quite visceral, and it "trumped" any appeal Clinton was able to come up with.

Yes, it is about the feeling that traditional American culture with roots in local community has been displaced by a globalised cosmopolitan elite. That is much the same culture clash that gave rise to Hitler.