• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US Politics Gedanken Experiment

The Shrike said:
Some of my objections to Trump (in no particular order):
1) The dude has been in the public eye for decades and has never shown me anything about himself that didn't scream "self-absorbed, womanizing, two-faced, shallow, tacky, delusional, attention-whoring prick." So no, this person is not one who I think is fit to represent the United States of America, mostly because I sincerely doubt his ability to act for the good of the country if it might be at odds with what's good for Trump.
2) His rhetoric emboldens dictators, Nazis, racists.
3) He has admitted on tape, in the context of a story bragging about his attempt to begin an affair while married to a married woman, that he is a habitual sexual predator. For this he should be in jail, not in the Oval Office.
4) He is very likely compromised by Russia and a serious threat to our national security.
5) He has made disastrous Cabinet and other appointments.
6) He refuses to release his tax returns.

etc.

So let's say I could somehow ignore all those things about a dangerous, odious, unhinged individual, but that he supported policies I support. I still could not support him. The problem is not that he's unpolished, it's that I seriously don't think he can be trusted with classified information.

And a kinder, gentler, more experienced, smooth, and intelligent Trump pushing the same policies? No way! That would just be putting style over substance. No matter who the messenger is, the border wall is a ridiculous waste of time.
Click to expand...
Lol

Much of your list could be about Clinton. Bet you loved voting for him?
 
Spindrift said:
Okay.

1 - No. Trump's demeanor disqualifies anyone.
2 - No. Trump's policies disqualifies anyone.
Click to expand...

This, with the caveat, 'unless he's running against the real Trump', added to the end of each.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Just to preface this experiment, I'll note that Trump makes me cringe at times (actually quite often), and I do wish that he behaved like he had a well-developed id and not like he was a spoiled child. Still, I am very, very pleased with his Presidency so far, and I'm starting to come around to the belief that you need somebody like Trump to make real change happen. As I've said before, Trump is an extraordinarily thick-skinned leader masquerading as a thin-skinned diva. Or perhaps he's a thin-skinned diva, who is so perceptionally-challenged, that he doesn't realize what people must truly think of him. A distinction without a difference from my point of view.

Anyhoo, Ann Althouse, who is one of my favorite bloggers, posed the following thought experiment. I will quote it in full here and hope that the powers-that-be leave it as is, since I think it diminishes the effectiveness of the posited hypothetical to force everybody to go the link:




I'll note that experiment 2 has actually already pretty much been run. That was in 2012, so it's not necessary for anti-Trumpers to use their imagination.

Experiment 1 is more hypothetical, but I think elements were present at the climax of Bill Clinton's 2nd term after he failed to come up with an innocent explanation for how his semen wound up on Monica Lewinsky's dress. At the time I thought it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a satisfactory one, but apparently it was too hard. At least for him.


N.B. This will probably be my last post until the end of March, but I'll still read replies.
Click to expand...

The experiments are an exercise in alternate reality. A thick skinned leader? Really?

You understand of course that he's been in the spotlight longer than that absurd trip down the escalator where he announced to the world how retarded he is?

You think a person who calls into a talk show for an interview masquerading as a different person who talks up "Donald Trump" (AKA, himself) is THICK SKINNED?
:crazy:
 
Ignoring the obvious flaws in the thought experiments...

The question of Ann Althouse is: "Be honest: don't you like Trump because of his policies, or don't you like Trump because of his personality?"

Which is a false dichotomy:

I dislike Trump both for his personality and policies, either one is a dealbreaker.
 
NoahFence said:
Care to be more specific?
Click to expand...
No, because his statements are not grounded in evidence or reason.

Of the 6 things I listed about Trump, half of one of them would apply to Bill Clinton: There is no doubt that Clinton was a smarmy womanizer. (Whether or not Clinton was a sexual predator as well is open to debate. I have never heard any suggestion that the Lewinksy affair was non-consensual, for example.)

So we could maybe go to 1/6, but I think it's more like 0.5/6.0. That's a range of 8–17%, which in Trump/logger-land = most.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Just to preface this experiment, I'll note that Trump makes me cringe at times (actually quite often), and I do wish that he behaved like he had a well-developed id and not like he was a spoiled child. ... snipped for brevity ...

N.B. This will probably be my last post until the end of March, but I'll still read replies.
Click to expand...

Well, ...

this sounds like a really silly thought experiment, but here goes my reply all the same:

As for Case 1, I do not expect that I would fret too much about his poor speaking style and what prefessional critics may think of him, provided that he is good for the country then I would support such a person.

As for Case 2, I do care how good looking he is and how good he is at public speaking, because if he is bad for the country, then he is bad for country and that is why I would oppose such a person.

I hope this helps.
 
I can understand the idea here, though I think it's too vague to be entirely useful. When we imagine our liberal Trump, do we imagine just a trumpish personality, or a trumpish history, and of course it depends much on what you really think of Trump to begin with. If, like some of us, you consider Trump to be so deeply deficient in character as to be functionally insane, then no way. Because of course along with stated policy, we have to evaluate how likely a person is actually to do what he says, and to be effective and stay out of peripheral trouble that disqualifies him to do what he says. And that, unfortunately, includes the likelihood that haters and bigots and false newsmakers will magnify the slightest chink in his character or his presumed social fitness, as we saw in the way many conservatives, the real Trump notorious among them, attacked Obama.

With all that said, my basic take would be that no, I would not support a liberal Trump, in any real sense of that thought experiment making sense. He's too much of a flake and a proven liar and egomaniac to trust. I think many conservatives have made that very mistake, thinking "he's a lunatic, but he's our lunatic." That rarely comes out well.

Of course, as noted, some of the characteristics of the experiment could be applied to Clinton, but to answer Logger's rhetorical question, yes I for one voted willingly for Clinton. I thought he was a good president despite his personal flaws. I truly don't think Trump to be in the same ball park, because I really do think that Trump is of low intelligence, no competence, and dubious sanity.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Just to preface this experiment, I'll note that Trump makes me cringe at times (actually quite often), and I do wish that he behaved like he had a well-developed id and not like he was a spoiled child. Still, I am very, very pleased with his Presidency so far, and I'm starting to come around to the belief that you need somebody like Trump to make real change happen. As I've said before, Trump is an extraordinarily thick-skinned leader masquerading as a thin-skinned diva. Or perhaps he's a thin-skinned diva, who is so perceptionally-challenged, that he doesn't realize what people must truly think of him. A distinction without a difference from my point of view.

Anyhoo, Ann Althouse, who is one of my favorite bloggers, posed the following thought experiment. I will quote it in full here and hope that the powers-that-be leave it as is, since I think it diminishes the effectiveness of the posited hypothetical to force everybody to go the link:




I'll note that experiment 2 has actually already pretty much been run. That was in 2012, so it's not necessary for anti-Trumpers to use their imagination.

Experiment 1 is more hypothetical, but I think elements were present at the climax of Bill Clinton's 2nd term after he failed to come up with an innocent explanation for how his semen wound up on Monica Lewinsky's dress. At the time I thought it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a satisfactory one, but apparently it was too hard. At least for him.


N.B. This will probably be my last post until the end of March, but I'll still read replies.
Click to expand...

The rejection of trump is part of obviously him using backward politics ,which make no sense, and his antics. Both would be unacceptable no matter which party or people you prefer.

The 2 for 1 policies on EPA/OSHA/etc..., for example, makes no sense whether this is Trump, Obama, Bush Jr/Sr, or the king of America.

On top of that comes the antic spoiled child, this is also unacceptable from any president, no matter the aisle. rejection of obvious documented fact and coming up with "alternative fact" is also beyond stupid.

It is not because it is trump the person or because he is a republican, it is because the policies make no sense and he is acting stupidly.

So for your thought experiment : it does not matter to me if he was a centrist or democrat or mayor from toronto in Canada. Or somebody I vote for in germany. Some behavior are not acceptable no matter the political side or country.

ETA: Sex scandal I put on a vastly different level. We are not speaking of bad stuff on the side like Clinton, we are speaking of downright stupid policy or behavior in plain sight. So contrary to what you said, such experiment were not done.
 
Last edited:
I think, agreeing with Aepervius and amplifying what I meant before, I think that such an experiment, even though intellectually interesting, is impossible in a real and practical way, because for a person to be truly a trump would require that he evince a history of behaviors that cannot coexist with the policies and ideas I consider valuable. There is no trump who is not a misogynist, a liar, a businessman of dubious ethics, a xenophobe, a conspiracy theorist and science-hater and a bigot. I could accept a person whose personal life included peccadiloes, and whose personality was flaky and uncouth, whose demeanor is shabby and occasionally embarrassing, but if one counts among one's important values honesty, racial and sexual equality, and tolerance, there simply is no realistic way a trump could exemplify those things.
 
The problem I have with this thought experiment is that Ms. Althouse asks us to imagine someone with "all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump", but leaves out "emits a constant stream of lies- or possibly is so delusional that he doesn't even know the difference".
 
To try and address what I think makes sense about the experiment, you could simplify it to, "What if there were a liberal who was boorish and showed contempt for everyone around him in the political establishment?" If that was his only flaw, there would be no problem.

And, "What if there were a conservative who wasn't so boorish?" Well, that's everyone else who is taken seriously in the Republican party. I don't say the same thing about them that I do about Donald Trump. I actually made a real, honest to goodness, primary vote for John Kasich, and I might have voted for him against Hillary Clinton. If in an alternate universe the nominees would have been Kasich and Sanders, definitely I would have gone for Kasich.

The thought experiment seems to rest on the premise that his crude manners of speech are the problem, and not just a sideshow. The problem is that his is utterly self absorbed and delusional. He will be called upon to make decisions that literally mean death for people, and when he makes those decisions they will be based on utter fantasy, on "facts" that exist only in his addled brain, on an ideology that says whatever is good for me is the best thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom