CDZ Duplicitousness, ambiguity and incoherence reign...and this is what we are asked to buy into?

[320 Years of History]

This morning, Donald Trump called into CNN and spoke with Chris Cuomo. Here is the interview...

Audio only:

​

Some preliminary thoughts...preliminary because I haven't time to go into all that I think about what Trump said:

• Wow! How dare a journalist begin an interview by providing context and asking a question about the circumstances that give rise to that context. I mean really, can you imagine how preposterous and unexpected it is for a reporter to ask a question? Puh-lease!
• In mere minutes, Bill Clinton's marital infidelity was per Trump not important and important. (early part of the interview and then again at ~7:00) Excuse me? More importantly:
  • What does Bill Clinton's marital indiscretion have to do in 2016 with you, me, or the millions of other Americans, to say nothing of Mrs. Clinton? You may have some view on the matter, so might I. But your's and my view isn't what Trump needs to articulate. It's his justification for why it's important that he needs to present...And what is his justification? That Mrs. Clinton enabled Mr. Clinton's marital infidelity. You find me a wife who thinks her husband's infidelity is something she enabled. CTFO!
• Bill Clinton Impeached:
  • 2008 Trump said, "Look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense." The man was not coerced into saying that. He could have said any number of other things. He didn't any of them.
  • 2016: The man rags on the fact that Clinton was impeached -- never mind that being impeached isn't a big deal in modern politics; being convicted of whatever one is impeached for is the big deal; Clinton was acquitted of the impeachment charges. And what is "impeachment?" It's a a $5 synonym for "charged." And who gets impeached rather than charged? Executive branch elected officials and conceivably judges who commit transgressions for which the federal or state Department(s) of Justice won't or cannot bring charges. (Legislative branches can expel members if they see fit to do so.)
• NAFTA's signing: Bush and Clinton signed NAFTA, but it definitely was not a "deal" negotiated by Clinton.
  • "In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994."
• The GI Bill (beginning at ~3:21) -- paraphrased below...you can listen for yourselves:
  • • CC: Do you support maintaining the GI Bill the way it is now or even expanding it?
    • DT: We treat our vets horribly...yatta, yatta, yatta...
    • CC: So is that a "Yes, I do support the current Bill?"
    • DT: No.
  • No?!? Why the hell not? Trump didn't even explain that "no" answer. He did not propose expansion of the GI Bill. He didn't say why he doesn't support the current GI Bill. He deflected into jobs. The GI Bill is about education for vets.

Listen to the whole interview. The man contradicts himself in it, as well as walking back from what he spent his weekend discussing. The man is thoroughly incoherent, and this morning's interview is not the first time he's been that way. I am now beginning to wonder if he might have the beginnings of dementia/Alzheimer's...which having a mother who does and having seen the progression over the past 20 years, I know that looks like, particularly from a highly and well educated professional who's on the decline mentally. It's not her fault, just as it wouldn't be Trump's, but I wouldn't vote for her to be President either.

 

[320 Years of History]

And here's another thing...In the interview this a.m., Trump remarked about folks who've been in the same job for the past 18 years with no substantive pay increase. Well, I have news for folks...you know who stays in the same job for 18 years? I'll tell you who, at least in my industry:

• People who began the past 18 years at the terminal position in their organization. Generally speaking that means owners of businesses that aren't doing well, but that aren't doing so poorly the owners are inspired to exit the business and aren't forced to do so.
• People who have been performing well enough not to get themselves fired, but who aren't performing well enough to get promotions and/or material pay increases.
• People who took dead end jobs and don't perform well enough that someone notices and moves them to a position that has advancement potential. The thing is that with a dead end job, just what does one expect? Or what can one reasonably expect? Five to ten percent annual increases? Hell no.

While I won't go so far as to call all those folks "losers," I also don't see much reason whereby any of them who stay in one position for nearly 20 years with no pay increase actually deserve sympathy over the fact that their wages have been stagnant. They certainly don't deserve a whole nation doing something to alter what they, for the past 18 years, haven't done much on their own to alter.

FWIW, the wage stagnancy/wage drop that does concern me is that whereby a given position today doesn't pay comparably (inflation and COLA adjusted) to new holders of that position as it did 18 years ago to the folks who then held it and one to three years later moved on to "bigger and better" things, be it in the same organization or a different one. In other words, the wages of, say, a staff accountant today should make possible one's affording a lifestyle comparable to that which a staff accountant could afford ~20 years ago; however, the person who was ~20 years ago a staff accountant should surely not today still be a staff accountant.

 

[Elvis Obama]

And here's another thing...In the interview this a.m., Trump remarked about folks who've been in the same job for the past 18 years with no substantive pay increase. Well, I have news for folks...you know who stays in the same job for 18 years? I'll tell you who, at least in my industry:

• People who began the past 18 years at the terminal position in their organization. Generally speaking that means owners of businesses that aren't doing well, but that aren't doing so poorly the owners are inspired to exit the business and aren't forced to do so.
• People who have been performing well enough not to get themselves fired, but who aren't performing well enough to get promotions and/or material pay increases.
• People who took dead end jobs and don't perform well enough that someone notices and moves them to a position that has advancement potential. The thing is that with a dead end job, just what does one expect? Or what can one reasonably expect? Five to ten percent annual increases? Hell no.

While I won't go so far as to call all those folks "losers," I also don't see much reason whereby any of them who stay in one position for nearly 20 years with no pay increase actually deserve sympathy over the fact that their wages have been stagnant. They certainly don't deserve a whole nation doing something to alter what they, for the past 18 years, haven't done much on their own to alter.

FWIW, the wage stagnancy/wage drop that does concern me is that whereby a given position today doesn't pay comparably (inflation and COLA adjusted) to new holders of that position as it did 18 years ago to the folks who then held it and one to three years later moved on to "bigger and better" things, be it in the same organization or a different one. In other words, the wages of, say, a staff accountant today should make possible one's affording a lifestyle comparable to that which a staff accountant could afford ~20 years ago; however, the person who was ~20 years ago a staff accountant should surely not today still be a staff accountant.

Will you be expanding your analysis to include the babblings of Sarah Palin? I recognize that Mr. Trump has achieved a position he doesn't merit, but personally I cannot stand to listen to the man for more than a few seconds at a time. He has always babbled. Trump's reputation in NY is as a redliner and a deadbeat. "I owe you money?". he says, "sue me!" The government's prosecution of Trump, Inc for racially discriminatory practices took place when Donald was the president of the company, not Fred (though he was only continuing the policies his father put in place).

Fred taught Donald that he is above the common herd. Donald believes that everything he says is right, by virtue of his having said it. Who cares? That he is an idiot, a person who exists solely for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, is irrelevant to the American people. That's the problem. Not Trump. The problem is an ignorant, fear driven electorate.

So what are people not seeing? I mean the ones capable of thought? They're not seeing that democracy in the United states of America, the cradle of modern democracy, has failed. Trump is precisely what the founding fathers feared a stupid electorate would fall victim to, a demagogue. The Jeffersonian model created an elite voting class, because he feared that the majority of the population wasn't up to the job. Guess what? He was right, and Andy Jackson was wrong. Hell, Andy can't even hold onto the twenty. Andy led us down the wrong path. He led us down the path of kissing America's collective ass. The politician and pundit classes pander by appealing to "the inherent genius of the American people!", while as the same time laughing up their sleeves at how manipulable and stupid the people really are.

Seriously, what's the point in analyzing Trump statements? Analyze instead why Americans seemingly rejected Dr. Ben because of either his nutty statements or bizarre demeanor, but will not reject Trump for his nonsensical statements, dishonorable past or his childish and dangerous tendency to spew forth the first thing that leaps to his diseased mind. Address yourself to how it would be possible to bring this man down when the only possible method of disseminating information about his disqualifying behavior has been rejected by a large percentage of the American people. If the "lame-stream" media reports it, they say it must be a lie. That's why democracy has died.

 

[320 Years of History]

Will you be expanding your analysis to include the babblings of Sarah Palin?

Not unless I feel I absolutely must. Ms. Palin currently rates only slightly above the people on my USMB ignore list. I know Ms. Palin was a Governor, and that means she can't be a 100% idiot, but she does a good job of showing that she's an ~80% idiot. I won't generally give folks like that the time of day, much less the dignity of taking the time to pen my thoughts pertaining to them or their remarks.

FWIW, there are conservatives whom I think are 100% not idiots, and whom I may disagree with. I discussed some of them here.

is irrelevant to the American people. That's the problem....The problem is an ignorant, fear driven electorate.

Yes, you are correct.

I've said this before. There was a time when I was very optimistic about a Trump Presidency. Then he started campaigning and began to make me question his fitness to be President. Even then, however, he could have "course corrected" merely by being clear, by not engaging in demagoguery, by offering well thought out plans and policy positions, and by asking me/us to consider his candidacy on the merit of his policy positions and not on the merit of how many personal insults he can levy at his opponents. Trump took none of those "course corrections," choosing instead to pander to the willful ignorance of a large segment of the electorate, a segment that is large, but that does not (I hope) constitute the majority of the electorate, or even a majority of the GOP

Seriously, what's the point in analyzing Trump statements?

Anyone who can see their folly and disingenuousness, and who recognizes that they'll continue to be successful regardless of which party wins the White House, has an obligation to at least try to show that there's just no sense or sincerity in what Trump is doing. The fact of the matter is that people have been given a set of skills and abilities -- whether by God or by their educators -- and having those abilities, it'd be disingenuous of one not to use them to (1) share what one knows to be fact and can deduce based on those facts, and (2) share what one can rationally infer to arrive an a plausible and probable set of conclusions.

One must "lead the horse to water" even though one knows one cannot make it drink. If one doesn't present the "horse" with the "water;" the "horse" most assuredly will not drink. Nobody -- regardless of political affiliation or persuasion -- wants the "horse" to become "dehydrated," so everyone who can must at least try to prevent that from happening.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Will you be expanding your analysis to include the babblings of Sarah Palin?

Not unless I feel I absolutely must. Ms. Palin currently rates only slightly above the people on my USMB ignore list. I know Ms. Palin was a Governor, and that means she can't be a 100% idiot, but she does a good job of showing that she's an ~80% idiot. I won't generally give folks like that the time of day, much less the dignity of taking the time to pen my thoughts pertaining to them or their remarks.

FWIW, there are conservatives whom I think are 100% not idiots, and whom I may disagree with. I discussed some of them here.

is irrelevant to the American people. That's the problem....The problem is an ignorant, fear driven electorate.

Yes, you are correct.

I've said this before. There was a time when I was very optimistic about a Trump Presidency. Then he started campaigning and began to make me question his fitness to be President. Even then, however, he could have "course corrected" merely by being clear, by not engaging in demagoguery, by offering well thought out plans and policy positions, and by asking me/us to consider his candidacy on the merit of his policy positions and not on the merit of how many personal insults he can levy at his opponents. Trump took none of those "course corrections," choosing instead to pander to the willful ignorance of a large segment of the electorate, a segment that is large, but that does not (I hope) constitute the majority of the electorate, or even a majority of the GOP

Seriously, what's the point in analyzing Trump statements?

Anyone who can see their folly and disingenuousness, and who recognizes that they'll continue to be successful regardless of which party wins the White House, has an obligation to at least try to show that there's just no sense or sincerity in what Trump is doing. The fact of the matter is that people have been given a set of skills and abilities -- whether by God or by their educators -- and having those abilities, it'd be disingenuous of one not to use them to (1) share what one knows to be fact and can deduce based on those facts, and (2) share what one can rationally infer to arrive an a plausible and probable set of conclusions.

One must "lead the horse to water" even though one knows one cannot make it drink. If one doesn't present the "horse" with the "water;" the "horse" most assuredly will not drink. Nobody -- regardless of political affiliation or persuasion -- wants the "horse" to become "dehydrated," so everyone who can must at least try to prevent that from happening.

Well, dehydrated horse is an ugly thing, and I'm all for preventing it. What we need to acknowledge is that a frighteningly large subset of the American people have decided to stick their fingers in their ears and go, LA LA LA , I Can't Hear You!! Have fun talking to them, but I think we need to bypass their deaf ears if we hope to effect positive change. A free press is an essential institution for the effective functioning of a democracy. When we no longer trust that institution, democracy is in crisis. Does the press address the lack of trust Americans have in their product? No. Do predatory politicians preach about the importance of the press? No. They mock them and dance with joy as their oversight role is blunted by American stupidity. Fewer eyes scrutinizing their corruption. Whoopee!

No, either you understand the relationship of a free press to a healthy democracy or you do not. Trump supporters do not. Cite facts to them and they will merely dismiss you as a tool of the lamestream. I guess you can try to pick off a few around the edges, the ones who aren't completely lost. This mess seems to me to be something that smart people need to figure out. Democracy is too hard for the ignorant. We need to put enough training wheels on the process to neutralize the negative effect of stupid voting. Get people angry about gerrymandering, for example. Sell anti-gerrymandering legislation as effectively as Trump sells his brand of toxic goo. We need to stop treating people as if they were smarter and better informed than they are. All the nonsense this cycle about thwarting the will of the voters, and a "rigged system". Of course it's rigged, and of course there are safeguards against the electorate proving to be dangerously irresponsible. All we've really proved so far is that the system wasn't rigged enough. It wasn't Trump-proof, that's for sure.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just when it seemed as if Trump couldn’t be any more stupid and ridiculous:

“Donald Trump Says New London Mayor Could Be Exception to His Ban on Muslims”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...yor-could-be-exception-to-his-ban-on-muslims/

 

[320 Years of History]

I think we need to bypass their deaf ears if we hope to effect positive change

Frankly, after this morning's interview on CNN, I'm of the mind that if "change" means electing Donald J. Trump, we are best off with no change.

[A] frighteningly large subset of the American people have decided to stick their fingers in their ears and go, LA LA LA , I Can't Hear You!!...Trump supporters....Cite facts to them, and they will merely dismiss you as a tool of the lamestream.

I don't know if you've watched CNN today, but if you have, you surely have noticed Trump surrogates --among them, Peter Navarro...today is the first time I've seen him on CNN, and he couldn't even keep a straight face -- grasping at straws and "working harder than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest" to deflect/redirect questions posed to them, all in what can only be seen as one pathetically puerile and unsuccessful attempt after another to cover for the utter BS Trump put forth on CNN this a.m. (interview in the OP of this thread) Not one of them that I saw -- from political strategists, elected officials, political commentators, etc. -- has actually attempted to defend head one the actual statements Trump made. That is a hugely different tack from what one normally sees from them.

As for how most Trumpeteers deal with facts -- by ignoring them, insulting the presenter of them, or deflecting to some perceived failing of another candidate -- well, there's no denying that you got that right. What I find interesting is their silence and lack of direct rebuttal when presented with hard and irrefutable facts.

• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not -- OP for the thread
  
• CDZ - Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not -- Last post I made in the thread.
  
• CDZ - Donald Trump's Tax plan evaluated
  
• CDZ - Donald Trump and Rafael Cruz
  
• CDZ - Critically reading Trump's foreign policy speech from 27-April-2016

Note:
It may be that some of them here have in fact attempted to address head-on the glaring dichotomies. My "ignore list" has grown since I created the first thread noted above and the rest were created after that, so it's possible that someone has done so cogently (for a change; that they offered too may (for me) childish and poorly thought out remarks is without exception why I've opted to ignore them) and I haven't seen it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just when it seemed as if Trump couldn’t be any more stupid and ridiculous:

“Donald Trump Says New London Mayor Could Be Exception to His Ban on Muslims”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...yor-could-be-exception-to-his-ban-on-muslims/

Oh, my. There he goes again...Already, and he hasn't even been elected, he's moving away from one of his most staunchly held and promoted platform stances. There's going to be a lot of that I suspect. As I've repeatedly said, how can anyone know what that man will actually do? Time and time again we've already seen his positions are just a matter of what he thinks is good to say "today."

Admitting the Mayor of London into the U.S. isn't stupid. Asserting that he wants to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. is what's stupid. It was a stupid thing to say in the unqualified manner in which it was uttered when Trump first said it; it was a stupid policy to propose implementing, and it hasn't gotten any less stupid now that he's finding cause to move away from it.