CDZ Intelligent and capable are not the same things

[320 Years of History]

I heard Trump just mention, "I know lots of very rich people who can't read or write. And who are they? My friends." He went on to essentially say that because they are rich, they are also very smart, in the general sense of being very smart.

WTH? Since when did the ability to make a lot of money correspond to one's being smart. What it takes to make a lot of money is being smart about one thing and being capable at executing on that one thing. That's not to say that every "very rich" person is only smart at one thing. It's to say that being very rich is not an indicator of being very smart at more than one thing. Moreover, it's not an indicator of being a quick study of entirely new things.

Trump even alludes to this. He mentioned a friend of his who builds plants. Trump said, "He builds plants. If you asked him to build an apartment, he wouldn't know where to begin." I "get" that. Nobody would ask me to manage their construction project. Even though real estate development is my family's business and I sit on the board of the company, I know that I only understand the business from the high level business management standpoint. I can financially manage the project, but I know that a structural engineer is whom one should have managing the actual build of the structure.

In those two remarks are seen one of the problems with Donald Trump as a potential President. The man is quite good/smart at making money, lot of it presumably, by marketing himself and managing large residential and commercial building projects. He's also very good/smart at being entertaining and telling anecdotes. I give him all due credit for that. What he's lousy at is economics, foreign relations, not "exaggerating" (to put it in the kindest light), substantive political remarks and policy making, and a host of other things.

It's okay that he's not good at those things. It's okay that he's not knowledgeable or smart about those topics. What's not okay is that he thinks we should perceive that he is or can be good at them based on his being rich. I wouldn't have Bill Gates develop the strategy for fixing America's crumbling transportation infrastructure. I wouldn't ask Warren Buffet for a strategy for defeating ISIS. I'm sure they both have opinions on those things, but I know they both know they are out of their depth as the final arbiters of any proposed solution for those ills. Donald Trump does not know when and where he's out of his depth.

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey the guy knows more than the generals.....

 

[320 Years of History]

hey the guy knows more than the generals.....

...Apparently more than they do about military operations, strategy and tactics. I guess he picked all that up at his military, but non-military affiliated high school Puh-lease!

 

[Shrimpbox]

What you are saying 320 is that only politicians can run the country. I do not accept that premise. In fact that is why we are where we are today. Our founders could multitask and so can Donald Trump. Why does the media never compare Donald trumps experience with Obamas. Obama wasn't competent to receive the office eight years ago and we are paying for that incompetence today.

 

[320 Years of History]

What you are saying 320 is that only politicians can run the country.

That is a misguided inference you've drawn from my remarks; it's not something that was implied or stated in them. There are plenty of generally smart people. Some of them could very well run the country.

The point of my OP is that Trump is smart is a very specialized way, not in a general way. Think of the kid in school who was very good in, say, history but mediocre or slightly better in other disciplines. There's nothing wrong with that. Indeed, that sort of varied proficiency is probably quite common. The thing is that we need people who are uncommonly adept at a multitude of germane disciplines. Donald Trump simply isn't one those people.

There's neither sin nor shame to be had in that. It just is what it is. And what it is is something that the electorate needs to recognize.

FWIW, I probably wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to a Trump Presidency were the man to either (1) keep his mouth shut about things he doesn't understand well, or (2) when forced to respond on topics he doesn't know well, he'd just reply honestly and offer to look into the matter and provide a coherent, cogent and credible reply at a later date. But he doesn't do either of those things, and one or the other is what very smart people do because they know one can't be well informed about everything and they have the integrity not to pretend to be knowledgeable about that with they are not.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Well you get no argument from me about keeping his mouth shut. Hilary plays him about getting exercised about a tweet and he falls right into the trap. I am not going to be nice anymore.i don't give a god damn about you being nice. Trump is a good study much like Sarah Palin. Neither one are eloquent speakers or adept politicians but both have excellent instincts in solving problems, the exact opposite of Obama. Obama understands that getting and keeping the power is the ultimate goal, any means is acceptable to that end. Democrats worry about losing power, republicans worry about losing the country. That is why dems put con artists at the head of the ticket and republicans put principled boring men. If Donald doesn't learn on the fly to focus like a laser on Hilary and the economy, to put his ego behind the good of the country, than your point will be proved.

Donald makes some excellent decisions, mike pence is one. But then as the media says, he steps on the message. Lean on newt Gingrich. Lean on pence. Lean on Ben Carson.. If he is lucky enough to win the office, I have no doubt that the government will be vastly improved and less corrupt.

And once again I want to know why you have not applied the same judgement to Barack Obama, who is constantly referred to as the smartest man in the room. He has zero leadership capabilities, deficits that have sorely damaged our country and the world. Sort of fits your profile.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump is a good study...

Do you mean he's a good subject for the rest of us to use as a case study subject or do you mean he learns quickly and effectively? I'm writing what follows assuming you mean the latter.



I cannot agree with that. For example, the man has a degree in economics yet, his remarks show that he either (1) disagrees with the basic laws of economics, or (2) doesn't actually remember or understand those principles, or (3) has invented his own laws of economics. If:

1. --> Okay, but why make us wait over a year (and counting) for his credible and cogent exposition of why the rest of us -- economists, non-economist voters who like him studied economics, lay folks who have a strong understanding of basic economic principles, or laymen who frankly don't know/understand econ -- should, like him, disagree with the currently accepted principles of economics? "Credible and cogent" -- that means not merely anecdotal, which, to be honest, is damn near the only kind of support I've heard Trump offer for anything he advocates or rejects. Among folks who are very smart and knowledgeable at least about the things he brings up, anecdotal evidence just doesn't "hold water."
2. --> Okay, but then don't start proposing ideas until one has refreshed one's memory. Moreover, after taking an ill informed position, for Christ's sake, don't stand on/double-down on the position/proposal; admit the mistake and move on to whatever be the revised position. Trump hasn't done that.
3. --> Okay, but if that's the case, then then share one's theory. Publish one's innovative theory in peer reviewed journal. If it's that momentous, does the citizenry, lo the world, not deserve to know what it is, evaluate it and comprehend it? Folks don't necessarily have to even agree with it. If it's published, they can at least say, "We understand his newfound theories of economic behavior work and we can apply them in econometric modeling systems to get a fair sense of how they'd pan out."

If you do meant the former, I agree, he's a good study, but I don't want to study him while he's holding the office of U.S. President. Think of it like this. I think crocodiles are good studies too, but I don't want to study them while they swim freely in a river in which I too find myself having to swim concurrently with them.

Donald makes some excellent decisions, mike pence is one.

Yes. A blind squirrel, even, can occasionally find a nut.

Lean on newt Gingrich. Lean on pence.

"Lean on?" "Defer to" or "move out of the way of" is more to my thinking of what he ought to do with regard to those two men's thoughts on pretty much everything having to do with national policy. As far as I'm concerned, either of those men would make for a better President than Trump, so much better that it doesn't even matter which of them it be. Truly, however, the only person whom I know and whom I'm sure would not be a better President than Trump is my dementia suffering mother. Even Daddy, with his profound short term memory loss, would be a better pick; he may not recall what you asked him/said 10 minutes ago, but tomorrow morning he'll have a rock solid answer/comment that everyone and anyone can "take to the bank."

I want to know why you have not applied the same judgement to Barack Obama, who is constantly referred to as the smartest man in the room. He has zero leadership capabilities, deficits that have sorely damaged our country and the world. Sort of fits your profile.

What makes you think I don't apply the same standards to Barack Obama? I so very, very rarely write about Mr. Obama that I find it very hard to believe you can credibly attest to what standards I hold or have held him. I don't much write about Mr. Obama because:

• He's not running for President, and there's a near zero chance he'll ever be President again.
• There's even less chance I will be subject to his policy views and wishes during the next four years.
• Mr. Obama has reached the point where time will tell for sure what be the merit of his choices.
• The comparison of whatever Mr. Obama has done (or tried to do) with what Mr. Trump aims to do (to the thin extent to which we have any idea what those things be and how he aims to effect them) is an irrelevant and substantively pointless exercise to pursue. Trump must stand on the merit of his articulated ideas, not on their comparative value against the now extant deeds of a departing President.

You see, but for his having or creating a foil against which he can hurl criticisms and aspersions, there's no "there there" as go Trump's policy proposals. Comparing one's ideas with another's deeds in no way makes one's ideas any good at all. Moreover, it stands to reason that if one feels the other person's deeds were insurmountably dreadful, it really doesn't matter what new ideas one compares them to for any of them would have to be better merely on the basis that they are not those of the earlier performer. Surely you can see how that comparative basis of argumentation leads eventually and inexorably first to a faulty comparison and, if one carries it to its ultimate conclusion, to an ad hominem line of argumentation.

So, in addition to the four bullet points above, I just don't care to engage in what necessarily leads me to fallacious reasoning, reasoning from which I must sooner or later back away because it is specious. Why would I go there, that is, take up a sophistic line of argument or positions, when I know where "there" goes and I know "there" thus isn't where I want to be?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Has anyone ever called you long winded. Yes I meant trump would mak a good case study about why people,who are problem solvers can't get elected. Hilary is the crocodile. And I refer to Obama for,history's sake, you know if you don't learn from history you will repeat history. He is relevant in the sense that we no longer have people,that can or do think for themselves and therefore a demagogue with a silver tongue can pull,the wool over the eyes of Americans. But if your tolerance for trump is zero, and you suggest that hat even Louis Farrakhan would make a better candidate, why are we wasting time on psychoanalysis. Just take him out and shoot him.

By the way, your little southern saying about the hog was the shortest most concise, most to the point sentence I have ever seen you write. Congrats. Try more of it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Has anyone ever called you long winded. Yes I meant trump would mak a good case study about why people,who are problem solvers can't get elected. Hilary is the crocodile. And I refer to Obama for,history's sake, you know if you don't learn from history you will repeat history. He is relevant in the sense that we no longer have people,that can or do think for themselves and therefore a demagogue with a silver tongue can pull,the wool over the eyes of Americans. But if your tolerance for trump is zero, and you suggest that hat even Louis Farrakhan would make a better candidate, why are we wasting time on psychoanalysis. Just take him out and shoot him.

By the way, your little southern saying about the hog was the shortest most concise, most to the point sentence I have ever seen you write. Congrats. Try more of it.

if you don't learn from history you will repeat history.

we no longer have people,that can or do think for themselves and therefore a demagogue with a silver tongue can pull,the wool over the eyes....

One must infer from your examples that "thinking for oneself" means rummaging through one's mind to string together cliches, banal insults, and empty aphorisms that cannot withstand critical evaluation by anyone other than those with whom one already agrees. Well, there's no dearth of individuals who can, in a hopeless orgasm faking orgy of indignity, deliver remarks suffused with devilishly obtuse idiocy.

 

[OldLady]

"I know lots of very rich people who can't read or write. And who are they? My friends."
Huh. Is THAT Trump's problem? Dyslexia? It would explain a lot about the information vacuum.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

WHy is 320 allowed to continually start his obvious flame bait threads in the CDZ?

You fucking coward if you want to flame Trump start a thread in an appropriate forum where you can be flamed in return.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Message:

Closed -- Based on the OP response in Post #9.. Don't open CDZ threads if you can't follow the Zone rules yourself.. Also -- retail partisan politics ought not be dressed up for the CDZ.