Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[320 Years of History]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

Just for the sake of being brief, let me answer that by asking you to go straight to the conclusion (it's only two paragraphs long) of the first paper. Read it, and as you do so, consider how speakers who, in the interest of saving face, preserving their reputation, use the "rules and customs" of PC communication to obfuscate the full nature and extent of their beliefs or intents. In that regard, I see all the "dos and don'ts" about what is and is not PC as being similar to the "...For Dummies" series of books:

• Racial Tolerance for Dummies --> how to speak so nobody will ever suspect you can't stand [insert whatever ethnic identity group you want]
• Disabilities for Dummies --> guidance for how to use PC to seem respectful of people with physical and mental handicaps

Do you "get" what I mean?

So you see, my disdain for PC is that gives boors, cads, prevaricators, bigots, and all manners of other folks, folks who in fact are among the lowest forms of humanity, a set of instructions so the rest of us have a harder time figuring out when we are dealing with an emotional coward having serious character flaws and/or a spectacular degree of commitment to being willfully ignorant.

I believe, however, that it is essential to choose one's words carefully....not so as not to appear as a boor, racist, etc., not to preserve or craft a reputation, but rather to accurately communicate one's denotative and connotative meaning and intent(s). So long as one genuinely is a person of fine and humble bearing, communicating honestly, all by itself, allows others to know exactly what one feels, what one means, whether one has empathy, sympathy, or hatred, and so forth in one's heart and mind. None of us is perfect, but so long as we each perfectly "own our sh*t," there is no need for us to ever be PC.

I like it just fine that the man who owns the general store in my paternal family's Mississippi ancestral hamlet unabashedly refers to black folks using the "n-word." The first time he did that before me, I told him what I thought of it and walked out. That was the last time either of us said a word to the other. The fact that he "owns his sh*t" is the only nice thing I have to say about him, and that I think is decent about the man.

More to the point of this discussion, his eschewing PC tells me he's not the kind of person from whom I want so much as the time of day. It allows me to know that I will have to drive to next town to shop. It tells me I don't care that I don't know whether he is alive or dead. It tells me that he feels the same way about me, that we are both just fine with that, and we both need to recognize that, as far as the other is concerned, there is nothing we have in common other than being two human beings on planet Earth. Were I to see him lying injured on the side of the road, I'd call him an ambulance, and I would not run over him, but that's the limit of care I'd give him and the limit of what I'd expect from him. I certainly wouldn't stop to see what else he might need or to drag his sorry ass farther over to the edge of the road.

 

[320 Years of History]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

The intent was probably not 'immoral' or poorly intended, but the effect, IMO, has been. When we are forced to use specific politically correct words to define people and are required via politically correctness to be 'sensitive' to the sensibilities of a specific race of people, we are essentially forbidden to be colorblind and treat everybody the same regardless of their skin color, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or whatever. We are not allowed to consider skin color as of no more consequence than eye color or hair color and we are not allowed to treat others as our equals to be addressed and treated as we treat any others around us. We are forced to see whole groups of people as different, fragile, incapable of functioning without such protections. IMO, this has done more to keep racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms alive and well which of course suits those very well who NEED to keep racism, sexism alive and well to keep themselves in power.

IMO common sense people, perhaps without really analyzing it, see it for what it is. And find say a Donald Trump who doesn't care about and refuses to follow the political correctness dictates as a true pioneer, leader, and straight shooter in an increasingly hostile social climate. I honestly do think that is a huge part of his appeal. And the more the political correctness crowd attacks him for it, the more those who hate political correctness appreciate him, and his poll numbers go up.

And no, hating political correctness is not the same thing as racist. In most cases it is hating the racism that political correctness demands.

And don't think Donald Trump doesn't know that.

Bold:
I agree that it's hard for me to believe that PC was invented with malfeasant intentions for how it be used.

 

[Foxfyre]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

The intent was probably not 'immoral' or poorly intended, but the effect, IMO, has been. When we are forced to use specific politically correct words to define people and are required via politically correctness to be 'sensitive' to the sensibilities of a specific race of people, we are essentially forbidden to be colorblind and treat everybody the same regardless of their skin color, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or whatever. We are not allowed to consider skin color as of no more consequence than eye color or hair color and we are not allowed to treat others as our equals to be addressed and treated as we treat any others around us. We are forced to see whole groups of people as different, fragile, incapable of functioning without such protections. IMO, this has done more to keep racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms alive and well which of course suits those very well who NEED to keep racism, sexism alive and well to keep themselves in power.

IMO common sense people, perhaps without really analyzing it, see it for what it is. And find say a Donald Trump who doesn't care about and refuses to follow the political correctness dictates as a true pioneer, leader, and straight shooter in an increasingly hostile social climate. I honestly do think that is a huge part of his appeal. And the more the political correctness crowd attacks him for it, the more those who hate political correctness appreciate him, and his poll numbers go up.

And no, hating political correctness is not the same thing as racist. In most cases it is hating the racism that political correctness demands.

And don't think Donald Trump doesn't know that.

Bold:
I agree that it's hard for me to believe that PC was invented with malfeasant intentions for how it be used.

PC quickly morphed into a tool to use to control people, accuse and punish those who are disliked, to demand that everybody think, speak, and behave the same toward 'protected' groups of people or face the wrath and punishment of the self-imposed PC police. It has been one of the most liberty destroying, divisive tactics used in my lifetime and is a huge component of the toxic social environment we now experience.

So again, Donald Trump is seen as the antithesis of all that. It is a huge part of his appeal.

 

[320 Years of History]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

The intent was probably not 'immoral' or poorly intended, but the effect, IMO, has been. When we are forced to use specific politically correct words to define people and are required via politically correctness to be 'sensitive' to the sensibilities of a specific race of people, we are essentially forbidden to be colorblind and treat everybody the same regardless of their skin color, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or whatever. We are not allowed to consider skin color as of no more consequence than eye color or hair color and we are not allowed to treat others as our equals to be addressed and treated as we treat any others around us. We are forced to see whole groups of people as different, fragile, incapable of functioning without such protections. IMO, this has done more to keep racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms alive and well which of course suits those very well who NEED to keep racism, sexism alive and well to keep themselves in power.

IMO common sense people, perhaps without really analyzing it, see it for what it is. And find say a Donald Trump who doesn't care about and refuses to follow the political correctness dictates as a true pioneer, leader, and straight shooter in an increasingly hostile social climate. I honestly do think that is a huge part of his appeal. And the more the political correctness crowd attacks him for it, the more those who hate political correctness appreciate him, and his poll numbers go up.

And no, hating political correctness is not the same thing as racist. In most cases it is hating the racism that political correctness demands.

And don't think Donald Trump doesn't know that.

Bold:
I agree that it's hard for me to believe that PC was invented with malfeasant intentions for how it be used.

PC quickly morphed into a tool to use to control people, accuse and punish those who are disliked, to demand that everybody think, speak, and behave the same toward 'protected' groups of people or face the wrath and punishment of the self-imposed PC police. It has been one of the most liberty destroying, divisive tactics used in my lifetime and is a huge component of the toxic social environment we now experience.

So again, Donald Trump is seen as the antithesis of all that. It is a huge part of his appeal.

Red:
People may see him as the antithesis of that, but their eyes have deceived them.

What Mr. Trump eschews is not politically correct speech. Politically correct delivery of one's message has at its heart the preservation of one's (presumably) positive reputation. Why anyone thinks that Mr. Trump has no concern for his reputation is beyond me. All Mr. Trump has done with his crass invective and vitriol is turn around the tactics of PC speech to allow himself the ability to use the language of curs and cads to establish in the public sphere a persona that likens himself to little but a prole, an unsophisticated and poorly educated hick.

There's nothing wrong with having that persona is one is a prole, if one is a hick, if one is poorly educated, but Mr. Trump is none of those things; that is not the background from which he comes. I have relatives who are backwoods Southern hicks. Growing up we had staff who were inner city hicks and proles. Each of those folks can or could be endearing and have/had their own, normally brash, way of expressing themselves in whatever was their indigenous style of doing so. They rib me from time to time for what some of them call my "spit and polish," and I give back as good as I get from them. Nonetheless, I respect them and their ideas just as they me and mine, yet we are, as individuals, very different.

The key is that their comportment is no more affected than is mine. We are each true to ourselves and our respective reputations are what they are. Most importantly, however, our modes of expression have integrity; neither they nor I pretend to be what we are not and none of us is ashamed of that which we are.

Most folks may be more familiar with conventional forms of PC speech such as saying "people of color" or "visually challenged," and so on, but make no mistake, the central aim of politically correct expression is to present an appearance that one wants others to accept as the verity of who one is and what one stands for. That's not one bit different from what Mr. Trump does, but a brief look into his background will show anyone that the brash, undisciplined and unsophisticated delivery is nothing but artifice contrived to make him appear as a so-called "man of the people."

Think of it like this...Do you or I need to be black to understand, respect and respond to the concerns that black folks express? Is a black person incapable of understanding the concerns of whites? Must a man have a sex change to understand the challenges women face in our society? Must one be poor to sympathize with the hardships of poverty? Of course not. One need not be of a people to be sympathetic to and for those people. One can be another's champion yet not be just like them. Mr. Trump has not learned that.


As with so much else about Trump's means and ends, he has merely used the general public's relative ignorance about the full nature and extent of what PC is and is not. What he has done is exploit to his singular advantage the fact that many people covetously, invidiously, selfishly, incondignly, and irrationally begrudge others -- people whom in their "infallible" jaundiced eyes should not outstrip them in the quest for the American Dream -- while they have not.

As it's taken a cow's age for most folks to finally see the hypocrisy and contrivance of Trump's words, it will probably take double that for them to see through it re: his purported distaste for PC.

 

[OldLady]

Thank you for explaining more fully. 320 points out that in the good old days, before PC, racists could openly speak their minds and no one had trouble figuring out who was who. Now people have to hide their less popular beliefs. Foxfyre resents the way society is preventing people from freely speaking their mind. Like both of you, I don't think it was PC's original intention to do harm, which is pretty much what I was getting at from the beginning. I have run into a couple of situations where I horrified PC police (totally innocently) and I get it that "punishment" is sometimes forthcoming, but in those situations I felt it was my place to apologize for offending and explain my intentions more fully.

I certainly understand Trump's popularity for this, and it's an interesting theory that we'd be better off if everyone started speaking their mind again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

The intent was probably not 'immoral' or poorly intended, but the effect, IMO, has been. When we are forced to use specific politically correct words to define people and are required via politically correctness to be 'sensitive' to the sensibilities of a specific race of people, we are essentially forbidden to be colorblind and treat everybody the same regardless of their skin color, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or whatever. We are not allowed to consider skin color as of no more consequence than eye color or hair color and we are not allowed to treat others as our equals to be addressed and treated as we treat any others around us. We are forced to see whole groups of people as different, fragile, incapable of functioning without such protections. IMO, this has done more to keep racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms alive and well which of course suits those very well who NEED to keep racism, sexism alive and well to keep themselves in power.

IMO common sense people, perhaps without really analyzing it, see it for what it is. And find say a Donald Trump who doesn't care about and refuses to follow the political correctness dictates as a true pioneer, leader, and straight shooter in an increasingly hostile social climate. I honestly do think that is a huge part of his appeal. And the more the political correctness crowd attacks him for it, the more those who hate political correctness appreciate him, and his poll numbers go up.

And no, hating political correctness is not the same thing as racist. In most cases it is hating the racism that political correctness demands.

And don't think Donald Trump doesn't know that.

Bold:
I agree that it's hard for me to believe that PC was invented with malfeasant intentions for how it be used.

PC quickly morphed into a tool to use to control people, accuse and punish those who are disliked, to demand that everybody think, speak, and behave the same toward 'protected' groups of people or face the wrath and punishment of the self-imposed PC police. It has been one of the most liberty destroying, divisive tactics used in my lifetime and is a huge component of the toxic social environment we now experience.

So again, Donald Trump is seen as the antithesis of all that. It is a huge part of his appeal.

Red:
People may see him as the antithesis of that, but their eyes have deceived them.

What Mr. Trump eschews is not politically correct speech. Politically correct delivery of one's message has at its heart the preservation of one's (presumably) positive reputation. Why anyone thinks that Mr. Trump has no concern for his reputation is beyond me. All Mr. Trump has done with his crass invective and vitriol is turn around the tactics of PC speech to allow himself the ability to use the language of curs and cads to establish in the public sphere a persona that likens himself to little but a prole, an unsophisticated and poorly educated hick.

There's nothing wrong with having that persona is one is a prole, if one is a hick, if one is poorly educated, but Mr. Trump is none of those things; that is not the background from which he comes. I have relatives who are backwoods Southern hicks. Growing up we had staff who were inner city hicks and proles. Each of those folks can or could be endearing and have/had their own, normally brash, way of expressing themselves in whatever was their indigenous style of doing so. They rib me from time to time for what some of them call my "spit and polish," and I give back as good as I get from them. Nonetheless, I respect them and their ideas just as they me and mine, yet we are, as individuals, very different.

The key is that their comportment is no more affected than is mine. We are each true to ourselves and our respective reputations are what they are. Most importantly, however, our modes of expression have integrity; neither they nor I pretend to be what we are not and none of us is ashamed of that which we are.

Most folks may be more familiar with conventional forms of PC speech such as saying "people of color" or "visually challenged," and so on, but make no mistake, the central aim of politically correct expression is to present an appearance that one wants others to accept as the verity of who one is and what one stands for. That's not one bit different from what Mr. Trump does, but a brief look into his background will show anyone that the brash, undisciplined and unsophisticated delivery is nothing but artifice contrived to make him appear as a so-called "man of the people."

Think of it like this...Do you or I need to be black to understand, respect and respond to the concerns that black folks express? Is a black person incapable of understanding the concerns of whites? Must a man have a sex change to understand the challenges women face in our society? Must one be poor to sympathize with the hardships of poverty? Of course not. One need not be of a people to be sympathetic to and for those people. One can be another's champion yet not be just like them. Mr. Trump has not learned that.


As with so much else about Trump's means and ends, he has merely used the general public's relative ignorance about the full nature and extent of what PC is and is not. What he has done is exploit to his singular advantage the fact that many people covetously, invidiously, selfishly, incondignly, and irrationally begrudge others -- people whom in their "infallible" jaundiced eyes should not outstrip them in the quest for the American Dream -- while they have not.

As it's taken a cow's age for most folks to finally see the hypocrisy and contrivance of Trump's words, it will probably take double that for them to see through it re: his purported distaste for PC.

I don't claim the ability to know what is in Donald Trump's heart or what is his intent. I do have the ability to hear and analyze why one person's words resonate with most people and why another person's words do not.

Sanders and Clinton both speak in the language of the permanent political class--it won't be more liberty but rather more government that will get us closer to the utopia they promise. There is such a thing as Santa Claus and he is Robin Hood in disguise. Elect them and they will take the ill begotten wealth from the banks, the rich, the big corporations etc. and redistribute it to the oppressed and needy who of course are everybody else who will get all that free stuff and life will be wonderful.

Ted Cruz appeals to the hard core constitutionalists first and anti-establishment segment second and our numbers are legion. But his formal training first as a master in the debate competitions and then as a lawyer superbly equipped to argue technical and intellectual matters is often apparent in his overly dramatic speaking style. That doesn't bother me but it is a turn off for some.

John Kasich appeals to the establishment and he speaks in establishment style. And he depends on historical references far more than he depends on vision to impress his audiences. He does have a modest following but he is uninspiring and uninteresting to most.

Marco Rubio can't seem to shake the impression that his message is poll tested, scripted, memorized and recited instead of coming from his heart and conviction. That has seriously hurt him. And once it was made obvious that he was the preferred poster boy for the establishment, I think that was the fatal blow for him. He can thank Mitt Romney for that I think.

Donald Trump, with a degree in economics and ability to converse with highly educated professionals and pols on extremely complicated matters, has chosen to speak to the people in their every day language. If it can be said in one or two syllable words, he uses one or two syllable words. That's the way almost all of us normally talk no matter how much education we have.

And he hammers away on the things that people actually care about--their incomes, their jobs, their safety, an economy that provides them options, choices, opportunity. Few people know much about how banks work or corporate welfare and while some pretend they care about such things on message boards, it isn't something they wake up thinking about in the morning. So he doesn't waste time talking about things people aren't thinking about much.

The fact that Donald doesn't talk down to his audience, doesn't try to impress his audience with fancy words and phrases, doesn't bring up a bunch of stuff they aren't all that interested in so far as their daily lives are concerned--the fact that he talks TO them in THEIR language regardless of their occupations or how educated they are--is why he is the the front runner and scares the crap out of those who oppose him. He isn't politically correct and neither are most of us in our everyday lives. He 'gets the people' and they love that about him.

And the more his opponents attack him, the better he looks to those who don't trust the people who are attacking him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for explaining more fully. 320 points out that in the good old days, before PC, racists could openly speak their minds and no one had trouble figuring out who was who. Now people have to hide their less popular beliefs. Foxfyre resents the way society is preventing people from freely speaking their mind. Like both of you, I don't think it was PC's original intention to do harm, which is pretty much what I was getting at from the beginning. I have run into a couple of situations where I horrified PC police (totally innocently) and I get it that "punishment" is sometimes forthcoming, but in those situations I felt it was my place to apologize for offending and explain my intentions more fully.

I certainly understand Trump's popularity for this, and it's an interesting theory that we'd be better off if everyone started speaking their mind again.

Apologizing for offending might be appropriate when we are unintentionally insensitive or hurtful of course. But should we apologize just to be nice when we know we are right and the person taking offense is in the wrong? These are sticky wicket issues.

But in the cases of angry PC police organizing to destroy somebody's job or livelihood or get them banned from whatever or shut them up goes way beyond the realm of just being offended or hurt. That is not allowing somebody to be who or what he is despite the fact that he/she does not require or demand that others agree. To demand that somebody be and speak what we demand they be/speak or else they will be punished is one of the worst sides of fascism. And it should be condemned wherever it shows itself.

 

[longknife]

Some very good posts in this thread. Thank you all.

 

[320 Years of History]

Donald Trump, with a degree in economics and ability to converse with highly educated professionals and pols on extremely complicated matters, has chosen to speak to the people in their every day language.

Red:
Yes, well, perhaps Trump thinks that, just as there used to be what the old folks called "the new math," there is today "the new economics." The economics Trump learned are the same ones I learned not all that many years later (the man is ~10 years older than I), so maybe he simply doesn't remember what he ostensibly learned. ("Ostensibly" because Trump was born to the strata of society for which a "gentleman's C" was quite sufficient if one had the financial backing of a wealthy family to launch one into adult life.) The fact of the matter is that having a degree in economics, I'd expect Trump to advocate policies that are consistent with the laws of supply and demand, but he does not.

Blue:
On matters of economic principles, one can use "everyday language" to very precisely explain every nuance pertaining to how trade and exchange work/happen. Trump uses everyday language to convince people that free trade will achieve something that it quite simply will not.

• Benefits of free trade | Economics Help -- When one reads this or any other credible discussion of the merits of free trade, nowhere will one find economists saying that the aim or outcome of free trade is to create jobs. The reason one will not is because free trade can only produce jobs if one has a comparative advantage in producing "something."
  • One makes one's money go farthest by importing goods and services for which one lacks a comparative advantage in producing them because others can produce and them at lower prices, while still earning an acceptable (to the producer) profit, than one can do oneself. That is to say, one imports from the folks who have a comparative advantage in producing those goods/services.
  • One creates jobs by producing and exporting goods for which one has a comparative advantage in producing them. Why, because other folks/nations will prefer to buy those goods/services from "you" because you can produce and sell them at lower prices, while still earning an acceptable (in this case "you" as the producer) profit, than they can themselves do.
• Our Comparative Advantage - NYTimes.com

With an abundance of low-priced labor relative to the United States, it is no surprise that China, India and other developing countries specialize in the production of labor-intensive products. For similar reasons, the United States will specialize in the production of goods that are human- and physical-capital intensive because of the relative abundance of a highly-educated labor force and technically sophisticated equipment in the United States.​

Have you ever heard anyone running for President ever identify what the U.S. has a comparative advantage in producing? I sure haven't, yet I know damn well that human capital (not labor) is one thing the U.S. has a comparative advantage at. It's precisely why I work as a management consultant for a U.S. firm, but spend well over 3/4th of the year outside the U.S., and not surprisingly, I'm very well compensated for doing so because I and my firm sell that which the U.S. is best equipped to sell to anyone on the planet who wants to purchase intellectual capital, or what is sometimes called "knowledge-ware."

That "knowledge-ware" is one of the things the U.S. in which the U.S. has a competitive advantage is why high quality education and doing very well in school/college/grad school is essential for American citizens. It's also why it's critical that U.S. citizens, as many and as much as possible, be very well educated and demonstrate as much on a routine basis. The wider the range of topics in which one is at least somewhat savvy and the wider the range of ideas one can synthesize, the better, which is why I strongly encourage young people who focus their collegiate study in a technical/scientific field to also take a "healthy dose" of liberal arts and/or social science classes too, at least minoring in one if at all possible. One's goal, given that one is an American and that our competitive advantage is in "knowledge-ware, needs to be that of using school/college to become a "jack of a lot of disciplines and master of one."

Put in computer role playing game (RPG) parlances, as an American, one's best off being the balanced adventurer than being the ultra specialized one, although being highly specialized can be equally successful. In that regard, career success is very much like an RPG video game.


As for why it is that to many protectionist stances such as those Trump, Mr. Sanders and others advocate, Drs. Kaempfer, Tower and Willet explain it quite clearly in "Trade Protectionism For the Encyclopedia of Public Choice."

In common practice, economists ascribe the property of aggregate economic efficiency to any policy moves that create sufficient gains so that the winner could compensate the losers with something left over, i.e., to any policy which expands the utility possibility frontier beyond the initial equilibrium. In practice, however, such compensation is seldom paid; a policy that expands the utility possibility frontier often makes some worse off. From the standpoint of political economy, policies that potentially raise everybody’s utility have much less appeal than policies that actually make everybody better off. Despite the frequency with which international trade theory is mischaracterized, it does not prove that everyone gains from free trade, even when there are no domestic market failures. It proves only that in money terms the gains from free trade in total are greater than the losses, in the sense that there is some set of transfers from winners to losers that could make everybody better off. If we assume that most individuals and groups are more interested in their own costs and benefits than in those for their country or the world, then it is perfectly consistent with rational behavior for some individuals and groups to favor trade protection [and reject free trade policies like NAFTA et al] for their industries.
​

Now, as I found out what Dr. Kaempfer et al stated way back when I took economics in college, I am certain that Trump did too. Another thing I found out is that one must make a choice:

• Does one want their leaders to protect a given (or several) industry to make it easy for one to keep working in an industry that sooner or later must give way to something else because of how comparative advantage works?
• Does one want one's leaders to advocate for and enable retraining so that one can get a job in an industry that will for the foreseeable long term be one that will not be forced out by the way comparative advantage works?
• Is one amenable to prices, as a result of lost free trade agreements and implemented protections, dramatically and/or quickly rising as a result of more goods being made in the U.S. with its far higher wages?
  • If yes, just what does one think the government can do to drive the prices back down while also making sure one doesn't lose the job one got due to the protections and domestic production?
  • If yes, what is one going to do (other than complain) when (because, as shown above, it will be a "when" not an "if") all prices except the price of labor (wages) increase faster than they do now?
• Does one prefer one's leaders act in the overall long run best interests of the nation or in one's personal short run best interests, recognizing that one's own long run best interests are the same as those of the nation as a whole because, quite obviously, one is a citizen of the nation and "a rising tide lifts all ships?"

Those, along with a few others, are the questions one needs to ask oneself and carefully consider the various alternatives. It's quite likely one will get pretty much what one asks for either way. The trick is to be careful of what one requests, lest one get it.


Blue:
With all that covered, I finally can come back to this matter of Trump speaking to people in everyday language. Frankly, whatever linguist style he uses, the fact is that Trump, for having a degree in economics and presumably knowing the same exact stuff I've covered above, isn't telling "everyday people" that stuff. He's not making it clear just what are the downsides of the protectionist policies he's advocating. To hear him tell it, there are no downsides; everything's going to be just great. Every economist on the planet knows better, and from just reading the preceding discussion and reference materials, you should too.

No, Trump's no more candid with the American people about the trade-offs (no pun) of his trade and other economic policy proposals (if one can even legitimately call them proposals, but that's another topic). That all of the current crop of candidates are in equal measures trying to stuff their "rose colored" approaches down our throats without even remotely broaching the downsides is a travesty. It's also why I've not yet committed to anyone.

It's, of course, no surprise why no candidate explains the upside and downside of their economic platform/preferences. Every one of them, for whatever they do or don't know about economics, most certainly knows that overwhelmingly voters:

• don't know half of squat about economics and that aren't going to on their own bother to learning enough to fully grasp just squat, let alone actually have a strong command of basic economic principles.
• will not vote for them if they were to tell them there long and short term upsides and downsides, to say nothing of what the actual downsides are.
• would sooner today hear "Everything's gonna all work out. We will overcome any and all obstacles. The future's gonna be so bright you'll have to wear shades," and later hoist their leaders by their petards when it doesn't all go as promised.
  
  

Another thing Presidential candidates all know is that there is yet another dimension that economic policy making is like an RPG video game. When one starts an RPG game, one must allocate a fixed set of points (resources) to various skills and once that's finished, one cannot change that initial allocation. At best, one can try to make up for the mistakes one discovers in the course of the game by directing additional "skill points" here or there in contravention with how one initially allocated the one's with which one began the game. In the words of bridge players, the "game" of national economics is one in which one must play the hand one is dealt to be the best of one's abilities, making the most of the cards one and one's partner has, not moaning and groaning about how much better seem the other team's cards.

Lastly, every remaining candidate is well aware that economics is a social science. What that means is that like the so-called "hard sciences," it's laws, theorems, and principles basically don't change, but being "social" they can change if and only if human nature also changes. Now human nature isn't going to change anytime soon, which means neither will economics. We can go from a mostly capitalist economy to a fully command economy, and economics would make, and we'd observe come true, exactly the same predictions econ makes today.

Now that thing that irks me more about Trump is that his "thing" is being a straight talker. Well, since when does a straight talker not tell his audience the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Moreover, on economic matters, Trump (assuming he paid attention in college or B-school) most certainly should know of the trade-offs discussed above. Has he even made the barest references to the fact that any even exist? I have yet to hear one peep to that effect. That even as the populist option, that even as the candidate who isn't beholden to "this or that lobby." Yet, knowing what I know about economics, and seeing he's being less than forthright about the same info, I'm supposed to trust him? I don't think so. Lies of omission are still lies.

Link summary, in order:

1. Layman's level discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of free trade.
2. Layman's discussion of comparative advantage.
3. Layman's discussion of what are the U.S.' comparative advantages.
4. Scholarly paper about how the U.S.' comparative advantage has changed over the years.
5. Scholarly discussion about protectionism and its effects.
6. Video intermission (LOL)

 

[320 Years of History]

Ted Cruz....his formal training first as a master in the debate competitions and then as a lawyer superbly equipped to argue technical and intellectual matters is often apparent.....That doesn't bother me but it is a turn off for some.

....And that is a source of discomfiture for them???....Doesn't that say more about them and their inadequacy for the office of President than it does about Mr. Cruz's aptness for it?

Marco Rubio can't seem to shake the impression that his message is poll tested, scripted, memorized and recited instead of coming from his heart and conviction. That has seriously hurt him. And once it was made obvious that he was the preferred poster boy for the establishment, I think that was the fatal blow for him. He can thank Mitt Romney for that I think.

Bold:
Emphasis on "boy." I know Mr. Rubio is not a boy, but his body language, facial expressions, vocal intonations, his overall oratory and rhetoric time and time again strike me as being akin to that of a naive "deer in the headlights." When I read his ideas, they didn't have that timbre, but each time I watched him in person, I couldn't help but think, "This guy needs to get some spine." At times he seemed more like he was begging us to follow him rather than asserting his worth as the one who should lead us. He came across very much as Nixon did on TV during the Kennedy/Nixon debate.

Donald doesn't talk down to his audience, doesn't try to impress his audience with fancy words and phrases, doesn't bring up a bunch of stuff they aren't all that interested in so far as their daily lives are concerned--the fact that he talks TO them in THEIR language regardless of their occupations or how educated they are--is why he is the the front runner and scares the crap out of those who oppose him.

What you see as his not derogating his audience, I see as pandering to his potential audience resulting in his core supporters being those for whom the basest appeals hit paydirt. What you see as not talking down to his audience, I see as the most subtly surly demonstration of disregard for his supporters one can possibly display. How can I not?

When the man is asked simple direct questions, rather than giving one the respect of equally simply and directly answering it, he and his key spokespersons -- except his policy strategist, Stephen Miller...that guy is outstanding even when I don't concur with his conclusions...to be honest, I'd sooner vote for him than Trump -- deflect and/or evade the darn question. What else is that but vilipensive guille?

Video of Stephen Miller interview in which one sees he articulates policy and makes a case for Trump's policy more clearly than Trump himself does. IMO, the wrong person on the Trump team is running for President.

​

That is not at all what I find scary about Trump, his candidacy, nor is it what I fear about a Trump Presidency. What alarms me is the man and his assembled base of support quite simply don't give a tinker's damn about the truth. What frightens me is that Trump will fill the air with his voice, but say nothing of substance and rather than simply admitting he doesn't know "such and such," glibly and insultingly dismisses someone who clearly is more knowledgeable than he on a given matter. Where is the integrity in that tack?

​

Trump....the more his opponents attack him, the better he looks to those who don't trust the people who are attacking him.

That folks respond to Trump positively merely because of what others say of him is just ridiculous. What makes Trump or his ideas any more meritorious simply because someone (or many) disagrees with them or dislikes him?

I don't know if you are correct or not, but I'm sure you see just how utterly irrational that approach is.

 

[Dekster]

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

Indifferent. I expect a lot of noise between now and november. If Trump wins, nothing will get done much. If Clinton wins, nothing much will get done but there will be 4 years of scandal.

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

The best people for the job seldom run, and when they do, they are usually out by New Hampshire. There is no "right person" still running at the moment as far as I am concerned.

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Having a President who will disappear into the woodwork once elected would be nice. Won't happen. I am in the middle of the middle class. I will get screwed over no matter who gets to live in the Big House for the next 4 years.

 

[OldLady]

Thank you for explaining more fully. 320 points out that in the good old days, before PC, racists could openly speak their minds and no one had trouble figuring out who was who. Now people have to hide their less popular beliefs. Foxfyre resents the way society is preventing people from freely speaking their mind. Like both of you, I don't think it was PC's original intention to do harm, which is pretty much what I was getting at from the beginning. I have run into a couple of situations where I horrified PC police (totally innocently) and I get it that "punishment" is sometimes forthcoming, but in those situations I felt it was my place to apologize for offending and explain my intentions more fully.

I certainly understand Trump's popularity for this, and it's an interesting theory that we'd be better off if everyone started speaking their mind again.

Apologizing for offending might be appropriate when we are unintentionally insensitive or hurtful of course. But should we apologize just to be nice when we know we are right and the person taking offense is in the wrong? These are sticky wicket issues.

But in the cases of angry PC police organizing to destroy somebody's job or livelihood or get them banned from whatever or shut them up goes way beyond the realm of just being offended or hurt. That is not allowing somebody to be who or what he is despite the fact that he/she does not require or demand that others agree. To demand that somebody be and speak what we demand they be/speak or else they will be punished is one of the worst sides of fascism. And it should be condemned wherever it shows itself.

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

BLM activists? Bureau of Land Management activist? I'm sorry...that acronym isn't leaping out for me.

 

[OldLady]

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

BLM activists? Bureau of Land Management activist? I'm sorry...that acronym isn't leaping out for me.

Ooops I must have gotten it wrong -- I was referring to Black Lives Matter activitists. Do they have a different acronym?

 

[Dekster]

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

BLM activists? Bureau of Land Management activist? I'm sorry...that acronym isn't leaping out for me.

Ooops I must have gotten it wrong -- I was referring to Black Lives Matter activitists. Do they have a different acronym?

No. they both use BLM. It just becomes a matter of context. Now of Black Lives Matter occupied federal land, then the BLM thing might cause some heads to explode

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

BLM activists? Bureau of Land Management activist? I'm sorry...that acronym isn't leaping out for me.

Ooops I must have gotten it wrong -- I was referring to Black Lives Matter activitists. Do they have a different acronym?

I don't even know if that movement has an accepted acronym. It doesn't matter; no "oops" is necessary. I just didn't realize that's who you meant, and I did know of the Bureau of Land Management.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for explaining more fully. 320 points out that in the good old days, before PC, racists could openly speak their minds and no one had trouble figuring out who was who. Now people have to hide their less popular beliefs. Foxfyre resents the way society is preventing people from freely speaking their mind. Like both of you, I don't think it was PC's original intention to do harm, which is pretty much what I was getting at from the beginning. I have run into a couple of situations where I horrified PC police (totally innocently) and I get it that "punishment" is sometimes forthcoming, but in those situations I felt it was my place to apologize for offending and explain my intentions more fully.

I certainly understand Trump's popularity for this, and it's an interesting theory that we'd be better off if everyone started speaking their mind again.

Apologizing for offending might be appropriate when we are unintentionally insensitive or hurtful of course. But should we apologize just to be nice when we know we are right and the person taking offense is in the wrong? These are sticky wicket issues.

But in the cases of angry PC police organizing to destroy somebody's job or livelihood or get them banned from whatever or shut them up goes way beyond the realm of just being offended or hurt. That is not allowing somebody to be who or what he is despite the fact that he/she does not require or demand that others agree. To demand that somebody be and speak what we demand they be/speak or else they will be punished is one of the worst sides of fascism. And it should be condemned wherever it shows itself.

I agree with you in abstract, but I am still hesitant to hear the full blast of hate speech on our televisions, radios and in our newspapers. I've heard enough of it on this board to cringe at the thought of exposing kids to it, especially. And talk about angry BLM activists! Civil war for sure.

IMO, any activist or protester that would attack somebody for their 'incorrect lifestyle' or 'incorrect speech' or 'incorrect anything' who is not directly violating or interfering with anybody else's unalienable rights is behaving in a vile, unconstitutional, and unacceptable manner no matter who he or she is or what he or she represents.

I was flat out angry and frustrated with the American Family Association who does a lot of good work but who was entirely off base when they tried to organize a boycott of anything associated with Ellen DeGeneres and tried to get J C Penney to stop using her in their ads. I was one of probably thousands if not millions of really angry conservatives who wrote very sternly worded letters to that organization, sent them e-mails, etc. And to their credit, they got the message and quickly ceased and desisted from those kinds of indefensible activities.

I wish groups like Black Lives Matter and others like them who are probably well intended, would understand what negative and angry reactions they get when they disrupt events. They not only do not effectively get their message out but they make people resistant to it and all they create is ill will, not converts.

I wish the idiots that use inflammatory, angry, and prejudicial language to discredit Donald Trump would see that they also trigger negative and angry reactions. Of course the trolls and spoiled brats and numbnuts WANT that, but the honest opposition who think insults and angry outbursts and protests are effective are just simply stupid. All they are accomplishing is to drive up his poll numbers. People who honestly oppose Trump would be so much more effective in explaining calmly and reasonably why they oppose him and why somebody else would be the better choice.

It is far more persuasive to appeal to a person's intelligence and what that person wants/needs than it is to try to bludgeon people into submission to a particular point of view. The latter never ever works.

 

[longknife]

Election 2016 — Republican Delegate Count

This is where you get a detailed response as to what has happened and what's scheduled for the future. I tried to download this as a jpg (A poster on discussionist.com posted the pdg. For us). But couldn't get it to work. Check it out @ RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â?? Republican Delegate Count

 

[Foxfyre]

Election 2016 — Republican Delegate Count

This is where you get a detailed response as to what has happened and what's scheduled for the future. I tried to download this as a jpg (A poster on discussionist.com posted the pdg. For us). But couldn't get it to work. Check it out @ RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â?? Republican Delegate Count

This is great Longknife. Thanks so much.

But is Missouri finally decided? And if it shows 52 delegates and it is a winner take all state, why does Trump only get 15 delegates?

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​