CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Correll]

What is the moral philosophy of Donald Trump? Does he have one? If so, what's it based on? What moral principles does he use to guide his actions? What are the foundations for his sense of ethics?

I'm not sure that might-makes-right can be called a moral philosophy

That would be a completely amoral philosophy, one that seems to suit Donald Trump's view of the world perfectly.

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

 

[Correll]

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

YOu start a thread supposedly asking a "question" about morality and are ridiculing someone for discussing the Golden Rule?

LOL!!

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not sure that might-makes-right can be called a moral philosophy

That would be a completely amoral philosophy, one that seems to suit Donald Trump's view of the world perfectly.

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

 

[Valerie]

he's a my-way-or-the-highway demagogue, tyrant wanna be...

and his own people are abandoning ship!

The top strategist for Donald Trump’s short-lived super-PAC says "It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya on ‘American Idol.’ President Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority. I am now taking full responsibility for helping create this monster..."

Former Trump super-PAC director: Donald doesn’t even want to be president

 

[Correll]

he's a my-way-or-the-highway demagogue, tyrant wanna be...


...nt

Care to back that up with something?

I didn't think so.

 

[Valerie]

gee you barely gave me time between sentences you were typing derrp

 

[Correll]

gee you barely gave me time between sentences you were typing derrp

So, you want to back up your stupid claim with something?

 

[Liminal]

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

I wasn't trying to make the point that anyone ever has used it nor is there a need to show that any nation ever has unfailingly applied it. It is a principle that people apply to their actions. Insofar as people run nations, it takes only that the people running nations apply it in making their choices about what the nation should or shouldn't do. At the the end of the day, the burden for "doing the right thing" falls not on nations, but on people, both the governors and the governed.

One point I was making is that regardless of what's transpired in the past, we should and can begin to use it now and going forward. Unlike so many other principles and policy decision making approaches, it's one that can be implemented immediately and with zero preparation.

I see, so you're hoping that the aggregate of individuals with good intentions will somehow translate into an overall pragmatic realpolitik.

 

[Valerie]

Trump was asked about Gorbachev — who was nearing the end of his time in power. Trump said, “Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.”

His interviewer asked, “You mean firm hand as in China?”


Trump answered, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”


Trump’s admiration of Putin is no surprise, in light of this. We conservatives like to mock Thomas L. Friedman for his occasional favorable words about the regime in Beijing — his longing for a bit of that here, to accomplish things without the snags of democracy.


Is the GOP now the party of authoritarianism?



"Get your people in line, Bernie," Trump said...

"I'm going to ask that you arrest them," Trump said to the police. "I'll file whatever charges you want. If they want to do this ... we're going to go strongly for your arrests."

Trump said arresting protesters would "ruin the rest of their lives" by giving them a "big arrest mark."

"Once that starts happening, we're not going to have any more protesters, folks," Trump said.

"We don't want to use our military, honestly. We don't want to use our military. But we're being scoffed at right now and we never fight to win."

“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’

 

[Liminal]

Having nations all around the world doubt US commitment to long standing defense treaties will accomplish what exactly?

The point in discussion over extension is to draw back to where our ABILITY TO MEET our commitments is more matched to our actual commitments.

The goal is to avoid being drawn into entanglements that we lose, or expend great effort and cost for no benefit to our nation.

That is what it is to "accomplish".

That Trump can understand that, makes him LESS ignorant that the vast majority of the Political Class, and quite moral.

Not that you will really read or consider these words.

You will just skim it to look for something to misrepresent into something to attack so that you can avoid dealing honestly and seriously with my point.

Like the good little leftist propagandist you are.

If you have to lie to defend your position, it means you are wrong.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

Wanting to avoid commitments we can't meet has been discredited?

Wanting to avoid conflicts that we lose or that don't serve our interests has been discredited?

Please explain how.

Rhetorical question. I know that you won't.

Because this is nothing but a smear propaganda thread. And you are not interested in actual discussion, but just propaganda.

Like a good little leftist.

Ever since Republicans campaigned to keep us out of the Second World War isolationists have had no legitimate argument to support their view.

I presented two legitimate arguments above. You have not challenged them in any way.

I'm sure you think so.

 

[Valerie]

Donald Trump Poses an Unprecedented Threat to American Democracy

a report circulated highlighting his 1990 interview with Playboy in which he praised the brutality of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. This is not the first time I had seen Trump praise dictators.


My previous view of Trump was as a kind of vaccine. The Republican Party relies on the covert mobilization of racial resentment and nationalism. Trump, as I saw it, was bringing into the open that which had been intentionally submerged. It seemed like a containable dose of disease, too small to take over its host, but large enough to set off a counterreaction of healthy blood cells. But the outbreak of violence this weekend suggests the disease may be spreading far wider than I believed, and infecting healthy elements of the body politic.

I remain convinced that Trump cannot win the presidency. But what I failed to account for was the possibility that his authoritarian style could degrade American politics even in defeat. There is a whiff in the air of the notion that the election will be settled in the streets — a poisonous idea that is unsafe in even the smallest doses.

Here is another factor I failed to predict. Trump, as I’ve noted, lies substantively within the modern Republican racial political tradition that seamlessly incorporates such things as the Willie Horton ads and the uncontroversial service of Louisiana representative Steve Scalise, who once called himself “David Duke without the baggage,” as House Majority Whip. But Trump’s amplification of white racial resentment matters. His campaign has dominated the national discourse. Millions of Americans who have never heard of Steve Scalise are seized with mortal terror of Trump, whose ubiquity in campaign coverage makes him seem larger and more unstoppable than he is. And terror is corrosive.

Donald Trump Poses an Unprecedented Threat to American Democracy

 

[Liminal]

Good stuff, on topic.

Is Trump Right About NATO?


"But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.

The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.

Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.

Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees, to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union."



"Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores of nations on five continents?"


"Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.

He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled. And when we agree to defend other nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider is over.

Trump’s phrase, “America First!” has a nice ring to it."



For you to dismiss Trump's position on this as evidence of ignorance and immorality is actually YOUR ignorance and immorality talking.

Trump shares the same short sighted ignorance with historic leaders who have blithely precipitated every war in history.

Umm, that was an insanely ignorant statement.

If I show one example of a war in history "precipitated" NOT by a leader trying to avoid alliances and entanglements will you admit you are wrong about that?

Rhetoric question. I know you don't have any Intellectual Honesty, so such a feat would be WAY beyond your understanding, let alone actual ability to DO.


And you behavior continues to demonstrate that you were never interested in any real discussion and that this whole thread is dishonest propaganda by a dishonest leftist.

So you keep saying without ever actually saying anything.

 

[Correll]

Trump was asked about Gorbachev — who was nearing the end of his time in power. Trump said, “Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.”

His interviewer asked, “You mean firm hand as in China?”


Trump answered, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”


Trump’s admiration of Putin is no surprise, in light of this. We conservatives like to mock Thomas L. Friedman for his occasional favorable words about the regime in Beijing — his longing for a bit of that here, to accomplish things without the snags of democracy.


Is the GOP now the party of authoritarianism?



"Get your people in line, Bernie," Trump said...

"I'm going to ask that you arrest them," Trump said to the police. "I'll file whatever charges you want. If they want to do this ... we're going to go strongly for your arrests."

Trump said arresting protesters would "ruin the rest of their lives" by giving them a "big arrest mark."

"Once that starts happening, we're not going to have any more protesters, folks," Trump said.






"We don't want to use our military, honestly. We don't want to use our military. But we're being scoffed at right now and we never fight to win."

“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’

1. He was right. Gorbachev failed and his nation fell apart.

2. The agitators trying to disrupt Trump's events are trying to use force to decide the election. THey deserve to be fucked.

3. Wanting to win is not the mark of a would be tyrant.

 

[Correll]

The point in discussion over extension is to draw back to where our ABILITY TO MEET our commitments is more matched to our actual commitments.

The goal is to avoid being drawn into entanglements that we lose, or expend great effort and cost for no benefit to our nation.

That is what it is to "accomplish".

That Trump can understand that, makes him LESS ignorant that the vast majority of the Political Class, and quite moral.

Not that you will really read or consider these words.

You will just skim it to look for something to misrepresent into something to attack so that you can avoid dealing honestly and seriously with my point.

Like the good little leftist propagandist you are.

If you have to lie to defend your position, it means you are wrong.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

Wanting to avoid commitments we can't meet has been discredited?

Wanting to avoid conflicts that we lose or that don't serve our interests has been discredited?

Please explain how.

Rhetorical question. I know that you won't.

Because this is nothing but a smear propaganda thread. And you are not interested in actual discussion, but just propaganda.

Like a good little leftist.

Ever since Republicans campaigned to keep us out of the Second World War isolationists have had no legitimate argument to support their view.

I presented two legitimate arguments above. You have not challenged them in any way.

I'm sure you think so.

For you little lefty propagandist.

 

[Correll]

Good stuff, on topic.

Is Trump Right About NATO?


"But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.

The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.

Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.

Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees, to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union."



"Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores of nations on five continents?"


"Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.

He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled. And when we agree to defend other nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider is over.

Trump’s phrase, “America First!” has a nice ring to it."



For you to dismiss Trump's position on this as evidence of ignorance and immorality is actually YOUR ignorance and immorality talking.

Trump shares the same short sighted ignorance with historic leaders who have blithely precipitated every war in history.

Umm, that was an insanely ignorant statement.

If I show one example of a war in history "precipitated" NOT by a leader trying to avoid alliances and entanglements will you admit you are wrong about that?

Rhetoric question. I know you don't have any Intellectual Honesty, so such a feat would be WAY beyond your understanding, let alone actual ability to DO.


And you behavior continues to demonstrate that you were never interested in any real discussion and that this whole thread is dishonest propaganda by a dishonest leftist.

So you keep saying without ever actually saying anything.

If I show one example of a war in history "precipitated" NOT by a leader trying to avoid alliances and entanglements will you admit you are wrong about that?

Rhetoric question. I know you don't have any Intellectual Honesty, so such a feat would be WAY beyond your understanding, let alone actual ability to DO.

 

[Valerie]

it's not just democrats who understand the inherent dangers of trump's rhetoric...




Yet Trump’s constitutionally-questionable call to place an explicit religious test on immigration and travel goes far beyond his previous statements.

For one, this was not an off-the-cuff remark, a response to a vague question, or even an idle retweet. Trump detailed his new position in a written statement sent to hundreds if not thousands of reporters covering the campaign. And it apparently extends beyond immigrants to Muslim-American citizens living overseas. It includes “everyone”


Donald Trump's Call to Ban Muslim Immigrants


Condemnations from Republicans quickly followed. Jeb Bush tweeted that Trump had become “unhinged.” John Kasich said Trump’s “outrageous divisiveness” was more reason why he was “entirely unsuited” to be president. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-shot Republican rival, tweeted that Trump had “gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.”

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump Poses an Unprecedented Threat to American Democracy

a report circulated highlighting his 1990 interview with Playboy in which he praised the brutality of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. This is not the first time I had seen Trump praise dictators.


My previous view of Trump was as a kind of vaccine. The Republican Party relies on the covert mobilization of racial resentment and nationalism. ...cy

The REpublican Party has been pro-Civil Rights since it's founding, and wanting a nationalist for leader of a nation is just common sense.

 

[Liminal]

That would be a completely amoral philosophy, one that seems to suit Donald Trump's view of the world perfectly.

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

 

[Correll]

it's not just democrats who understand the inherent dangers of trump's rhetoric...




Yet Trump’s constitutionally-questionable call to place an explicit religious test on immigration and travel goes far beyond his previous statements.

For one, this was not an off-the-cuff remark, a response to a vague question, or even an idle retweet. Trump detailed his new position in a written statement sent to hundreds if not thousands of reporters covering the campaign. And it apparently extends beyond immigrants to Muslim-American citizens living overseas. It includes “everyone”


Donald Trump's Call to Ban Muslim Immigrants


Condemnations from Republicans quickly followed. Jeb Bush tweeted that Trump had become “unhinged.” John Kasich said Trump’s “outrageous divisiveness” was more reason why he was “entirely unsuited” to be president. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-shot Republican rival, tweeted that Trump had “gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.”

Only a fool would pretend that there is not a religious aspect to the Islamic Terrorism in the world today, and foreigners have no Constitutional Right to come here.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

I wasn't trying to make the point that anyone ever has used it nor is there a need to show that any nation ever has unfailingly applied it. It is a principle that people apply to their actions. Insofar as people run nations, it takes only that the people running nations apply it in making their choices about what the nation should or shouldn't do. At the the end of the day, the burden for "doing the right thing" falls not on nations, but on people, both the governors and the governed.

One point I was making is that regardless of what's transpired in the past, we should and can begin to use it now and going forward. Unlike so many other principles and policy decision making approaches, it's one that can be implemented immediately and with zero preparation.

I see, so you're hoping that the aggregate of individuals with good intentions will somehow translate into an overall pragmatic realpolitik.

That too is not what I wrote or implied. It is, seeing as you wrote it, what you have determined I have said. I didn't write anything that's complex. Instead, what I wrote is quite simple to understand and apply. Why you arrived at what you've posited as being what I did say is beyond me.