How Donald Trump Answers A Question

[Philmanoman]

Been posted before?
I mean...this is really tremendous...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI


look at what happened in Paris...look what happened in California...we have to get down to the problem...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Been posted before?
I mean...this is really tremendous...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI


look at what happened in Paris...look what happened in California...we have to get down to the problem...

Watched it. At first it looks pro-trump but it ends up taking apart his language and showing what a con man he is...

[01000110]

He's a bullshit artist salesman, and keeping the message simple is working for him.

[dannno]

Yes, it's been posted before, but it's worth posting again.

[rg17]

http://www.noozhawk.com/images/uploads/102511-POD-Olenberger.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

Real talk

[jmdrake]

So in other words Rand needs to dumb it down. This reminds me of the stat that most of Trump supporters lack a college education as well as the stat that 45% of them would bomb the fictional city of Agrabah. How do we win against that?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

So in other words Rand needs to dumb it down. This reminds me of the stat that most of Trump supporters lack a college education as well as the stat that 45% of them would bomb the fictional city of Agrabah. How do we win against that?

Do you know the names of every city in the Middle East?

[DP714]

Isn't the knowledge of a city's existence a prerequisite to deciding that it should be bombed? In other words, if they did not know what Agrabah was, how could they, in good conscience, support bombing it?

[jmdrake]

Do you know the names of every city in the Middle East?

I know that I wouldn't agree to bomb some place I had never heard of. :rolleyes: The best answer when you don't know is "I don't know." If I got a phone call where someone asked "Do you think we should invade X" or "Do you think we should bomb X" and I had never heard of X I would say "I don't know." What would you say?

[jmdrake]

Isn't the knowledge of a city's existence a prerequisite to deciding that it should be bombed? In other words, if they did not know what Agrabah was, how could they, in good conscience, support bombing it?

Exactly!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Isn't the knowledge of a city's existence a prerequisite to deciding that it should be bombed? In other words, if they did not know what Agrabah was, how could they, in good conscience, support bombing it?

Some jackass walks up to someone on the street and asks someone a quick question, they say yes or no, then continue their day. Doesn't really prove anything. Or the phone. I don't know.

[jmdrake]

Some jackass walks up to someone on the street and asks someone a quick question, they say yes or no, then continue their day. Doesn't really prove anything. Or the phone. I don't know.

Except this poll wasn't "some jackass walking up to someone on the street." It was a telephone poll. There were several questions in it. The people answering the poll had time to think. And "I don't know" was an option. Really, this was sheer ignorance and a sign that those answering "yes" had a predilection to wanting to bomb something. It's no different than stupid liberals answering "yes" to the question of "Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide (water) in order to stop global warming."

Note here was the breakdown to the Agrabah poll. 19% of democrats said bomb it. 30% of republicans said bomb it. 45% of Trump supporters said bomb it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Except this poll wasn't "some jackass walking up to someone on the street." It was a telephone poll. There were several questions in it. The people answering the poll had time to think. And "I don't know" was an option. Really, this was sheer ignorance and a sign that those answering "yes" had a predilection to wanting to bomb something. It's no different than stupid liberals answering "yes" to the question of "Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide (water) in order to stop global warming."

Note here was the breakdown to the Agrabah poll. 19% of democrats said bomb it. 30% of republicans said bomb it. 45% of Trump supporters said bomb it.

Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot. Asking if a fictional Arabian city should be bombed alludes that there's people out there that think a city with terrorists shouldn't be bombed. It's bias because they would say yes to any Arab-sounding city. It's stupid dishonest polling just trying to make our country as a whole look bad.

[TheTexan]

He answers questions like a boss.

[jmdrake]

Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot. Asking if a fictional Arabian city should be bombed alludes that there's people out there that think a city with terrorists shouldn't be bombed. It's bias because they would say yes to any Arab-sounding city. It's stupid dishonest polling just trying to make our country as a whole look bad.

:rolleyes: No. It's stupid and dishonest to say that a poll that makes Donald Trump supporters look bad somehow makes our country as a whole look bad. And both cases people are ready to act on something without taking the time to understand it. I have a friend who supports efforts to stop climate change who didn't know that carbon dioxide was the gas the government was trying to cut. When I explained that to her she said "But that can't be. CO2 is what we breathe out." I was like "Exactly! That's part of the reason this whole man made global warming scare is a scam." She responded "Well I believe science." But she didn't even understand the science she thought she believed. And no. She's not stupid. She has an advanced degree. She just hadn't taken the time to think stuff through.

Voters support things all the time without taking the time to think things through. At one point 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. That was after the Bush administration had to admit that wasn't true. Then four years later when most Americans realized that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, 70% of republicans still believed that. I could care less about whether or not some poll "makes America look bad." A lot of Americans have made some not so very bright decisions with regards to policies they support and that's part of why we are in the mess we are in. Donald Trump supporters are particularly susceptible to such stupidity.

[derek4ever]

Rand Paul has good people, he has great people, they're all wonderful people! ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

I know that I wouldn't agree to bomb some place I had never heard of. :rolleyes: The best answer when you don't know is "I don't know." If I got a phone call where someone asked "Do you think we should invade X" or "Do you think we should bomb X" and I had never heard of X I would say "I don't know." What would you say?

How is this not obvious?

ETA: I've always thought that the whole "bombing Agrabah" thing was less about knowing geography and more about idiots who want to bomb everything and everyone who is not them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot. Asking if a fictional Arabian city should be bombed alludes that there's people out there that think a city with terrorists shouldn't be bombed. It's bias because they would say yes to any Arab-sounding city. It's stupid dishonest polling just trying to make our country as a whole look bad.
Anybody who wants to bomb a random city they've never heard of just because it's name sounds Arab-y, deserves to be made a fool of. It's not this poll making America look bad, it's Americans making America look bad.

Should we bomb Mecca? Mecca Indiana?

How about Medina? Medina Idaho?

Maybe we'll bomb Mahomet! Mahomet Illinois?

Fuhgeddaboutit. Let's just bomb Palestine....Texas.

No, I have to throw a BS flag on your play here. Anybody who agrees to bomb a city just because it's name sounds "Arab" is an idiot and deserves all the scorn and humiliation that we as rational beings are capable of heaping upon them.

[r3volution 3.0]

:rolleyes: No. It's stupid and dishonest to say that a poll that makes Donald Trump supporters look bad somehow makes our country as a whole look bad. And both cases people are ready to act on something without taking the time to understand it. I have a friend who supports efforts to stop climate change who didn't know that carbon dioxide was the gas the government was trying to cut. When I explained that to her she said "But that can't be. CO2 is what we breathe out." I was like "Exactly! That's part of the reason this whole man made global warming scare is a scam." She responded "Well I believe science." But she didn't even understand the science she thought she believed. And no. She's not stupid. She has an advanced degree. She just hadn't taken the time to think stuff through.

Voters support things all the time without taking the time to think things through. At one point 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. That was after the Bush administration had to admit that wasn't true. Then four years later when most Americans realized that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, 70% of republicans still believed that. I could care less about whether or not some poll "makes America look bad." A lot of Americans have made some not so very bright decisions with regards to policies they support and that's part of why we are in the mess we are in. Donald Trump supporters are particularly susceptible to such stupidity.

Yes, I agree, people should not be allowed to vote.

[laurak]

Anybody who wants to bomb a random city they've never heard of just because it's name sounds Arab-y, deserves to be made a fool of. It's not this poll making America look bad, it's Americans making America look bad.

Should we bomb Mecca? Mecca Indiana?

How about Medina? Medina Idaho?

Maybe we'll bomb Mahomet! Mahomet Illinois?

Fuhgeddaboutit. Let's just bomb Palestine....Texas.

No, I have to throw a BS flag on your play here. Anybody who agrees to bomb a city just because it's name sounds "Arab" is an idiot and deserves all the scorn and humiliation that we as rational beings are capable of heaping upon them.

+1

[TheTexan]

Isn't the knowledge of a city's existence a prerequisite to deciding that it should be bombed? In other words, if they did not know what Agrabah was, how could they, in good conscience, support bombing it?

It's pretty obvious by the name of the city that terrorists live there

[Occam's Banana]

Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot.

Yes it does. People who agree with positive assertions (such as "it should be banned") about terms whose meanings they do not even know - and who do so on the basis of nothing more than mere "allusions" - are indeed idiots.


Asking if a fictional Arabian city should be bombed alludes that there's people out there that think a city with terrorists shouldn't be bombed. It's bias because they would say yes to any Arab-sounding city. It's stupid dishonest polling just trying to make our country as a whole look bad.

So your argument is that ignorance is excused by reflexive viciousness, and that it's really just "stupid dishonest polling" that "make[s] our country ... look bad" rather than jackasses who automatically and unthinkingly assume that cities with Arab-sounding names ought to be bombed (with said assumption being somehow "justified" due to the "allusions" that might be drawn merely because someone asked them about it) ...

:rolleyes:

[francisco]

Anybody who wants to bomb a random city they've never heard of just because it's name sounds Arab-y, deserves to be made a fool of. It's not this poll making America look bad, it's Americans making America look bad.

Should we bomb Mecca? Mecca Indiana?

How about Medina? Medina Idaho?

Maybe we'll bomb Mahomet! Mahomet Illinois?

Fuhgeddaboutit. Let's just bomb Palestine....Texas.

No, I have to throw a BS flag on your play here. Anybody who agrees to bomb a city just because it's name sounds "Arab" is an idiot and deserves all the scorn and humiliation that we as rational beings are capable of heaping upon them.

+1, +rep

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump is a brilliant (3 syllables?) salesman. His sales pitch skills may be even better than those of actor-turned-salestrainer-turned-politician Reagan.

Trump also keeps in his pocket a list of weaknesses of all his competitors. He seems aggressive and fluent in use of both proper and bull**** words/phrases.

[01000110]

It's also his arm waving and hand gestures and shoulder shrugging. He shovels the BS right at you with his arm movements.

[Dary]

Trump is a brilliant (3 syllables?) salesman.

I don't agree with that.

I'm not sold. I don't buy his BS.

[osan]

So in other words Rand needs to dumb it down.

Doesn't matter what Rand does. Doesn't matter what any of them do. We are beyond the point of returning by working within conventional metes. In principle, we are not, but principle no longer has a say in the game of hard, cold reality. That bridge is WAY upstream now and the falls are nigh.


This reminds me of the stat that most of Trump supporters lack a college education

As if that mattered a whit anymore. Before implicitly demeaning non-college people, you need to watch the video while bearing in mind that this is YALE. This is the IV league. Things generally go south from there. "College educated" is no longer an automatic pass on basic training and habit. It tends to be very much the contrary, on the mean.

ETA: Left out the video, like an idiot. Sorry. Here it it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZVEVufWFI


as well as the stat that 45% of them would bomb the fictional city of Agrabah

Stats... what stats? Whose? You don't have to like Trump, but this brand of artless assassination doesn't do you any good. At least with Obammy there is an almost endless trough of bitter fact from which to draw. All you've done here is state "facts" that have not been placed by you into evidence as such. If you have a beef with this guy, and I admonish all to this standard, at least give credible support for your objections. Back to Bammy, he was a low-rent gaywhore who sucked strange mens' penises for chump change, but when criticizing him I never refer to it because it cannot be sufficiently proven to be true. Sure, I'd love to dump a load of invective in his lap, but to what practical end? I can draw upon the evil acts that are known to have been his and will confine myself to that.

Trump is mostly an unknown quantity, save that he is a brawler and showman. Because he is unproven along many lines, much of the criticism and accusation that has been heaped upon him is, as yet, unjust. I'd laugh if, were he to gain office, he proved to be the best thing this land has seen in an age. We just don't know. This is not to say I personally feel he is likely to be anything far better than the same old shit, but that speaks more to the environment of rancid corruption in which he would be constrained to operate than anything I could say right here about his character as a man.


How do we win against that?

With physical force, pretty much. There is no other way at this point. Consider: tens of thousands of laws exist that defile and deny our basic human rights in all manners of ways and degrees. Now consider the history of repeal. "WHAT history of repeal?", you ask? There's my point. There is no Congress likely to be constituted such that repeal of even a handful of these "laws" is likely to occur. So long as those statutes remain on the books, we remain as servants of the "state". The only thing that is going to bring this to an end is non-equivocating force, starting with mass civil disobedience (the value of which is questionable at best) and apexing with bloodshed.

Theye will NEVER cede power at the point of reason, principle, or morals. Nothing less than a clear and present existential threat to Theire very lives, as well as those of their posterity, will persuade them to step off. Theye appear to be very posterity oriented, which I figure is a "blood" thing. So long as Theye feel that they hold sufficient standing, they will continue down whatever path it is they deem fitting to their purposes. You will likely never be able to dislodge them through voting, and so on. This is not because it is impossible in principle, but because reality now all but guarantees the futility of such tactics, which for all practical purposes amount to nothing better than half-measures at this point in the game. Force is the only thing that will save the land now. The degree and manner of force needed to get the job done remains open to argument.

[Origanalist]

Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot. [snip]

Oh hell yes it does. Not only that it makes them a dangerous idiot because they are foolish enough to support banning something when they don't really know what it is.

[acptulsa]

So your argument is that ignorance is excused by reflexive viciousness, and that it's really just "stupid dishonest polling" that "make[s] our country ... look bad" rather than jackasses who automatically and unthinkingly assume that cities with Arab-sounding names ought to be bombed (with said assumption being somehow "justified" due to the "allusions" that might be drawn merely because someone asked them about it) ...

:rolleyes:

Tyranny is bad because tyrants are never held accountable. That's why a republic is good, because of accountability. But if the voters in a republic are perfectly willing to buy every sob story and jump for every stick of candy dangled in front of them, where is that accountability?

W_o_F, the pollsters do not destroy the free press which (just as Thomas Jefferson taught us over two centuries ago) is absolutely vital to the process of preventing a republic from becoming a tyranny. They just measure how well the propaganda machine is working, that's all.


Most people don't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, because everyone usually calls it h20, so if you go up to someone who doesn't know what the term means and allude that it is something dangerous, ask if it should be banned, and they say yes, it doesn't make them an idiot.

Yes, it does. Worse, it makes them an arrogant idiot. Banning water is worse than bombing a town full of innocent people. Either is supported by people who are arrogant enough to assume they can make a rational decision from a position of complete ignorance.

Of course, either person will tell you their arrogance does no harm because they're not in a position of power. Then they go assert their rights as a voter in the most powerful republic the earth has ever seen...

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't agree with that.

I'm not sold. I don't buy his BS.

I'm not sold either. But I observed that comparing him to rest of GOP lineup and for the purpose of selling to his intended audience that does not have many critical thinkers. I should have explained that he is brilliant salesman relatively who is adept at manipulating both the subject and the words to his advantage while always prepared to undermine competition. And not to discount timing factor, it is currently a very hot market for what he is selling.
Alao being a brilliant salesman does not automatically translate to being a brilliant leader, brilliant thinker etc.

[Philmanoman]

So brilliant to do the same thing everyone else is doing?

"I had to make deals with the mafia,because everyone was doin it ya know"
"I had to do the corporate bankruptcy thing,ya know,cause everyone does it"

True born leader right there...

[acptulsa]

So brilliant to do the same thing everyone else is doing?

"I had to make deals with the mafia,because everyone was doin it ya know"
"I had to do the corporate bankruptcy thing,ya know,cause everyone does it"

True born leader right there...

Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, the born leader preys on the herd without the herd ever suspecting he's not actually one of the herd.

[jmdrake]

Doesn't matter what Rand does. Doesn't matter what any of them do. We are beyond the point of returning by working within conventional metes. In principle, we are not, but principle no longer has a say in the game of hard, cold reality. That bridge is WAY upstream now and the falls are nigh.

So you believe that Rand actually communicating with actual voters doesn't matter? :rolleyes: Okay. Believe what you want.



As if that mattered a whit anymore. Before implicitly demeaning non-college people, you need to watch the video while bearing in mind that this is YALE. This is the IV league. Things generally go south from there. "College educated" is no longer an automatic pass on basic training and habit. It tends to be very much the contrary, on the mean.


It's not "demeaning". It's honest. If Donald Trump is giving speeches that are geared to a 4th grade level and Rand's speeches are at a 7th grade level then Rand isn't reaching the same target audience that Trump is. You're "girl screeching" changes nothing of that. I bet she better understands Randspeak than the average Trump supporter. That doesn't mean she has a lick of common sense. I don't know if you are being obtuse or if you just totally don't get the point of the OP video.



Stats... what stats? Whose? You don't have to like Trump, but this brand of artless assassination doesn't do you any good.

Oh please! Don't be ridiculous! If you wanted to know the stat you could have looked it up or just asked where I got it from. Anyway it was a poll by PPP. Like them or not the are a credible poling outfit and the stat is as good as the stats that have Donald Trump at +30% support or the stats that back in 2003 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was behind 9/11 and in 2008 70% of Republicans still believed that. In fact the stat isn't all that surprising. Even though Trump has at times given a non-interventionist message at other times he's given out blanket "Let's kill all their families" talking points. And the stat has nothing to do with liking or not liking Trump. It's everything to do with the point made in the OP video that Trump is doing a great job communicating to his core audience by dumbing down what he's saying to them. I don't dislike Trump for doing that. In a perverse way I'm admiring him. It's quite smart on his part actually.


Trump is mostly an unknown quantity, save that he is a brawler and showman. Because he is unproven along many lines, much of the criticism and accusation that has been heaped upon him is, as yet, unjust. I'd laugh if, were he to gain office, he proved to be the best thing this land has seen in an age. We just don't know. This is not to say I personally feel he is likely to be anything far better than the same old shit, but that speaks more to the environment of rancid corruption in which he would be constrained to operate than anything I could say right here about his character as a man.

Trump isn't that unknown of a quantity. In fact his very well known. He's put down many of his ideas in his books. For example on page 102 of his book "The America We Deserve" he called for a total ban on semi automatic weapons. He kinda, sorta, flip flopped on that without ever saying "Well I changed his mind" and his supporters just ate it up. In fact I bet most of them don't even know about the fact that he called for an assault weapons ban. Trump says whatever he thinks people want to hear. I have absolutely no interest in him being president whatsoever. My only thought is how to get Rand elected and Trump is one of the people in the way.


With physical force, pretty much.

Ummmm....okay. So on the one hand you think Trump may be an okay president and on the other hand you're ready to use physical force to stop him? I'm confused. Seriously. :confused:


There is no other way at this point. Consider: tens of thousands of laws exist that defile and deny our basic human rights in all manners of ways and degrees. Now consider the history of repeal. "WHAT history of repeal?", you ask? There's my point. There is no Congress likely to be constituted such that repeal of even a handful of these "laws" is likely to occur. So long as those statutes remain on the books, we remain as servants of the "state". The only thing that is going to bring this to an end is non-equivocating force, starting with mass civil disobedience (the value of which is questionable at best) and apexing with bloodshed.

I'm focusing on one thing at a time. And right now that one thing is trying to get Rand elected president.

[jmdrake]

I don't agree with that.

I'm not sold. I don't buy his BS.

As I told someone else, you probably wouldn't buy snake oil either. That's because it's snake oil. That doesn't mean someone who can sell snake oil to a bunch of other people isn't good at what he does.