Donald Trump and One Topic

[MrT]

So I ran across this article, published in the Atlantic, entitled Why Sarah Palin Knows More Than Trump, and one of the central arguments was actually supplied by a reader who made this comment:

In the year or so after the election, I listened to a lot of Palin interviews, and although her range of knowledge is certainly quite limited, she spoke very confidently and enthusiastically about some Alaska-specific issues, one being the oil industry in the state. Another was less important but still fascinating—the myriad complexities of voting and getting votes counted in Alaska. She took obvious pleasure in her mastery of these subjects and pleasure in explaining them to people who didn’t know much about them.

I have now been through dozens of interviews with Trump with a variety of interviewers, and I have never once—not once—heard him discuss anything, any subject of any kind, with any evidence of knowledge, never mind thought. None. Zero. He’s like a skipping stone over a pond. He doesn’t even come close to the level of dilettante.

So I am opening the quest up for DP. I want one topic, just one, where you could reasonably walk away from that interview or discussion with the impression that Trump has studied the topic to the point of being an expert. A topic where he has really explored, and discusses, the nuts and the bolts and the nuanced details. A topic where you can at least tell he has studied the issue to a large extent because it is an area of personal interest.

If you can think of such a topic, then I would prefer that you note in your response some sort of evidence. It is OK if you are not able to find the actual video or transcript - a general description of the topic and when/where you believe it took place will suffice.

I will note, as a final point, that I will not consider a posting of policy from his website as a valid example. I need to see some direct evidence to suggest that Trump, himself, was the author or original point person for the discussion.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So I ran across this article, published in the Atlantic, entitled Why Sarah Palin Knows More Than Trump, and one of the central arguments was actually supplied by a reader who made this comment:



So I am opening the quest up for DP. I want one topic, just one, where you could reasonably walk away from that interview or discussion with the impression that Trump has studied the topic to the point of being an expert. A topic where he has really explored, and discusses, the nuts and the bolts and the nuanced details. A topic where you can at least tell he has studied the issue to a large extent because it is an area of personal interest.

If you can think of such a topic, then I would prefer that you note in your response some sort of evidence. It is OK if you are not able to find the actual video or transcript - a general description of the topic and when/where you believe it took place will suffice.

I will note, as a final point, that I will not consider a posting of policy from his website as a valid example. I need to see some direct evidence to suggest that Trump, himself, was the author or original point person for the discussion.

Good point! This point never even occurred to me!

 

[Skeptic Bob]

There are obviously things he is good at, like branding, but I have never heard him articulate how or why he is good at them.

 

[soot]

A topic where you can at least tell he has studied the issue to a large extent because it is an area of personal interest.

Leadership.

Management.

Placing the right people in the rights jobs.

Running a business and coming out ahead in a very competitive industry in, arguably, the most competitive market in the world.

But what he's absolutely best at is not being the same old glad handing, career politician scumbag.

The problem here is that you're used to listening to politicians whose only real expertise lies in pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sure, they can talk a great game because they've memorized a set of talking points handed to them by actual experts.

But what real expertise do they actually bring to the table?

Zero as far as I can tell, and judging by the condition this country is in (hemorrhaging jobs, on the losing end of every trade deal we've made since WWII, an evaporating middle class and more and more Americans falling in to a state of virtual penury every day, the collapse of the "American Dream", the exponential rise of an entitled minority who believe it is the governments' job to feed, clothe, house, and care for them, threatened by cave-dwelling Islamic savages to the point where my three-year-old has to walk through a metal detector to board an airplane, the continual erosion of Constitutional liberties, a veritable invasion by ignorant, uneducated, and impoverished illegal aliens, etc...) we really can't afford any more of the same.

The politicians you like can talk all day long about anything under the sun as long as their team briefs them about it hard and long enough.

They can put snake oil salesmen to shame.

But they've never actually done anything other than run for office and then promise you exactly what their focus group testing tells them you want to hear.

They'll shake your hand, kiss your baby, and promise to make everything right by giving you pork, or entitlements, or a tax break, or something, but they'll continue leading us down the same old road.

Do I think that Trump is the answer to all of our problems?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I like all of his stated policies, such as they are?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that Trump is actually going to be able to fulfill even half of his campaign trail promises, knowing that as president he'll have neither the power to unilaterally enact legislation nor to finance his many schemes?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that he represents a break from the entrenched class of political royalty, beholden to big money interests and party hierarchy, which has been destroying this country from the inside out?

Yes. Absolutely.

He's an absolute expert at not being a career politician, and for that reason he's got my vote and by all appearances the votes of enough other Americans that he's going to become our next president.

 

[ocean515]

So I ran across this article, published in the Atlantic, entitled Why Sarah Palin Knows More Than Trump, and one of the central arguments was actually supplied by a reader who made this comment:



So I am opening the quest up for DP. I want one topic, just one, where you could reasonably walk away from that interview or discussion with the impression that Trump has studied the topic to the point of being an expert. A topic where he has really explored, and discusses, the nuts and the bolts and the nuanced details. A topic where you can at least tell he has studied the issue to a large extent because it is an area of personal interest.

If you can think of such a topic, then I would prefer that you note in your response some sort of evidence. It is OK if you are not able to find the actual video or transcript - a general description of the topic and when/where you believe it took place will suffice.

I will note, as a final point, that I will not consider a posting of policy from his website as a valid example. I need to see some direct evidence to suggest that Trump, himself, was the author or original point person for the discussion.

So that I might get an idea of what an appropriate example would be, could you provide an example of this "expert" level of knowledge coming from either of the two candidates currently running on the Democratic Party ticket?

 

[MrT]

Leadership.

Management.

Placing the right people in the rights jobs.

Running a business and coming out ahead in a very competitive industry in, arguably, the most competitive market in the world.

But what he's absolutely best at is not being the same old glad handing, career politician scumbag.

The problem here is that you're used to listening to politicians whose only real expertise lies in pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sure, they can talk a great game because they've memorized a set of talking points handed to them by actual experts.

But what real expertise do they actually bring to the table?

This was a really lengthy post and yet, at no point, did you actually even try to answer my question. I am looking for an instance where Trump discussed any of these issues on which you claim he has experience and expertise and demonstrated - using words (from what I understand he has the best words) - that level of expertise.

 

[MrT]

So that I might get an idea of what an appropriate example would be, could you provide an example of this "expert" level of knowledge coming from either of the two candidates currently running on the Democratic Party ticket?

That's not a terribly unreasonable request.

Hillary Clinton discussing women's issues in 1995.

Bernie Sanders discussing wealth inequality in 2010.

Please keep in mind that I am not asking for individuals to even evaluate the content of Trump's statements (and I would ask that you not derail the conversation by attempting to evaluate the content of the speeches that I linked for Hillary and Bernie). I am only asking for an example of Trump discussing a particular issue to such a level of detail that you could walk away from the discussion with the reasonable belief that he is an expert or at least really well versed in the nuances of the topic.

 

[soot]

This was a really lengthy post and yet, at no point, did you actually even try to answer my question. I am looking for an instance where Trump discussed any of these issues on which you claim he has experience and expertise and demonstrated - using words (from what I understand he has the best words) - that level of expertise.

I was kind of focused on this comment you made:

It is OK if you are not able to find the actual video or transcript - a general description of the topic and when/where you believe it took place will suffice.

The "general description of the topic" is that Trump is a political outsider and "when/where I believe it took place" is kind of irrelevant but I guess we could say that he's been something other than a career politician every day since he was born on June 14, 1946.

But my broader point was that you'd have to be a fool to think that a politician, any politician, being able to talk a good game (and I think I emphasized the point that they all typically talk a good game) was somehow indicative of them actually being able to do a good job as president.

George W. Bush was able to talk a good game.

Look where he got us.

Barack Obama was able to talk a good game.

He's only continued to deepen the hole #43 broke ground on.

Trump is a doer, not a talker.

 

[ocean515]

That's not a terribly unreasonable request.

Hillary Clinton discussing women's issues in 1995.

Bernie Sanders discussing wealth inequality in 2010.

Please keep in mind that I am not asking for individuals to even evaluate the content of Trump's statements (and I would ask that you not derail the conversation by attempting to evaluate the content of the speeches that I linked for Hillary and Bernie). I am only asking for an example of Trump discussing a particular issue to such a level of detail that you could walk away from the discussion with the reasonable belief that he is an expert or at least really well versed in the nuances of the topic.

Thank you, I didn't think it was unreasonable.

However, I am surprised by what you've posted as evidence of "expert level" examples from the two candidates. I guess my thinking of what would be evidence is quite different than what you believe to be evidence.

I'm glad I asked for clarification.

 

[MrT]

I was kind of focused on this comment you made:

The "general description of the topic" is that Trump is a political outsider and "when/where I believe it took place" is kind of irrelevant but I guess we could say that he's been something other than a career politician every day since he was born on June 14, 1946.

But I still expect you to give me a specific example so that I can conduct some research and not to engage in the same type of cult-personality driven tactic that Trump repeatedly uses (and is the very point of this thread).

But my broader point was that you'd have to be a fool to think that a politician, any politician, being able to talk a good game (and I think I emphasized the point that they all typically talk a good game) was somehow indicative of them actually being able to do a good job as president.

Trump is a doer, not a talker.

The man has no political experience and yet is seeking the most powerful political office in the land. We can not rely on his political record to evaluate whether that is a wise decision because he has no such record. As such, we must rely on his expressions of knowledge and policies. And that is the impetus of this topic. He simply does not, to my knowledge, EVER engage in such an in-depth discussion of ANY topic.

We are thus left with a blind reliance on his promises that he would "be the best." And that is a terrible justification for allowing someone access to the Presidency.

 

[MrT]

Thank you, I didn't think it was unreasonable.

However, I am surprised by what you've posted as evidence of "expert level" examples from the two candidates. I guess my thinking of what would be evidence is quite different than what you believe to be evidence.

I'm glad I asked for clarification.

Admittedly, I am not setting the bar very high here. If you can find anything from Trump that rises to even the level of the examples that I used, please let me know.

 

[ocean515]

Admittedly, I am not setting the bar very high here. If you can find anything from Trump that rises to even the level of the examples that I used, please let me know.

Eh. Now that I see where this is going, I'm not sure how anything I might offer would be worth the effort. I think the jury has already be paid for.

 

[fmw]

So I ran across this article, published in the Atlantic, entitled Why Sarah Palin Knows More Than Trump, and one of the central arguments was actually supplied by a reader who made this comment:



So I am opening the quest up for DP. I want one topic, just one, where you could reasonably walk away from that interview or discussion with the impression that Trump has studied the topic to the point of being an expert. A topic where he has really explored, and discusses, the nuts and the bolts and the nuanced details. A topic where you can at least tell he has studied the issue to a large extent because it is an area of personal interest.

If you can think of such a topic, then I would prefer that you note in your response some sort of evidence. It is OK if you are not able to find the actual video or transcript - a general description of the topic and when/where you believe it took place will suffice.

I will note, as a final point, that I will not consider a posting of policy from his website as a valid example. I need to see some direct evidence to suggest that Trump, himself, was the author or original point person for the discussion.

Serious confusion here. Trump isn't popular with voters because of his skills or what he believes or says. Voters think he may actually go to Washington and blow it up. They want to sweep the establishment out of Washington. These are not pro Trump votes. They are anti-government votes.

 

[MrT]

Serious confusion here. Trump isn't popular with voters because of his skills or what he believes or says. Voters think he may actually go to Washington and blow it up. They want to sweep the establishment out of Washington. These are not pro Trump votes. They are anti-government votes.

So then it is a vote for anarchy?

 

[MrT]

Eh. Now that I see where this is going, I'm not sure how anything I might offer would be worth the effort. I think the jury has already be paid for.

I am not going to hide my bias and skepticism on this topic, but I made the thread specifically because I wanted to see if I (or the Atlantic article) are inaccurate.

 

[justabubba]

corporate inversions
the donald understands it, and what drives it
his solution is absurd
but he does understand the 'problem' of corporate inversions
[video]http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/casual/donald-trump-on-marco-rubio-hes-an-overrated-person/vi-BBmKEfD?refvid=BBmKPzP[/video]

 

[Ntharotep]

The politicians you like can talk all day long about anything under the sun as long as their team briefs them about it hard and long enough.
They can put snake oil salesmen to shame.
But they've never actually done anything other than run for office and then promise you exactly what their focus group testing tells them you want to hear.
They'll shake your hand, kiss your baby, and promise to make everything right by giving you pork, or entitlements, or a tax break, or something, but they'll continue leading us down the same old road.
Do I think that Trump is the answer to all of our problems?
No. Absolutely not.

Do I like all of his stated policies, such as they are?
No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that Trump is actually going to be able to fulfill even half of his campaign trail promises, knowing that as president he'll have neither the power to unilaterally enact legislation nor to finance his many schemes?
No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that he represents a break from the entrenched class of political royalty, beholden to big money interests and party hierarchy, which has been destroying this country from the inside out?
Yes. Absolutely.

He's an absolute expert at not being a career politician, and for that reason he's got my vote and by all appearances the votes of enough other Americans that he's going to become our next president.

The first bolded part. Sanders actually DID do quite a bit to make the lives of Vermonters better from almost every account of those asked. He is extremely approachable and a down to Earth guy. So your generalizing might need to get a little narrower on this one.
The second and third bolded parts basically sounds like a career politician to me. Policies that people don't like with no intention of actually getting them passed but promising them nonetheless. How is that different from other "establishment politicians"?
The last is contradicted by what you had just said. Just because he throws out a hate-filled thought stream and gets away with it because he IS A WEALTHY DYNASTY does not really make him better than other wealthy dynasties.
If the President isn't articulate then he will likely stumble as a world leader. Not necessarily fail (there's plenty of reasons to think Trump will fail outside of not articulating well) but certainly a setback.
I don't even think it is that he doesn't articulate well (the man was a TV celebrity for 7+ years he has to be able to articulate). I think it is that he basically feels immortal and bulletproof. A lot like Hillary, he thinks he can do and say anything and people will eat it up and defend him.
His thoughts aren't far off but that hardly means he has any sane plan.

Though I don't necessarily agree with his approaches, the topics (not so surprisingly) that Trump sounds like he has a clue about is business and infrastructure. His speech on the airports and transportation in other countries compared to ours and how we need to do some rebuilding of our infrastructure made some sense. The problem? It isn't a big issue. It isn't even on my top ten what our airports look like. When he gets into the actual economy he does start to sound just like everyone else:
"We need to get these hedge funds guys (and gals) on track. The hedge-fund guys are getting away with murder. They're making a tremendous amount of money. They have to pay taxes. I want to lower the rates for the middle class. The middle class is the one, they're getting absolutely destroyed."
Great...tell me something I don't know, isn't motherhood and apple pie, and how you plan to do it.

Wanting a plan, a roadmap, is not wanting a career politician because even they aren't telling us the "how" just the "what". Any American with two brain cells to rub together should already know the "what".
I want the how. And Trump, just like any good politician, won't come close to explaining the how.

 

[fmw]

So then it is a vote for anarchy?

No it is more like a silent overthrow of the government to replace it with a better one.

 

[MrT]

No it is more like a silent overthrow of the government to replace it with a better one.

Why would it be better?

Is there any reason to believe that Trump's government would be better outside of him saying that it would better?

 

[fmw]

Why would it be better?

Is there any reason to believe that Trump's government would be better outside of him saying that it would better?

No, no reason. But it is clear that the current situation needs changing. Anybody who will do anything differently is at least a prospect.

 

[Casper]

Leadership.

Management.

Placing the right people in the rights jobs.

Running a business and coming out ahead in a very competitive industry in, arguably, the most competitive market in the world.

But what he's absolutely best at is not being the same old glad handing, career politician scumbag.

The problem here is that you're used to listening to politicians whose only real expertise lies in pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sure, they can talk a great game because they've memorized a set of talking points handed to them by actual experts.

But what real expertise do they actually bring to the table?

Zero as far as I can tell, and judging by the condition this country is in (hemorrhaging jobs, on the losing end of every trade deal we've made since WWII, an evaporating middle class and more and more Americans falling in to a state of virtual penury every day, the collapse of the "American Dream", the exponential rise of an entitled minority who believe it is the governments' job to feed, clothe, house, and care for them, threatened by cave-dwelling Islamic savages to the point where my three-year-old has to walk through a metal detector to board an airplane, the continual erosion of Constitutional liberties, a veritable invasion by ignorant, uneducated, and impoverished illegal aliens, etc...) we really can't afford any more of the same.

The politicians you like can talk all day long about anything under the sun as long as their team briefs them about it hard and long enough.

They can put snake oil salesmen to shame.

But they've never actually done anything other than run for office and then promise you exactly what their focus group testing tells them you want to hear.

They'll shake your hand, kiss your baby, and promise to make everything right by giving you pork, or entitlements, or a tax break, or something, but they'll continue leading us down the same old road.

Do I think that Trump is the answer to all of our problems?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I like all of his stated policies, such as they are?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that Trump is actually going to be able to fulfill even half of his campaign trail promises, knowing that as president he'll have neither the power to unilaterally enact legislation nor to finance his many schemes?

No. Absolutely not.

Do I think that he represents a break from the entrenched class of political royalty, beholden to big money interests and party hierarchy, which has been destroying this country from the inside out?

Yes. Absolutely.

He's an absolute expert at not being a career politician, and for that reason he's got my vote and by all appearances the votes of enough other Americans that he's going to become our next president.

I got bad news for ya, but it can wait for Nov and reality smacks you right in the kisser. Enjoy while it lasts, tic tic tic

 

[soot]

I got bad news for ya...

I'm sure that you think you do.

I'm also sure that at some point over the past couple of weeks you would have been telling me that you'd have bad news for me by New Hampshire, or by Super Tuesday, or by the time the polls closed on March 15th.

Like many people you apparently believe the narrative that it's only "uneducated racists" who support Trump and have absolutely no idea how deep his support, exactly for the reasons I mentioned, actually runs.

So sure, let's wait and see what happens in November.

Tic, tic, tic...

 

[Top Cat]

Trump is a doer, not a talker.

:lamo

 

[soot]

:lamo

He's going to do himself all the way to the White House too.

:mrgreen:

 

[Top Cat]

He's going to do himself all the way to the White House too.

:mrgreen:

Pass