Here we go again, its your turn Iran

[f0xx]

 

[Pali]

For clarity's sake: this does not mean that the US is pulling out of the Iran treaty.  What Trump refusing to recertify the treaty does is twofold: 1) it sends the message that, as far as the US govt. is concerned, Iran is not abiding by its terms of the agreement (even though it is, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and other signatories); 2) it leaves it up to Congress to determine whether to reinstate sanctions or not.

 

Regarding 1, Trump lives in his own reality and that will never change.  Regarding 2, there's actually a fair amount of reason to hope for a good outcome - mostly because Congress doing nothing is the good outcome.  Congress has 60 days to decide to levy sanctions against Iran again, and if Congress does nothing, the treaty remains intact.  This is a way for Trump to try to make his base happy without actually doing anything of real impact, because 60 days from now the news cycle will be dominated by some new bit of nonsense this administration has pulled or some new development in Mueller's case and Congress letting the 60-day deadline expire will pass as page 10 news (for the few of us that still read newspapers, that is).

[f0xx]

What astonishes me the most is how he has the guts to come up in front of the whole world and present those assumptions as facts and thus try to sell this narrative that we've seen how many times by now.

[Kyzarius]

Why wouldnt he, worked during the campaign.  

[Pali]

7 hours ago, f0xx said:

What astonishes me the most is how he has the guts to come up in front of the whole world and present those assumptions as facts and thus try to sell this narrative that we've seen how many times by now.

That's what he does.  I'm fairly confident that in his mind, his assumptions ARE facts - that's how he "knows" he had a bigger inauguration crowd than Obama, or that he won the popular vote, or that Puerto Rico isn't in shambles, or that he's got high approval ratings.  This is a guy who has to get two daily briefings about how awesome he is.

 

This is why narcissism is a personality disorder rather than a negative character trait - because the need to believe you're "The Best" divorces you from reality.

[Tantangel]

Look at it this way. People have a preconception idea of what Psychology is and often times when they begin studying it they have to try and forget the "facts" they learned prior to learning about it. We all have preconceived ideas about varying subjects, and some of it may actually hold some truth to it, but in Trump's case he believes that he's right in every facet. He's crass and not easily shaken because the "truth" is on his side. You can't argue with people who are like that, because the second you do, you may as well just drop the anvil on your own head because you're not winning that battle. He's lived a majority of his life on the top of many of his varying adventures which have only fed into him believing he's right and proving otherwise is futile. It's kind of a shit show, but I have to admit that it can be humorous to see what others have done to his videos by splicing it up and rearranging it to be more comical. He most likely wont get a second term, but just hope that he doesn't die while in office, I don't think Pence would do a great job in any way and possibly throw us further behind in the times.

[Pali]

Pence is immensely preferable to Trump.

 

Yes, as a liberal atheist I would gladly take the Christian dominionist over the non-religious narcissist... because I don't worry about Pence on the foreign policy front the way I do Trump.  Pence wouldn't be trying to out-bombast North Korea, nor shred the Iran deal, nor break up NAFTA.  Pence would likely be more effective on an internal policy front, but internal policies are far easier to reverse later than disruptions to the international order are.  Pence would simply be another W in most regards, and we can handle that.

[Kyzarius]

Yeah trump priovides zero confidence in national security.  He has no clue what he is doing, and is ver volatile.  Aa a fellow atheist liberal i agree @Pali.

[f0xx]

Do you honestly believe he is THAT delusional?

I personally think he is just a very smart guy and is using the crowd very well (like many others before him), albeit in his own, clownish way.

[Kyzarius]

You could say that imo. 

But when reading personal accounts from people who have been close to him.  His ghost writer for example. 

It becomes apparant that he is honestly mentally unstable.  An obsessive narcissist whose seperation from realistic expectations of society are exasperated by the isolation created by the stature of his wealth. 

He has lived in a bubble his entire life.  And when you have wealth or influence people kiss your ass because they want some of that favor to go their way.  Furthur skewing seld image until we get Trump.  

[Manual Labour]

I dunno, you guys keep saying Trump is a mentally unstable narcissist and due to his vast wealth and position of power is out of touch with reality etc...

Could we not say the exact same thing then about most of Hollywood for example? And yet most people on the left worship these celebrities and trust all their political opinions blindly. Trump is pretty much a celebrity/business man himself and obviously not a politician. Where I agree with some of the negative comments you guys have about him I cant help but shake my head at the irony as you all (maybe not you specifically Pali and Kyz, but those of the left) praise famous actors or late night comedians as if they are somehow more in touch with reality or more qualified to lecture the average American on politics and morality.

 

edit: I agree with Foxx in that Trump is not delusional or stupid. I think he is probably quite smart and aware of what is going on. He has adopted a style that sells in America and this is part of a larger and older problem where historically taboos have been broken down one at a time making it so that to be famous in general you have to be more and more outrageous. This cycle of constant one-up-manship (through shock value alone) in my opinion has pretty much destroyed the American culture and dumned it down to ridiculous levels of stupidity. /rant

[Kyzarius]

Well, i would not argue that isolationism due to wealth is limited to just trump.  And some actors are looney as hell.  Same issues. Others, do not at all.  And not all rich people are isolated either.  

Saying worship, and blindly, while generalizing an entire set of viewpoints kind of undermines any points your trying to make.  Also defending someone by saying, oh theres other people who are just as bad is really a strawman argument.  Thay doesnt change the origional sibjects state of mind, or somehow make them better.

Trump is corrupt as can be.  He lies, cheats, and misleads in order to line his own pockets and it is his only apparant motivation. 

The fact that he is successfully doing this so far, and people actually defend him as he does it, is the sickness in our systems, policies and society as a whole.  

[f0xx]

I came across this analysis today:

 

 

 

[Zoichan]

I quit watching after the excessive air quotes. " " " " " "

[Kyzarius]

49 minutes ago, Zoichan said:

I quit watching after the excessive air quotes. " " " " " "

Lol.  He had good points, though basic, but really screwed any attempt at a non bias presentation

[Pali]

8 hours ago, Manual Labour said:

Where I agree with some of the negative comments you guys have about him I cant help but shake my head at the irony as you all (maybe not you specifically Pali and Kyz, but those of the left) praise famous actors or late night comedians as if they are somehow more in touch with reality or more qualified to lecture the average American on politics and morality.

Sometimes they are more in touch with reality and more qualified to lecture on politics and morality.  Sometimes they aren't.  It will depend a great deal on which celebrity one is talking about, and it will depend even more on what it is they are saying - Bill Maher is a political junkie so he's fairly well-informed on politics, but I advise treating anything he says about biology and health with plenty of skepticism and his religious criticisms often are fairly second-rate quality arguments.  But in general, if someone can string together complete thoughts for more than a few sentences in a row, I'd say they're more qualified on those topics than Trump at the very least.

 

And I'm not making a joke or being insulting about his speaking style there - it helps show that he's never been trained in disciplined, deliberative thinking.  There are numerous accounts of how much trouble he has staying focused on topics, or even reading memos given to him if they aren't talking about him every couple paragraphs as a way to attract his attention.  He is good at playing a crowd, assuming the crowd is just as ill-informed as he is, but that is a far cry from having a mind capable of being an effective president.

Quote

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

This is not how an intelligent, educated person speaks.

[Celerity]

1 hour ago, Pali said:

This is not how an intelligent, educated person speaks.

Oh, so you've found the mythical link between intelligence and style of speech?  You need to get this published..you've fundamentally changed our current understanding of linguistics.  

[Pali]

19 minutes ago, Celerity said:

Oh, so you've found the mythical link between intelligence and style of speech?  You need to get this published..you've fundamentally changed our current understanding of linguistics.  

Note that I said "intelligent, educated person", not "intelligent person".  As I said, the speech style shows that he does not have a trained, ordered thought process, which is usually something gained as a result of education.  The content of what he says shows that he is not intelligent.

[Celerity]

If you are looking for signs of intelligence in content, a political speech is about the last place you'll find it -- and for good reason. The purpose of a political speech is almost directly contrary to having "ordered thought processes". Think about what the purpose of a political speech is.

I don't think Trump is a smart or good man, but this linguistic angle of argument against Trump isn't going to work out well. All you are highlighting is that he is good at what he is doing -- giving a political speech.

[Pali]

This was one example of many - would you prefer I give examples from interviews?  They aren't any better.

 

And I do not agree that political speeches cannot have intelligent content, or that they aren't usually showing an ordered thought process behind them - quite the contrary, most political speeches have a great deal of thought put into them and are meticulously crafted.  I could point to a hundred speeches that never have this kind of rambling, and that actually have points made in a logical, thoughtful manner: right here, for starters.  Want some from a Republican instead?  Here.  Even the speeches that Trump gives where he stays on script are massively improved - it's when he goes off script, and actually says what he's thinking, that we get a whirlpool of nonsense.  The lack of mental discipline and sheer delusional ignorance on display with Trump is absolutely not the norm.

[Celerity]

Down the rabbit hole we go:

"I do not agree that political speeches cannot have intelligent content,"

"Even the speeches that Trump gives where he stays on script are massively improved - it's when he goes off script, and actually says what he's thinking, that we get a whirlpool of nonsense. "

A political speech may or may not have intelligent content. Of course they can have it. Intelligent content may provide a benefit (or the reverse) to the purpose of a political speech (which is to amass political strength). Examining the speech (including the 'intelligent content' within) is not going to give you much insight into the intelligence, morality, the absolute correctness of the argument or much else.

All you can analyze from the content of a political speech is its effectiveness -- the reaction of others have to it. That is, what effect did this intelligent/emotional/narcissistic/authentic/whatever content have and was that effect effective towards the goal of the political speech. This is because a political speech is not a rational argument (thus cannot be analyzed for rationality, logic, or correctness) and is typically disingenuous by nature of being political (thus cannot be analyzed for the morality or authenticity of the speaker).

Sure, you can break down a political speech and try to make an argument based on the rationality of the argument and make an assertion as to the 'intelligence' of the speaker, but to do so (rationally), you have to prove that:

1. Rational speech = ordered, rational thinking on part of the speaker.

2. Ordered, rational thinking (as expressed through (prepared) political speeches) = intelligent.

3. The reverse: To be intelligent, you must think in an ordered, rational way and thus speak in such a way.

Unfortunately:

1. Speech is not indicative of thinking. All you can get from speech is an implied desired effect by the speaker -- which is a thought, but not their thinking. If I tell you a lie, you don't know my thinking, but you do know what I wanted you to think I was thinking. I can think one thing and say something else. I say things usually to accomplish something, which may be to communicate an idea, but often (and usually) isn't. It might be to get you to be supportive of me, to laugh, or any other possible reaction. I might not even know or understand the reaction I want.

Political speech is even less indicative of the speaker's thoughts. It has a political goal and is spoken for that reason. If my thoughts match my goal and my words match my thoughts, so be it, but that is hardly typical of political discourse. Even if they do match, they are typically spoken in such a way so as not to be informative, but instead to gather support or otherwise appeal to (or distract or whatever) the listener.

2. A. B. C. arguments might appear rational to you, but they are hardly not the only rational way of thinking. Ordered rationality is only one kind of rational thinking. Is it more rational to give an ordered speech or to give a disjointed, yet authentic speech? Would Trump be better off with using one of Obama's (or Romney's?) prepared speeches? Will these types of speech have different kinds of appeal? Maybe (the appearance of) authenticity appeals greater than prepared, ordered rational political speeches.  Do they present information in different amounts? Who is to say which is the better method of giving a political speech?

There a lot of ways to get to a point and there a lot of different points people are getting to. Like I alluded to in my last post, you'll have a hell of time trying to prove one way to one goal is more educated or better than another way to a different goal. Then you have to make the leap that your brand of ordered rationality is inherently intelligent -- another huge task.

3. Even if you manage to prove the first two points, you have to reverse them for the argument to stand. If you've proven that ordered, rational speaking = ordered, rational thinking = intelligence, you have to somehow show that you can't be as intelligent without those things. That is the real killer and a rightfully nearly impossible task.  

---

If you believe that a politician's public, political words are indicative of their inner thoughts, intelligence, or morality...all they've done is succeeded in deceiving you. Even if the politician didn't have that purpose.

Even the most sincerely worded speech is only going to be approximation of the speaker's belief, then add on the listener's interpretation of that approximation and you quickly gain quite a bit of distance. This compounds rapidly with more complex topics and longer speeches (such as political speeches which usually reduce very complex topics -- thus the existence of 'sound bites'). This is what I mean by 'deceptive'.

The politician that you like's speech has shown that particular style of speech was very successful in influencing your beliefs about them. The politician certainly did have that purpose.

[Pali]

1) I do not agree that one cannot come to a reasonable conclusion about someone else's thinking by, at least in part, listening to them speak.  Yes, that speech could be deceptive in nature, but how someone attempts to deceive still tells you a great deal about them.  One cannot come to an absolutely certain conclusion this way or any other way, but I don't agree that it isn't a valid data point to use when making a judgment regarding someone's character and intellect.

 

2) I agree that there may well be political benefit to disjointed, authentic speaking.  But I'm not talking about simply Trump's political speeches, or even just his public speech - people currently or previously close to him consistently confirm that what we're seeing is the real deal.  He's the same way in private, and he's been much the same way since decades before he decided to run for office (he wasn't quite as bad in the past, but has gotten worse as he's aged).  That makes it far less likely that this is some bit of political theater that he's putting on.

 

3) I have not stated at any point that ordered rational thinking = intelligence.  I have stated at least twice now that such is usually a result of education, not intelligence, and that education can take many different forms - it doesn't have to mean going to college.  Trump's lack of discipline and rationality are not what make me think he is unintelligent - his apparent inability to understand complex subjects is what makes him apparently unintelligent (edit: though this could also be the result of that lack of discipline, as he may just not pay attention long enough to complex subjects to understand them - which would still leave him functionally unintelligent, regardless of his actual capacity).  Could this all be one great con?  Sure.  But I don't see that as the most parsimonious assumption to make here, nor one that fits in with his behavior past and present.