Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

Maybe I already asked this question a few months ago, but who do you suppose was the most qualified major nominee ever?

[André]

Negligence is spelled the same in French or English. But from reading the exchanges above, I'm not sure the meaning is the same. A matter of degree, not of actual difference. Negligence in French is regarded as a simple omission that led to unharmful consequences. There is no such thing as 'gross' negligence. The next degree is criminal negligence, such as that of failing to help someone whose life is in danger.

I'm not sure non-American readers understand the fuss about the emailgate. They (I) do realize there was negligence involved, but that pales infinitely when set aside actual policy-making. Kennedy and Mitterrand behaved poorly in terms of morals, but nobody seriously consider that this aspect of their lives has much relevance to their political stature.

I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.

[Karl Henning]

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.

Oh, many of us in the US view him much the same.

[Karl Henning]

The concern expressed by many Jews is that Trump, who earlier this year was slow to condemn former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and has on several occasions retweeted messages from white supremacists, is bringing into the mainstream a sentiment that has largely been relegated to the dark underworld of the Internet.

[kishnevi]

Negligence is spelled the same in French or English. But from reading the exchanges above, I'm not sure the meaning is the same. A matter of degree, not of actual difference. Negligence in French is regarded as a simple omission that led to unharmful consequences. There is no such thing as 'gross' negligence. The next degree is criminal negligence, such as that of failing to help someone whose life is in danger.

I'm not sure non-American readers understand the fuss about the emailgate. They (I) do realize there was negligence involved, but that pales infinitely when set aside actual policy-making. Kennedy and Mitterrand behaved poorly in terms of morals, but nobody seriously consider that this aspect of their lives has much relevance to their political stature.

I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.

Balanced out by the view that Hillary is a high IQ megalomaniac.   Conservatives seem to feel that Hillary will destroy the country on purpose, but Trump would destroy it by accident.

Mind you,  among the conservatives there is actually a lot of support if not sympathy for Trump's positions.   It is Trump's personality that they worry about, and most think he has adopted conservative positions for convenience and will abandon those positions when he feels it convenient if ever actually elected.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.

Not just outside of the US.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.

The two halves of your sentence don't fit together. Why wouldn't "half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness" interfere with her approach to policy?

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.

I think the "free world" will not do so badly under Clinton, but if I lived in the "not so free world," I'd be worried that my country would be next on her hit list.

[Todd]

Maybe I already asked this question a few months ago, but who do you suppose was the most qualified major nominee ever?

There's no single answer, but some highly qualified people would include, excluding the Founding Fathers themselves:

John Quincy Adams
Henry Clay
James Buchanan
James Blaine
William Howard Taft
Richard Nixon
George HW Bush

This is based on national and international experience prior to getting a nod.  Where does Hillary fit in among that group?  (Buchanan is occasionally held up as the most qualified on paper, but he turned out to be arguably the worst President.)

Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.

The low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy.  It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like.  I suspect Trump is intelligent.  The megalomaniac part, sure, I'll buy that.  I'd throw in manipulative and cynical, as well as shameless.  He should never be President, and I find him obnoxious, but that doesn't make him dumb. 

[Rinaldo]

Balanced out by the view that Hillary is a high IQ megalomaniac.

This is disputed by an article I've posted before but it seems to have gone unnoticed, so let me try again. Arnovitz makes some excellent points which I think are very relevant to our discussion here. The 1996 article that has inspired Arnovitz' writing is also worthwhile.

Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason

[Todd]

Arnovitz makes some excellent points which I think are very relevant to our discussion here.

There is much hyperbole about both Clintons.  However, two things really stick out about Hillary for me.  First, she was given an "unofficial" role as chair of a task force to pass health care reform at the beginning of her husband's first term.  This flouted existing federal law pertaining to nepotism; it violated the spirit if not the letter of the law.  Second, she was one of the key architects of the Libyan debacle, which was undertaken without an AUMF or Congressional oversight, and which violated the War Powers Resolution.  Throw in the opacity of the Clinton Foundation, the numerous high paid speeches to and for a variety of corporate interests, as well the extremely poor judgment she displayed regarding her email server, and there is more than enough to question whether she should be President and to question her honesty, integrity, and adherence to standard forms of behavior.  Then there are her policy stances, some of which sound good and practical (I very much like the tax credit clawbacks she proposes), and some of which sound cynical in the extreme (her solar policy, her tax surcharge that is somehow tied to an improved jobs market).

I very strongly dislike Ms Clinton.  She should not be President.  She would be a better choice than Trump.  But then, being shot in the calf is better than being shot in the thigh.  Probably.

[Karl Henning]

The low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy.  It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like.  I suspect Trump is intelligent.

Fair enough, to be sure.

[Karl Henning]

I very strongly dislike Ms Clinton.  She should not be President.  She would be a better choice than Trump.

A succinct précis of the present, erm, carnival.

[Wendell_E]

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 08, 2016, 01:00:32 PM

And be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.

Quote from: President Barack Obama

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton.

"I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president." -- Donald J. Trump, 2008

[Karl Henning]

Obviously, we are misconstruing what he said . . . .

[Parsifal]

The low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy.  It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like.  I suspect Trump is intelligent.  The megalomaniac part, sure, I'll buy that.  I'd throw in manipulative and cynical, as well as shameless.  He should never be President, and I find him obnoxious, but that doesn't make him dumb.

I agree. He's not dumb. He has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If he makes untrue statements it is because he has no regard for truth or justice; he will say anything he thinks will benefit him. His supporters seem to think that he will use this skill for the benefit of the US (make America great again, etc). In business dealings he tends to make deals in which the project under-performs or fails, his investors or creditors get wiped out, and he makes a profit. (Atlantic City) I see no reason to believe the same won't hold if he becomes President.

[Todd]

He has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Unless you are a practicing clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who has actually worked with Trump, in which case you would be acting unethically by disclosing your professional opinion in a public forum, you are merely engaging in the new-ish trend of personally attacking a person with science-y medical terms.  You could more credibly say that Trump is an arrogant, manipulative asshole.

I agree that Trump's business record offers a reasonable basis for assessing how he might lead, though even there the analysis seems to neglect how businesses operate.  Corporations and individual businessmen (and businesswomen) routinely set up separate corporate entities for new ventures, and if the ventures fail, the larger corporations or people limit their losses.  That's precisely how it is supposed to work.  Failures occur.  Failures aren't bad in and of themselves.  And the investors and creditors, unless they are small-time mom and pop types (and I don't mean the smaller boutique shops Trump has worked with), know exactly what they are doing and perform, or should perform, due diligence.  I sometimes wonder if people on this forum have worked in the private sector, worked at a start-up, or been through a business failure.  Businesses come and go.  They're not people.  It's OK. 

Now, if Trump's business practices are worse than his competitors, and his failure rates higher, and the rate of litigation higher than normal, then those are salient points, as are the specific practices he engages in.  Trump University offers a case in point where his practices reveal how he operates and exploits the poor and the dumb.  This is far more salient than if Trump owes Deutshe Bank a chunk of change.  Sort of.  This latter fact is important because it would present a potential conflict of interest at the highest level, where the President himself, were Trump to get elected, might be in a position to bargain on and enforce international financial arrangements with foreign governments whose laws govern his creditors.  I've not yet seen how this would be effectively addressed.

Beyond Trump's business dealings and potential conflicts of interest, his ignorance of foreign policy and military strategy, as exemplified by his prior absolute ignorance of what the nuclear triad is, are even better lines of attack.  Trump bloviates about making America great again, and how tough he would be on terrorists, and so forth, but here Clinton and her allies should send out people of substance to attack Trump.  Hell, they should see if Zbigniew Brzezinski is game, or maybe Leon Panetta, serious and qualified men both, to rip apart Trump's nonsense.  Since Commander in Chief is the primary job of the President, at least if one adheres to the Constitution, this is a great line of attack.

There are many more effective ways of taking on Trump than what amounts to name calling.  To his credit, though, depending on how one views campaigning, he has helped make this the least policy-focused campaign in memory.  It's all about personalities. 

[Parsifal]

I base my comment on trumps personality on an article by a clinical psychology professor who said he used to hire actors to portray narcicistic personality disorder for his students, but now plays video of trump speeches instead.

[André]

I've worked 37 years in a bank, including (briefly) in the corporate field. It is true that businesses "come and go" (as human beings do, obviously). But when flags raise to signal abnormal corporate or personal behaviours or abnormally short (economic)  life spans, one has to try harder to understand the mechanism at work. When a pattern emerges, it is only normal to call into question the decision-making process. I have seen hundreds of people or businesses 'go'. In most cases, the fault (when there was one) could be laid squarely on the individual's doormat (whether they are individuals or CEOs and other key financial operatives).

Our financial system is at fault for lending too much money based on very short-term financial prospects of profit. Banks rarely study or anticipate future trends. In a consumer-based economy, trends and buying patterns are essential. If you see 2 years of profits and an uncertain future beyond, investors should be made aware of the short term aspect of the data at hand. But that never happens. It's all about the next bottom line. http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.ca/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html  Après moi, le déluge, said King Louis XV. It's never been so true as in the past 30 years. Trump is a past master at that way of thinking (and acting). That is something I equate with a low IQ reasoning for someone aspiring to lead a country. Me, myself and I.

[Todd]

I base my comment on trumps personality on an article by a clinical psychology professor who said he used to hire actors to portray narcicistic personality disorder for his students, but now plays video of trump speeches instead.

I see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is.  No possibility of bias there.

But when flags raise to signal abnormal corporate or personal behaviours or abnormally short (economic)  life spans, one has to try harder to understand the mechanism at work.

I'm not sure what an abnormally short life span is as it pertains to businesses, especially since the purpose of some companies is short term at inception.  I've worked with, and still work with, clients that set up complex webs of no-employee LLCs, shifting ownership of assets between them based on asset status, with the express purpose of winding down all operations upon liquidation of all assets.  I'm not familiar with Trump's specific business dealings - and I'm certain no one on this forum is, either - but I would not be surprised if he engages in that type of structuring on occasion, and I'm not at all surprised that he has had many bankruptcies in his various companies.  Without some type of meaningful review of his business history that takes into account all the factors involved - purpose, corporate type, market conditions, etc - I am skeptical of claims that he is an especially bad businessman.  Or a particularly good one.  This offers an exceptionally feeble basis on which to assess Trump's intelligence.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is.  No possibility of bias there.

I'm not sure what an abnormally short life span is as it pertains to businesses, especially since the purpose of some companies is short term at inception.  I've worked with, and still work with, clients that set up complex webs of no-employee LLCs, shifting ownership of assets between them based on asset status, with the express purpose of winding down all operations upon liquidation of all assets.  I'm not familiar with Trump's specific business dealings - and I'm certain no one on this forum is, either - but I would not be surprised if he engages in that type of structuring on occasion, and I'm not at all surprised that he has had many bankruptcies in his various companies.  Without some type of meaningful review of his business history that takes into account all the factors involved - purpose, corporate type, market conditions, etc - I am skeptical of claims that he is an especially bad businessman.  Or a particularly good one.  This offers an exceptionally feeble basis on which to assess Trump's intelligence.

Doesn't matter, any of this. As citizens of this country we are judging the suitability of this and one other principal competitor to serve in its most important leadership position (and I don't care if you call it running the country, leading the country, or any other nit you may choose to pick), and we are not required to hold degrees in clinical psychology or to interview the subject or to administer an IQ test in order to express our feelings about either person's character, judgment, or intellect. The terms any of us choose to use are immaterial; the point is at least with Trump that many of us have grave doubts about the man's character, judgment, and intellect. And whether the vocabulary we use is clinically precise doesn't matter in the slightest. In the minds of many of the electorate something is seriously wrong with this guy and I don't care for a moment whether you call him a narcissist, an egomaniac, a sociopath, a psychopath, an "arrogant, manipulative asshole," some of the above, or all of the above.