Seriously guys, did the 1st of April come early this year? Boy oh boy, and I thought UK politics was messed up. I was considering tagging this under “humour”, but there is nothing funny about large numbers of people taking Donald “Peron” Trump and Bernard “Chavez” Sanders seriously.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Juan Peron and Hugo Chavez won the N.H. Primary?February 10th, 2016 |
 108 comments to Juan Peron and Hugo Chavez won the N.H. Primary? |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
You’re just saying that because you’re sane! Thankfully, it’s still the early Primaries, and Cruz can regain the lead.
Still, could be a good comic novel in there- what sort of calamity would it be if President Trump does buy his way into the White House?
Trump™ a calamity?
Compared to Hitlery, O’Bernie, Obama bin Kenya, Kaitsch, Jeb!, Christie…
The wall. The nukes. A “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”. Ending PC. — if Trump™ is a calamity, bring it on!
Well, hey, it’s the national socialist and the national socialist.
With current journalism it is inevitable.
Whaddya want? It’s New Hampshire. Wait until the serious states weigh in.
Perfect 🙂
Perry, if you’re going to tag this under “humour” you’re going to have to omit that extraneous second “u”! 🙂
The travelling circus comes to my state (South Carolina) next. Can’t wait! Every four years we get significant national attention for something other than the confederate flag and bad schools. The “smart” money (is there really any this year?) says that Hillary has the Democratic vote here locked up, because she expects to get all of the black vote, and that in NH Sanders reached his high-water mark. Maybe. But we have “open” primaries in this state (as, for that matter, does NH), so I can vote in either one (but only one; we do have some limits!). I’m seriously considering voting in the Democratic primary for Sanders, not because I like him (obviously I don’t), but to send an anti-Hillary message and force the process to continue. The more it drags out, the more money she has to spend and the more damage she takes (and the more opportunity there is for her to be indicted, or at least for the FBI to recommend it which will be almost as good). I don’t much care for any of the Republican candidates (I would have voted for Rand Paul, but he’s out), so my only other option is to just stay home. I know others who feel the same way.
The moral of this story is that not every vote for Sanders is actually an endorsement of him. Some votes are tactical.
http://www.truthabouttedcruz.com/
Yeah, I went there.
It’s not that we’re taking Peron and Chavez seriously. It’s that we really, really, think the establishment candidates suck, really and truly suck. We’re getting really, really tired of being a. taken for granted, b. taken for a ride. Like Heath Ledger’s Joker, at this point, we want to watch it burn. I think Cruz will eventually put Trump behind him. But I’ll vote for Trump if that’s what’s on offer in November. I’ll vote for any GOP candidate, except Bush. If he’s what’s on offer I’ll take my granddaughter (8) to the local drive-in restaurant (Sonic) and have itty bitty hot dogs that night.
I may do that anyway. 😀
After voting, of course.
I was visualising a picture of Trump next to a picture Sanders. Over Trump is says Nationalist, over Sanders it says Socialist.
The strapline? “Why can’t we have both?”
So if those two get the nominations, which one picks Hillary for his V-P ticket?
I do like Breitbart’s take, and Cruz spent a paltry $1m on adverts in the Frozen, Windy, Junkie State and appears to have 12% and 3rd place.
Okay, so I’ve watched a few of these US Presidential races over the years, since about Reagan in fact.
But this year seems a bit odd. At what point do the two comedy candidates hold up enormous “Joker” cards and admit that they are just pulling a prank on the US electorate and that they are moving their energetic comedy show to Las Vegas for the remainder of the season.
Not that I want Shrillary to win. Christ no. But you can’t see the serious candidates for the clowns.
Serious candidates?
They are ALL fucking clowns. And evil ones at that.
Cruz is no prize. He is another semi-statist twat trying to raise hopes that his reign will equal more freedom and some sort of victory over leftism. How many times have voters on both sides of the Atlantic heard and swallowed that load of shite?
Its time to press “reset’ on America, either of those 2 should be enough to stress test it to reformation.
You think this is good, wait till the Oz election.
We have Mr 13% the opposition leader whos as popular as herpes at nunnery whom they cant remove because of changes put in place by the last leader.
Then we have the “new conservative” leader (unelected) who thinks if he can just capture those vital 2 greens voters by outflanking them from the left hes a shoo in for re-election.
We might be lucky enough to see a crack up of one or both major political parties by the end of the election period.
Sanders in America, Corbyn in the UK… Justin Trudeau in Canada, maybe… is there a pattern developing?
Trump will be President because he is an Alpha Male, I hate politicians but even I like him
Funny how you always hear disparaging comments about Trump when you got Obama in the white house, who was preceded by bush.
In which universe could he actually be any worse?
“what sort of calamity would it be if President Trump does buy his way into the White House?”
No one knows what Trump will actually do. It might be a calamity and it might not. He is shrewd, and not at all dumb. He managed to achieve a thing or two in his life, so far, in the real world, out there, not in politics. He is the one candidate who has not been a politician all his life.
“In which universe could he actually be any worse?”. Correct. It’s hard to imagine he could be worse than Obama.
The American people are rejecting the useless Establishment candidates, good for them!
Isn’t NH supposed to be the small state state?
Politics is like haggling.
To get near to where you’d like to end up it is better to start with an audacious bid.
Yes a socialist (an open one – rather than a hidden one like Mrs Clinton) won the New Hampshire Democrat Primary.
And a Protectionist rather like Juan Peron, won the Republican Primary.
Only Ted Cruz can stop Donald Trump in South Carolina or the Super Tuesday States.
Yet Fox News is still pushing Marco Rubio.
They, Fox News, are delusional – more so than Donald Trump is (who is a conman at heart).
And they, Fox News and the rest of the Republican establishment, are doing great harm.
Ted Cruz has an amusing attack ad on Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onUaRyvfv1A
Presumably if you were rather older you might have written in 1932:
Yes, the establishment are useless. But to see Trump or Sanders as in any way an improvement, rather than an indication of impending calamity is… unwise.
Yes I suppose the same remark I made above fits this comment too.
The transition from successful rent-seeker to successful politician is not that big a leap really as it is pretty dealing with the same people.
Sorry, that Youtube link has turned itself into a video.
Really, the best you can come up with is “because hitler” ?!
Again, we have merkel, hollande, Cameron, Obama, ad nauseam
Maybe time to try something else. I’m not entirely comfortable with everything he says but considering what he has already achieved, I think he is a lot smarter than all the idiots named above, who HAVE ALREADY INFLICTED ACTUAL HARM.
The virtue of a President Trump is that, should he prove to be Hitler reincarnate, the media and both political parties’ establishments will be more than willing to see him impeached and removed. That’s not true with Sanders (or in fact, any Democrat).
The real corruption of the federal government (in addition to runaway venality) is that we have put the president at the center of, not just the government, but the country. He is, technically, only the chief executive of one branch of a tripart and supposedly subservient (to the People) government, but excessive deference has made him the Great White Father of Us All. I suspect that a President Trump would not receive this deference, which would be greatly to America’s benefit.
Cal:That video constitutes child abuse.
PDH–Trump is no more of a scumbag than the rest of the GOP line-up. And despite the horseshit talked by the much worse Democrat crew he is no Hitler.
He may be the scumbag with the best chance to stop Killery and get the job. If none of the rest of the GOP gang can beat the Demos than how much better they MIGHT have been than Trump is an utter irrelevance.
He is openly protectionist and anti-property rights (he is a big fan of Kelo). Hell, it is a wonder how it gets hand waved away that he has contributed to the campaigns of a veritable rogues of Democrats in the past. This guy loves the Big State, he just thinks it is time he cut out the middle men and ran it himself
They all love the Big State.
Do you seriously think that Cruz is going to be a Libertarian Messiah?
And if the GOP guy doesn’t win you’ll get those who love the Bigger State.
Anti-property? You mean, unlike the current bunch of clowns we have who have already done the damage?
It always comes back to he same thing: he cannot be worse than the current bunch.
Er, does anyone think that?
Of course he can.
“of course he can”.
Does not mean he will.
Whereas we know for sure that the rest will carry on taking us down.
It’s ironic really, since they are the real reason for Trump’s success and appeal.
Mr. Ecks is correct.
Perry,
As I recall , perhaps incorrectly –
You were the one in 2012 who I think wanted Obama to win a second term because that would ( paraphrased here )
‘teach the ‘establishment’/Republicans a lesson and create unity’ or something to that effect.
Still happy with that stance ??
If I am in error, my apologies.
thefrollickingmole,
The Astrayan election will be interesting if a sizeable chunk of conservative voters don’t and vote Golf Foxtrot and not for the Usurper who’s detested.
Years ago, Freddie Laker, the man who ushered in affordable flights for the UK, said of the bureaucrats and politicians he had to deal with “They are all bums and gangsters”.
It was ever thus and remains true to this very day.
(sigh).
Sanders just calls himself “socialist”. It’s a trope of Americans who feel liberal is too woolly. (Wife of millionaire arms-software manufacturer to me in kitchen of her NJ mansion, 1988: ‘We support the Democrats… but we’re socialists, really.’) Like Obama he’d have to become less keen on constitutional government to get into the British Conservative Party.
I suspect that PFP’s observation that a President Trump would not receive the same “deference” as have other recent Chief Executives is correct. However, I’m also unsure how much that matters. Obama has demonstrated just how far he can push the powers of the presidency through his use of Executive Orders, evading the Treaty Clause via the use of executive agreements, pressuring administrative agencies into advancing his policy objectives without statutory authority, etc. It has taken Obama seven years to push this as far as he has, but the next president will be under no such handicap; Obama will have paved that road for him. I have no sense of how Trump would use those powers, but my gut tells me he likely would abuse them every bit as much as has Obama (if in different ways). Nor, for that matter, do I have any sense of the sort of cabinet officers or judges and justices he would nominate. He’s a blank slate on that score, and frankly I wouldn’t be overly surprised if he were to nominate cronies to cabinet posts and liberals to the bench.
I don’t much like Cruz. I can’t see him doing anything to get us out of the numerous conflicts we’ve inserted ourselves into, or reining in the NSA and the surveillance state, and I have a visceral problem with anyone who seriously believes that the earth is only 4,000 years old. But he has talked about rescinding Obama’s executive orders on his first day in office, and of eliminating a number of federal agencies and departments. His Justice Department would surely be less corrupt than Obama’s, and I’m far more comfortable with the idea of him selecting judges rather than Trump. Cruz is certainly no libertarian; far from it. But I could hold my nose and vote for him. On balance he seems to be the best on offer (an admittedly low bar).
Yes, Perry, sharp as a razor….as ever!
I didn’t say they were an improvement (best to read comments…err, before commenting on them…)
I said the Establishment were being rejected, which is definitely a good thing! And yes, the consequences may be…not so good. But better than just going along like sheep to the slaughter. It teaches humility to those who need it.
Naturally, you would just go along with the Establishment, and bleat from the sidelines…..whilst pretending you are just so, so against them. The Communists had a phrase, now, what was it again? Oh yeah, useful idiots…
You whinge, whinge, whinge…..and go along with it all! Yet, when real people actually vote otherwise, you bottle out…………
I hear all nine voters in NE “Cow” Hampshire voted for Kasich.
In other words, don’t get too excited.
Sorry maybe I missed it, did Perry list who he thinks should win?
I know he made a slap at the ‘Libertarian Messiah’ comment but I didn’t see him name the politician he thinks *wouldn’t* be a corrupt scumbag.
I’m with Mr. Ecks, pick one or don’t. Either way the US gets yet another rotten cherry on top of the shit sundae of permanent bureaucracy.
The virtue of a President Trump is that, should he prove to be Hitler reincarnate, the media and both political parties’ establishments will be more than willing to see him impeached and removed. That’s not true with Sanders (or in fact, any Democrat).
Like hell they would. The LSM cheered for Hitler, they cheer for Hitlery, they’ll sure as hell cheer for TRUMP™.
I suspect that PFP’s observation that a President Trump would not receive the same “deference” as have other recent Chief Executives
Oh yeah. When he says “Nuke Damascus” or “Nuke Paris” or “Nuke San Francisco” you really think the Navy will not say “Yes Sir!!”
Laird – February 10, 2016 at 6:21 pm:
Where on earth did you hear that Cruz is a “Young Earth Creationist”?
Leftist media and pundits use evolution as a stick to beat religion. This goes back into the 1800s. It provided a lot of “gotcha” questions for them to embarrass Christians with. This provoked the fundamentalist reaction.
Ever since, evolution has been used as a touchstone. “Do you believe in evolution?” (Or are you one of those stupid, ignorant rubes?) Note the recent claim that “All competent scientists are atheists.” The “rubes” take it the same way.
All Cruz did was avoid the issue when liberal media tried to make him offend some of his base. The liberals claim to see all kinds of secret creationist signals in his campaign. They could do the same thing with liberals (9/11 Trutherism, abortion, vaccination), but of course they don’t.
But Obama has the race card and the lock-step Democrats and MSM going for him. Trump wouldn’t even have the Republicans on his side, so I expect Trump-as-Hitler would be pulled up short pretty quickly. The problem is, Trump-as-reformer would be, too.
Personally, I prefer Cruz; that ‘nastiness’ his critics find fault with strikes me as a pretty useful trait in a president.
Laird-
“The travelling circus comes to my state (South Carolina) next.”
I’m Sooo envious, what with candidates dropping out like flies, you’ll probably get to eat dinner, watch Jeopardy, or enjoy a morning constitutional, without the phone ringing or “strange people” knocking on you door.
Rob Fisher-
” Isn’t NH supposed to be the small state state?”
Yes, year of influx from folks fleeing higher tax states, and um…”forgetting” to leave their “more free stuff” expectations at the boarder have skewed that. HOWEVER….
The Free State Project, (8sigh look it up) has recently pronounced “Thunderbirds are GO!”
Sparking a bunch of (loosely associated) Libertarians, and not so hyper (lower case “l”) libertarians, and a sprinkling of like minded Mensa folkto “make the move” to NH.
Crazy antics will no doubt ensue.
Rich, I confess that I heard about Cruz’s creationist beliefs from others, not from anything Cruz himself has said. I could be wrong about that. However, it is indisputable that he is a “born-again Christian fundamentalist”, and in my experience most of those are creationists. I personally know many such people (I live in the heart of the Bible Belt, in the town where Bob Jones University is located). For me, it’s not a show-stopper, just a cautionary flag. But it’s one he could easily remove should he choose to do so, and as far as I know he hasn’t.
Yes, that is broadly correct.
Well if Trump gets the nomination, then clearly nothing was going to make the GOP back into an actual conservative party, and at least he has the value of destroying a party that is not worth trying to save. But if Cruz ultimately ends up in the White House and, for all his shortcomings (I am a libbo atheist after all), he actually abolishes some parts of the edifice of state… well yes, with the Bush enabled Obama legacy discredited, I guess it was all worth it. Cruz is no libertarian but at least he actually is a conservative with some Goldwateresque leanings, and that is a vast improvement.
Laird, before you vote for the Bern, just consider that there might just be a day of Judgment….
Your intention may be just, but is the deed?
I note from the final returns that Trump in an eight way race got more votes than Hillary in a two way race.
I have to say that though I am not a Trump fan – he is in reality a corporatist Democrat, if he can be called anything beyond a straightforward Me Me Me Now Trumpist – he’s better than Hillary. Inside Hillary, deep down below the surface layer and body fat of corruption, corporatism and deceit, there is still the little girl who wanted to be Fidel, and make everyone march about in smart uniforms.
With Trump what you see is what you get – the core is no different to the surface layer. And there is certainly an attraction in having someone in the campaign willing to offend the sort of people who angrily demand that we acknowledge that Bruce Jenner is a girl. I’m sure a large chunk of his appeal has nothing to do with policy and a lot to do with people enjoying seeing him stick it to people who desperately need a good sticking.
Perry : clearly nothing was going to make the GOP back into an actual conservative party
I don’t think the GOP has ever been an actual conservative party, any more than the British Conservative party has ever been one. Sure Ronnie and Maggie snuck through somehow, but they are outliers. I think conservatives, both of the God-fearin’ kind and of the libertarian kind have allowed themselves to be fooled into imagining that a large majority of the people who vote GOP are ferociously right wing. I think that’s wrong, particularly on the libertarian side. Actual popular support for the free market, free trade and all that swaddling is very small. Most right-leaning voters are comfortable with YUGE amounts of state interference in other people’s lives. Hence Trump’s appeal. Hayek would do very badly indeed in the GOP primaries. Von Mises even worse.
Rich, you beat me to it — I was going to ask the same question about Cruz and the age of the Earth.
Also, I thought he was an Evangelical, which is not necessarily a Fundamentalist. Am I wrong about that? And while these two sets are not disjoint, I don’t think they’re identical either.
. . .
Lee,
Beautifully said. *applause*
From a blog called The Steady Drip:
Donald Trump is a Genius – But That’s Just His IQ!
by Samuel Orrin Sewell, PhD
The most well known high IQ society is Mensa. To join Mensa one must score in the top 2% of a standardized IQ test. That really isn’t all that outstanding. One out of 50 people have IQs high enough to join Mensa.
Numerical IQ scores are not an accurate indicator of intelligence. For instance a score of 72 on the U.S. Navy GCT test is about equal to score of 150 on the WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale). Percentile IQ scores are a more informative measurement.
Way back during the 2004 presidential election I wrote an article that shook up the major news networks and the New York Times. I was able to document that George Bush had a higher IQ score and better grades than John Kerry. I belong to one of those high IQ societies, and I am a psychotherapist, so I have a credible background to evaluate Mr. Trump, even though my opinions are speculative.
Please keep in mind that IQ is a measure of intellect not character. I will comment on Donald Trump’s character later in this article.
Donald Trump graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and anthropology. Mensa doesn’t accept SAT scores from after 1994. However Mr Trump was a student at Wharton when it was possible to derive an accurate IQ core from known SAT scores. Given the usual requirements for admission to a top school like Wharton, I estimate that Mr. Trump has a 156 IQ at the minimum.
The standard description of this level of intelligence is “Genius – Exception intellectual ability and capable of looking beyond known facts.” However, the percentile rating is more revealing than the raw score. A 156 IQ is at the 99.9905490555 percentile. That means that Donald Trump is smarter than 99.99 percent of the people on planet earth. Not only does Trump qualify for membership in Mensa but he could join the Triple Nine Society.
People with this kind of intellectual ability can do things with their minds that can’t even be described to ordinary people. Remember that quote from the above paragraph, “capable of looking beyond known facts?” These highly intelligent minds process and organize data into solutions and insights, and the individual person is not even consciously aware of the process. The cartoon light bulb that goes on over someone’s head happens to people like Mr. Trump on a regular basis. I would not be surprised if Mr Trump’s IQ actually measures significantly higher than the minimum estimate mentioned above.
Enough about how smart Mr. Trump is. I was motivated to write this article because of the personality traits that are revealed in Mr. Trump’s behavior. His character traits are every bit as fascinating as his intellect.
Abraham Maslow, the American Psychologist and philosopher best known for his self-actualization theory of psychology, spent most of his professional career trying to identify what was right with people, rather than looking at pathology. Maslow did extensive research to define the traits of a “self actualized” person. My wife and professional partner is also a high IQ person. She makes the point that a better term is “self actualizing,” correctly pointing out that there isn’t state of personality to be achieved, but rather the individual is in the process of becoming his best self.
Donald Trump’s observable behavior informs us about the degree to which he is “self actualizing.” Quote from a Psychology Professor I once had; “People are not who you think they are. People are not who they think they are. People are what they do. That is why this is called a behavioral science”. Forget the labels. They are all misleading. Pay attention to the behavior.
Here are some examples of the Traits of a Self Actualized Person, from Maslow’s own research:
· They resist enculturation.
Self-actualizers tend to be nonconformists, since they are inner-directed people. If a cultural norm is contrary to their personal values, they simply will not adhere to it.
They are almost always loners, or leaders. They are never joiners. Yup. That sounds like the “Donald” to me!
· They are creative.
Maslow found this trait in all of the self-actualizers.
“This is a universal characteristic of all the people studied or observed. There is no exception. This creativeness appears in some of our subjects not in the usual forms of writing books, composing music, or producing artistic objects … It is as if this special type of creativeness being an expression of healthy personality is projected out upon the world, or touches whatever activity the person is engaged in. In this sense there can be creative shoemakers or carpenters or clerks. This creativity comes from the fact that self-actualizers are more open to experience and more spontaneous in their feelings.”
Yes, Donald is always coming up with new creative ways of seeing things differently and solving problems.
· They are autonomous and therefore tend to be independent of their environment.
“Because self-actualizers are B-motivated rather than D-motivated, they are more dependent on their own inner world than on the outer world. Deficiency motivated people must have other people available since most of their main need gratifications (love safety. respect, prestige, belongingness) can come only from other human beings. But growth motivated [B-motivated] people may actually be hampered by others. The determinants of satisfaction, and of the good life, are for them inner & individual, and not social. They have become strong enough to be independent of the good opinion of other people, or even of their affection. The honors, the status, the rewards, the popularity, the prestige and the love others can bestow must have become less important than self-development and inner growth.”
Donald frequently says that he doesn’t plan what he is going to say. It is obvious that his strategy is to simply be authentic.
· They have a strong ethical sense.
Although their notions of right and wrong are often unconventional, self-actualizers, nonetheless almost always know the ethical implications of their own actions.
Right and wrong (good and evil) are part of every decision Donald makes.
· They tend to accept democratic values.
Self-actualizers do not respond to individuals on the basis of race, status or religion. They can be and are friendly with anyone of suitable character regardless of class, education, political belief, race or color. As a matter of fact, it often seems as if they are not even aware of these differences, which are for the average person so obvious and important.
Donald is as likely to treat his chauffeur or secretary as equitably as CEOs or politicians.
· They tend to identify with all of mankind.
The concerns that self-actualizers have for other people do not extend only to their friends and family, but to all people in all cultures throughout the world. This feeling of brotherhood extends also to individuals who are aggressive, inconsiderate, or otherwise foolish. Self-actualizers have a genuine desire to help the human race.
Donald consistently shows a universality of concern for all people.
· They exhibit spontaneity, simplicity and naturalness.
Self-actualizers tend to be true to their feelings; what they really feel they tend to say and/or experience. They do not hide behind a mask, and do not act in accordance with social roles. They are true to themselves, speaking candidly and authentically.
One of the traits that makes Donald so popular with voters is that he is “real.”
~~~~
There are many other observations to be made about Mr. Trump being a “self actualizing” person. However, let it suffice to observe that Donald Trump is a brilliant man with a healthy personality. It should be pointed out that “self-actualizing” people are not what most human resources departments are looking for. Most executives want those who will follow the manual and fit into the corporate culture. That does not describe Donald Trump.
Maybe the voters of America share some of the same biases as executives. Perhaps what we need is a rebel genius with self actualized traits to be our President. Lord knows we have tried enough of the other kind of leader.
Bah, I see you a “genius” and raise you a “supergenius” !
The Donald may have made a few bob from property deals, but Hillary is the most successful futures dealer in the history of the planet, EVAH !
Not only did she multiply her $1,000 stake a hundredfold within a year, she found the thing so easy that she then retired from the sport to try to find something that could actually challenge her.
I’m waiting for Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical.
IQ is almost meaningless. I once dated a woman who was a fierce mathematician but utterly useless at physics which was a shame because she was doing a physics degree. I’m a pretty good mathematician but I see physics in a way Anne-Marie simply couldn’t. I have known a fair few pure maths types. I have no idea largely what they did but then they looked at my equations (particularly the very well named “disturbing function” in solar system dynamics) and came over a bit queer.
I am married to a translator. She reads five languages. I only manage English and bits of French, German and Spanish. But my wife can’t do trigonometry. I can. When I started uni in 1992 I aced the computing courses (building Lego robots – that’s cool!) and I did much better at that than most of the intake because of my time with ZX Spectrums and Commodore Amigas. We all have different skill sets. I was pants at thermodynamics but great at stat mech which is much the same but with a different theoretical start point.
One of my science heroes, Richard Feynman who was a gold-plated genius made an absolute tit of himself when he suggested English profs re-jig the written word in phonetic terms. You lose etymology and who’s phonetics anyway? Mid C20th New York Jewish English (Feynman) or late C20th Geordie (me)? Well, what?
My point is you can be brilliant but outside your field a complete numpty. The idea of intellect as a universal tool is absurd these days. It is generally reckoned the last truly universal mathematician was Henri Poincare and he died in 1912. He also had a monocle.
There is just so much to know and we can’t know it all. Or do it all. We are all specialists. We have to be.
“
Oops, somebody did something flaky to the /blockquote tag. 🙁
That’s why it’s great that he’s in the race, but it does not at all mean that it will be a good thing if he wins it.
Bill Clinton also has a high IQ.
I wonder about Hillary’s IQ. Anybody has any hint about it? Where was it seen last?
But, anyway, if Hillary gets elected (the most likely outcome), she’ll at least have a smart and close adviser.
The best thing in Bush’s presidency was Cheney.
I must also commend Paul Marks for the very apt “Juan Peron” metaphor, and Perry for adopting it.
America (that is the US*) becomes more and more like Argentina.
And that is not because of Trump, but because of Hillary = Christina (Kirchner). There are more reasons too.
*Latin Americans feel deeply insulted when you say “America” meaning the US.
Julie,
I have smoked Cuban cigars in Miami. They came via Dominica. Odd what people in need of a smoke will do. Just because it is illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
IQ certainly isn’t meaningless. It just doesn’t do everything you want it to. IQ appears now to be essentially about processing speed. The faster you process the greater your ability to do mental tasks across the board. Which is why the so-called multiple intelligences are generally correlated.
But that doesn’t mean that everyone’s relative ability at different mental tasks is exactly the same, any more than everyone’s relative ability at different physical tasks. Someone who’s fit, athletic, and has good eyesight and hand eye co-ordination is likely to be better at almost any sport than someone who’s more of the couch potato build, and who has poor eyesight. But George who has a physical fitness score of 81.8 may be much better at soccer than Frank (also an 81.8) who happens to be better at tennis. Physical fitness is not the only pre-requisite to success at a particular sport. Part of it is experience and interest rather than raw talent, of course, but raw talent may vary too even between people with the same general fitness score. (For example, darts players are an outlier in that the couch potato build doesn’t suffer. Because darts is roughly 100% hand eye co-ordination, and stamina, athleticism, nimbleness and speed of reaction count for roughly zero.)
Saying IQ is almost meaningless is a bit like saying a car’s acceleration is almost meaningless. It’s meaningless in the sense that it doesn’t tell you everything you want to know about a car. But it tells you something and not just about acceleration itself. It’ll also give you useful clues to things like size, price, fuel consumption etc
One of the things that the Peronist “right” and the Socialist “left” have in common is the offer of “free” health care.
Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have said that everyone will have healthcare and that “the government” will pay for it (wealthy person this “government” – I wonder where they get their money from?).
Neither Mr Trump or Senator Sanders point out that American healthcare is so expensive because of decades of ever increasing government regulations and ever increasing government subsidies – which have distorted (increasingly distorted over decades) everything.
Exactly the same thing is true of student tuition.
The whole “choice” between Fascism and Socialism is an illusion – both are vile.
Although I note that not everyone thinks so.
Yesterday I paid a visit to the “Libertarian Alliance” website (for the first time in about a year – since they blocked my opposition, the comment block was not in force yesterday) – and there were pro Trump posts and anti “capitalist” posts and so on (as I might have expected). Even British local government spending was blamed on a desire to subsidise “business interests”.
So when we are mocking Republicans and Democrats for supporting collectivists such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders – do not forget that some libertarians make the same mistake.
“But Paul, Ted Cruz is not a libertarian”.
No he is not.
Getting rid of 5 Federal Government Departments and 25 Federal Government Agencies would still leave a vast government – even though Ted Cruz is a “nasty man” (as Donald Trump puts it) who will not give in on his design to reduce government (i.e. will not sign budgets with stuff he does not want in them).
And yes getting rid of the Payroll Tax (which so hits the poor) and the Corporation Tax (replacing it with a Texas style business turnover tax) and reducing the Federal Income Tax to 10% would still leave a vast level of taxation.
But such reductions in government are a lot more than anyone else is offering (not difficult as no one else is offering real reductions in government) and are a lot better than a poke in the eye.
It’s noticeable to me that the quality of the candidates for leader in western left-wing parties is really going downhill. Look at the UK first. After Tony Blair you got Gordon Brown, then it got even worse with Ed Miliband, but Miliband seems positively statesman-like compared to Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn… it’s like you went out to the back room that you haven’t been in for years and you discover to your surprise that he’s still there, arguing politics with his student mates, taking votes, writing manifestos, 40 years after you thought everyone had gone home. Now he’s taken over the house and it will take ages to get rid of him.
In the US you always seem to have Hillary Clinton, who has no other accomplishment than having been married to the more popular and successful Bill Clinton. You’d think the Dems could develop another Bill Clinton, but no, all they can get is the woman he cheated on (at least in the UK they don’t have to resort to Robin Cook’s wife). Bernie Sanders is a loony, boring old socialist who’s been ignored and disliked for countless decades. Even Obama was something of a joke, a ‘community organizer’ who’d never done anything and who never said anything beyond vague platitudes, with a hard left voting pattern, who had nothing but a glib charm (which of course proved enough). And Joe ‘BFD’ Biden… enough said.
As for the leaders of the Australian Labour Party, it now seems to be a job requirement that you’re a dill.
The people leading the right-wing parties, however, or campaigning for President, seem to be a similar standard as in years and decades past.
I hope this indicates that the left is dying as a political force, but unfortunately, given the superifical attractions of leftism to the foolish young, anbd even more foolish old, some of these creeps could get their hands on power.
So we have a Peronist and a Chavist vying to replace a Leninist.
This man speaks wisdom. One might bicker a little over the vague term ‘establishment’, but there’s a definite sense of irritation involved. On the heels of President Black The First Black President Did I Mention He’s Black, and if you disagree with him you’re racist, comes Clinton the Second and her posse with a near-identical shtick of disagreement is sexist, now vote vagina, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t vote other women. Meanwhile on the other side, on the heels of Bush the Second and his ‘compassionate conservatism’ which has conserved approximately nothing while managing to grow the welfare state, comes Bush the Third spraying money and wondering why he isn’t getting sprayed with votes in return.
And six months of “Trump’s not serious, Trump can’t win, Trump will inevitably collapse” morphing into “Trump is a sexist, racist, bigoted, backwards, hateful hater who hates, and so are all you people supporting him” has a lot of people cemented in their support for Trump as a way of expressing the grand old American sentiment that when some busybody gets up in your business and wants you to get fucked and do as he says, you can tell the would-be Ms Grundy off with a hearty WELL FUCK YOU TOO and continue exactly as you were. Why shouldn’t this apply to elections? 😉
Moreover: however communist, nationalist or socialist it may sound, when Trump says “Make America Great Again”, it sounds like he’s cheering America. This is a strong advantage in a place where many voters like America, and much of the rest of the field of candidates can’t seem to shut up about how terribly oppressive America is.
Similarly for Trump saying “Build a wall”. Regardless of what one thinks immigration policy ought to be, large numbers of people have perceived experiences with immigration that involve some combination or variant of a) invader wanders in and starts helping himself to your tax money, b) invader commits violent crime and can’t be found by a police too busy writing you speeding tickets, c) invader makes mockery of local law, d) invader forces you to stop displaying the American flag, e) politicians keep talking about the need for more invaders and more rights for invaders. At that point “Build a wall” starts to sound pretty good both as a policy and as a metaphorical middle finger.
It’s all very well to say that implementing libertarianism would solve these problems (and solve them better) by not letting invaders (or anyone else for that matter) help themselves to your tax money and so forth, but that’s like saying a better ship-building philosophy would solve the problem of your leaky boat by building a boat that doesn’t leak. Millions of people feel as though they are in a leaky boat, which bloody well needs to be patched and the water bailed out right fucking now, and visiting the Boat Factory to order a change of boats can be done some other time, like, say, how about not right fucking now. Patching the largest hole with a Great Wall of Trump, while an ugly short-term solution with many drawbacks, has the great advantage of being a near-term solution rather than one promised to take place at some indefinite future time following the cleansing of the Augean Stables.
Mr Ed, I’m unclear on the meaning of your “day of judgment” metaphor. Are you saying that Sanders is Satan (thus implying, I suppose, that Trump is St. Michael)? Or are you saying that I shall one day be judged by those two worthies and my eternal fate will turn on whether or not I voted for Sanders in this primary election? If the former, that’s not really working for me (I consider both to be lesser demons). If the latter, should that day arrive (as an atheist I’m not too troubled by the prospect) I suspect that I will have greater worries than my foolish vote in one single election.
Anyway, whenever such thoughts intrude I reflect on the wisdom of Milton: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
“[…] Peronist “right” and the Socialist “left […]”
There are less differences between Peronism and socialism than between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in the first decade of the XX century.
Interestingly, the last Peronist president of Argentina called Obama “unknowing Peronist”
Nick, put it in the Daily Fail, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, and over here the National Enquirer!
Or, as we Provincials say, “No human biological waste, Sherlock!”
Maybe Trump wins and invites Sanders for VP …
Laird,
Take my post with Occam’s Razor, by voting Sanders you are voting for evil. I really hope that you don’t get it, but if you do, and your vote gave him the necessary delegate for the next stage, would you regret your decision?
Or, if you sup with the Devil, you need a long spoon. I see the logic of your plan, and as Papageno said ‘Wer viel wagt, gewinnt oft viel‘.
Julie, a pithier expression would be “No shi-ite, Sherlock!” It’s better to look on the sunni side.
Lee,
Acceleration (for anything) matters a lot.
Uh, no. He spent time at a Stalinist kibbutz in the ’60s. He honeymooned in the USSR, praised Cuba and the Sandinistas, and disavowed none of that. He thinks child poverty is somehow connected to having “too many” choices of deodorants. I think he’s less of a liberal who leans left than a Marxist pretending to be a centrist.
Mr Ed, of course I’d be voting for evil, but there’s nothing other than evil on the ballot. (I suppose I could write in Cthulhu, but I doubt it would even be counted.) My state sends 53 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention (we’re a “winner-take-all” state), plus 6 unpledged “super-delegates”. A total of 2,382 delegates is required to win the nomination. The odds of my single vote being the one to push Sanders over the top are, shall we say, vanishingly small. But the opportunity cast a ballot against that corrupt harridan, to say nothing of the ability to (truthfully!) tell people that I voted for Sanders? Priceless!
@Cal,
Given that they can still get elected, even if they’re twits like that fool in Canada, what does that say about the voters?
“Latin Americans feel deeply insulted when you say “America” meaning the US.” – Jacob
Wetbacks are always offended by something. And a wall to keep them south of the Rio Grande really burns them.
If you are luke warm on the current GOP lineup, I don’t see the harm in Laird’s tactical voting for Sanders in the primary. In fact, it seems a pretty smart play. A drawn-out battle between Sanders and Clinton will damage both of them (particularly Hillary) and weaken them in the general election. If you generally tilt Republican, surely this would be in your interest come the general election.
I note from the final returns that Trump in an eight way race got more votes than Hillary in a two way race.
Hell YEAH! YUUUUGE!!
getting rid of the Payroll Tax (which so hits the poor)
that’s the only good thing about it – and why we should keep it much longer than many other taxes
and the Corporation Tax (replacing it with a Texas style business turnover tax)
we should get rid of the Corporation Tax. My idea tax would be say 33% of income up to 50,000;
10% of income up to say 500,000; and a flat zero rate for income over $1,000,000.. And that’s it.
Wetbacks are always offended by something. And a wall to keep them south of the Rio Grande really burns them.
Ultimately, Pres TRUMP™ will just nuke the f**k. Not a moment to soon: or rather, 70 years too late!
I’m a Cruz guy, but I don’t think a President Trump would necessarily be the disaster many here believe he would be. I mean, the political wing of the ruling classes know only how to fuck things up when they clamber over enough dead bodies to reach the top. If it comes down to Trump vs Democrat (or Trump vs Jeb!/Christie/Kasich/Rubio/Graham/generic RINO, for that matter), then why not try something different? If a victorious Trump subsequently took us over the cliff, well, that’s just following the trajectory of the series of Democrats and RINOs who have found themselves in the WH over the past couple of decades. What’s there to lose plumping for Trump rather than an Establishment candidate? It is possible that Trump might not suck as President. Looking at who’s still standing in the primary races, the only other person I feel I could say that about is Ted Cruz. (Vale, Carly. We never knew ye.)
James, the fact that the Republican establishment has not actually produce Trump or does not (yet) fully support him, does not at all make him anti or even non-establishment – he is neither. Frankly, he is as establishment as they come, he would have not been where he is now without being part of the establishment, playing by its rules and then some, and actually agreeing with them. The fact that he’s a redhead with a certain temperament is refreshing to many voters, including myself – but it is also an unfortunate distraction.
Is Trump going to be the worst President ever? Maybe, or maybe not – there is no way of knowing, but to varying degrees that is also true with any other candidate, including Sanders whom I detest, and including Cruz who is my current favorite. That question is not the one that voters should be asking themselves before making up their minds about a candidate.
I would also like to remind US voters here that there is neither legal, nor, more importantly, moral obligation to choose from the candidates on offer, which is materially different from voting – as staying home or writing in a protest candidate is also a legitimate, and possibly effective form of voting one’s opinion.
Will the D ticket be Hillary-Bernie or Bernie-Hillary ? Place your bets. Does it matter ?
Libertarian democracy is a largely an Anglo-Saxon thing. People who understand and cheer for it are an extremely small minority of the global population (and also, but less so, of the English speaking population). It was very lucky for the world that a bunch of idealistic lawyers in the British Colonies established a libertarian democratic republic.
Yes, there is libertarian thought outside of the English natural rights tradition, but as the US turns away from the ideals of its founding – and make no mistake immigration has a hand in this – there will no longer be a shining city on the hill.
But there may be a Shining Path…
Alisa, at the start of my comment I mentioned “the political wing of the ruling classes”. This is what I had in mind when I wrote of the “Establishment”. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant the political establishment. The tax eaters. The wealth destroyers.
Trump is a wealth creator. A substantial part of his wealth may well have been derived from entering into grubby alliances with the state, and he surely has powerful friends within the political establishment, but he is a very, very new member of that political establishment, and it could argued even that is not the case, as he has never held political office. He is primarily a wealth creator and has the mentality of a wealth creator. Now, the tax eaters of the political establishment who have monopolised the Oval Office since God-knows-when have generally governed the Republic – aided and abetted by their like-minded subordinates – in a manner that would have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. The professional politicians have set the US well and truly down a road to ruin. I am open-minded towards a Trump candidacy and a Trump Presidency because I think there’s a possibility that Trump may be an entirely different kind of President to his predecessors. Consider that he actually understands through extensive experience where tax revenue comes from, how differing tax rates can influence the behaviour of investors, and the kinds of conditions that are conducive to wealth generation plus those that hinder it. By contrast, your common-or-garden RINO candidate or pretty much any candidate the Democrats put up seems to view wealth as something the government permits its subjects to possess at its indulgence and to be retrieved at a time of its choosing. On this basis alone, I prefer a President Trump over yet another ClintOBushMa, because when Trump leaves office, I think there’s a better chance he’ll leave the Republic in a better state than if he were a member of one of the American Presidential dynasties. Or a McCain, Gore, Dole or Kerry.
I prefer Cruz to Trump because Cruz is as smart as a whip with clearly articulated, consistent principles. Better still, he has made himself hated by the GOP establishment for his belligerent unwillingness to sell out on these principles. I remember Trump bagging out Cruz because none of his Senate colleagues have endorsed him, claiming they can’t stand him – as if that’s a bad thing!! I think a President Cruz really would have a red hot go at burning down as much of the rotten DC edifice as he could. Trump is more of a Hail Mary pass. Still, considering the rest of the field (bar Cruz, of course), he’s worth a try.
I understood your meaning, James – although we obviously may still disagree on the substance. My point is that Trump is still part of the political establishment, even though he has never held public office – because I find that often the actual such holding of office is immaterial to being part of the establishment, acting on its behalf, promoting its interests, etc.
I also have serious doubts as to whether people like Trump are net wealth creators. They (and he) may be, I just don’t know and have my doubts. The mere fact that Trump made (and lost) loads of money does not necessarily mean that the net result of their activity is more wealth for the rest of the society, by which I mean people outside the establishment, with no access to its levers of influence. Neither does the fact that someone’s business is an ostensibly private one serve as assurance of such net wealth creation. For an extreme example of this, think of the large banks that were bailed out because they were too big to fail, and are still operating – are they creating net wealth? I’m not sure of that.
Now granted, even if these people are not net wealth creators, they are far from being wealth destroyers, at least not nearly on the scale of actual politicians like the current President or the two Democratic contestants. But to say that Turmp is not part of the establishment, or even anti-establishment, and that he is not at least implicit in the destruction of wealth or even plain destruction of lives strikes me as wishful thinking.
“Libertarian democracy is a largely an Anglo-Saxon thing.”
Uh!? tell me where such thing exists, i’ll move there tomorrow.
Today Marxism world center is USA.
From Daniel Greenfield (a.k.a. “Sultan Knish”), here is a little different take on the Trumpster that rings fairly true to me.
“To Understand Trump You Have to Understand New York”:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/02/to-understand-trump-you-have-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29
Alternatively, here is Soviet defector Yuri Maltsev on “Socialism, Fascism, and Trumpism,” winding up with some Sandersism as lagniappe. Professor Maltsev is a defector from the U.S.S.R. He teaches economics at Carthage College in Wisconsin and is a Fellow of LvMI. About 18 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXGlUmiHMwU
People attacked me for saying that Barack Obama had a Marxist background (which he does) with the defence that “he does not say he is a socialist – so he not a socialist”.
I doubted the logical strength of such a defence – but it was a defence.
Now we have people going round saying “just because Senator Sanders says he is a socialist does not mean he is a socialist”. Bleep, bleep, bleeping bleep-bleep.
“Ah but Paul he says DEMOCRATIC socialist”.
Yes and I remember all the “Democratic People’s Republics”.
Meanwhile over a Fox News………
Lots of stuff on Donald Trump now – as well as the eternal Rubio boosting.
Anything to keep the Corporate Welfare flowing.
Paul, Yuri Maltsev agrees. (When my UT comes unsmited.*g*)
Cruz is a inveterate liar and a fraud – lies come so easily to him that not a thing he says can be trusted.
Such people generally surround themselves with fools and weaklings because they see honest, able men as a threat to their position. They maintain their careers and social standing through threats and bribery and appeals to the fake prestige of phony titles. And he is outspokenly religious.
Trump, on the other hand, knows that lies only work in the short term. He tends to promote ability and brains because he know businesses can only be successful if they harbour significant real values like loyalty, trust and intelligence.
He is a successful businessman and it’s not by accident or birth.
Would Trump be a successful politician?
It would depend on his advisors.
Politics is outside his usual skill-set. If he picks wisely – no great damage will be done.
If he picks badly…we will have more of the same.
I go with Trump – avoid Cruz like the plague.
This is what happens to casual liars like Cruz – everyone sooner or later deserts them:
“I have bit my tongue long enough. As a delegate for Senator Ted Cruz I have been placed into a difficult and increasingly uncomfortable position and now I have had enough!”
The death of USSC Justice Scalia may be a terrible disaster for the USA, far worse than this Clownfest.
Mr Ed, that is dreadful news. While I’m not an unreserved fan of J. Scalia, I think he was our best asset aside from J. (Clarence) Thomas.
It becomes vitally important not to let either Obama or the Dem 2016 contenders pick the replacement Justice. And it’s not at all clear to me that if Trump were elected he wouldn’t Make a Deal and put in whoever suits whomever he’s currently wooing, who in fact would much more likely be a Jackass than a Heffalump, given that the Jackasses tend to be powering the cart even when it seems as if the Heffalumps would be.
I previously said I was open-minded about a President Trump. However, did he just out himself as a truther in the candidate debate that’s currently raging? Absent a VERY convincing clarification and retraction regarding such an outrageous and offensive position, I am no longer open-minded about Trump, and he is clearly not fit to lead the free world.
I mean, what he said about McCain was pretty awful, but let’s face it, everyone hates McCain – war hero or no – so I can see how Trump got away with it. But suggesting the deaths of 3000+ innocent civilians was masterminded by the Bush Presidency as a pretext to start wars that resulted in many thousands of combat deaths and the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians – wars that were directly linked to the disastrous and laughably-named Arab Spring which has resulted in death and destruction on a biblical scale…oh,and the rise and rise of IS and their murderous attacks on our cities and our liberties…well that is several bridges too far. It insults the deaths of milions and trivialises the suffering of tens of millions more. It is many magnitudes worse than any of the other outrageous nonsense Trump’s come out with.
Mr Ed, it is a tragic loss. However, it changes the dynamics of the GOP primary sigficantly, and in Cruz’s favour, too.
JohnW, what exactly is your connection to Ted Cruz? And your connection to Trump?
I have no connection to either but Cruz creeps me out more than any other politician since Blair – who I had figured out on day one.
Hell, Cruz even gives his own family the creeps!