Does Trump Want To Be President?

[Fooloso4]

Steve3007:

Anyway, I guess we just don't know with any certainty exactly why Trump lies.

I think the root is his need for adulation, that is, honor, praise, and recognition.

He is a salesman, and whatever else he is selling he is selling himself. He lies in order to sell something of questionable value, and he sells in order to gain status. This is why he puts his name on everything he sells. He has been very successful at this, to the point that he now sells his name. What pieces of the United States will he put his name on? And in what ways will he sell us short in order to put his name there?

He lies in order to maintain his image of himself, an image he desperately needs to see reflected in the image that others have of him. This is why he lied about the size of crowd at his inauguration. (It was reported that he was enraged that the women’s mark dwarfed the attendance at the inauguration and stole the spotlight from him.) This is why he is lying about the results of the popular election. This is why he lies about the current polls measuring his popularity being rigged.

The hat tells only part of the story. It is not: “Make America Great Again” but “I will make America great again”. He remains silent on when America was great, and he lies about its current condition. Even before taking office he attempted to take credit for the increase in December for the Consumer Confidence Index and the robust stock market. Two things seem likely: as long as the economy continues to improve, he will take credit and if it does not he will blame someone else. In other words, he will continue to lie in order to sell Trump and gain adulation.

[Grunth]

Grunth:

Ok. So you don't understand why there is an electoral college system.

I said she won the popular vote. This is an undisputed fact. You bring up the electoral college, which is something different than the popular vote. This too is an undisputed fact. Based on this alone you accuse me of not understanding the electoral college system.

So what is your understanding of the reasons for the electoral college system?

'Winning' the 'popular vote' is a non sequitur with regard to the democratic ballot system of the United States.

So, therefore, do you know THE REASONS for the ACTUAL SYSTEM used to DEFINE DEMOCRACY for ALL CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES?

-- Updated January 26th, 2017, 11:05 am to add the following --

After all, it is not Trump's rules or Trump's system. It is America's rules and system.

[Fooloso4]

Grunth:

So what is your understanding of the reasons for the electoral college system?

'Winning' the 'popular vote' is a non sequitur with regard to the democratic ballot system of the United States.

So, therefore, do you know THE REASONS for the ACTUAL SYSTEM used to DEFINE DEMOCRACY for ALL CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES?

If you wish to tell us all you learned from watching a video about the electoral system start a thread. Many of us in the U.S. learned about it in grade school. I cannot speak for what others in other countries learned or what you did not learn in school, but this is not some kind of arcane or esoteric knowledge. Anyone with an interest in the election understands the difference between the popular vote and electoral votes.

After all, it is not Trump's rules or Trump's system. It is America's rules and system.

No one claimed it is Trump’s rules or Trump’s system. No one even said anything about rules or systems. The issue, which you conveniently dropped, is lies by Trump’s administration.

[Grunth]

Grunth:

So what is your understanding of the reasons for the electoral college system?

'Winning' the 'popular vote' is a non sequitur with regard to the democratic ballot system of the United States.

So, therefore, do you know THE REASONS for the ACTUAL SYSTEM used to DEFINE DEMOCRACY for ALL CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES?

If you wish to tell us all you learned from watching a video about the electoral system start a thread. Many of us in the U.S. learned about it in grade school. I cannot speak for what others in other countries learned or what you did not learn in school, but this is not some kind of arcane or esoteric knowledge. Anyone with an interest in the election understands the difference between the popular vote and electoral votes.

After all, it is not Trump's rules or Trump's system. It is America's rules and system.

No one claimed it is Trump’s rules or Trump’s system. No one even said anything about rules or systems. The issue, which you conveniently dropped, is lies by Trump’s administration.

Ah, this thread is not titled 'Sean Spicer's perception of inauguration numbers', so my point is as valid in this thread than your particular gripe.

And I am not asking you for your understanding of the counting process of the US democratic voting system. I am asking if you understand WHY that process. It appears, so far, that you do not understand WHY votes are counted in the way they are.

This 'popular vote' thing is as much a non sequitur as calling that march the other day a 'women's' march. It was an anti Trump and anti US democracy march.

-- Updated January 26th, 2017, 12:44 pm to add the following --

Sean Spicer should learn not to engage with non sequiturs.

[LuckyR]

I think Spicer and Conway lie because it is part of their job description.

Yes, I guess in a sense the question of whether they lie is almost as meaningless as the question of whether the loudspeaker connected to Trump's microphone lies. With all such spokespeople, the question of what they actually think themselves only becomes relevant once they're off the payroll. The task while they're on it is simply packaging a message whose truth or falsehood is irrelevant.

Anyway, I guess we just don't know with any certainty exactly why Trump lies. We'll only have a chance to find out years from now when various people who are currently close to him can speak freely.

Trump is not an inherent liar. If the facts supported what he was interested in proposing, he is happy to repeat them. Though he clearly is also happy to make stuff up if the facts don't happen to support his agenda. Doesn't matter.

He an extreme "ends" guy who has no qualms about the "means" required to get there.

[Fooloso4]

Thinking about Trump’s allegations of voter fraud I've become concerned that there may be another more sinister reason. If he make make it appear that the system is corrupt then he can take it over or exercise measures that are purported to eliminate fraud but have the effect of suppressing voters or worse.

And speaking of lies: His promise that Mexico will pay for the wall have morphed into Mexico will reimburse us for the wall. Trumpty Dumpty will sit on his wall. Trumpty Dumpty will have a great fall.

[LuckyR]

Thinking about Trump’s allegations of voter fraud I've become concerned that there may be another more sinister reason. If he make make it appear that the system is corrupt then he can take it over or exercise measures that are purported to eliminate fraud but have the effect of suppressing voters or worse.

And speaking of lies: His promise that Mexico will pay for the wall have morphed into Mexico will reimburse us for the wall. Trumpty Dumpty will sit on his wall. Trumpty Dumpty will have a great fall.

Well just as Clinton's philandering begat W. And W's economic misfortunes begat Obama. And Obama's race begat Trump, the Cheeto will bring about his successor.

[Grunth]

Thinking about Trump’s allegations of voter fraud I've become concerned that there may be another more sinister reason. If he make make it appear that the system is corrupt then he can take it over or exercise measures that are purported to eliminate fraud but have the effect of suppressing voters or worse.

And speaking of lies: His promise that Mexico will pay for the wall have morphed into Mexico will reimburse us for the wall. Trumpty Dumpty will sit on his wall. Trumpty Dumpty will have a great fall.

You talk about voting and yet you do not even understand the reasons the voting system is what it is. You provide no evidence that you even understand the existing system you claim to be concerned about.

[Steve3007]

Grunth:

And I am not asking you for your understanding of the counting process of the US democratic voting system. I am asking if you understand WHY that process. It appears, so far, that you do not understand WHY votes are counted in the way they are.

In your view, if you ask somebody a question in this forum and they don't fully answer it here, does that demonstrate to you that they don't know the answer or don't understand the question?

Like you, I am not American so did not learn about the reasons for the existence of the US electoral college system as a matter of course at school. I've had to look it up afterwards. These days I can Google it and get what seems like a reasonable summary from various sources pretty quickly. That's what I have done. How about you? How have you learned about it? Same general method? Or some other method, like reading American Studies or World Politics at University?

LuckyR:

Trump is not an inherent liar. If the facts supported what he was interested in proposing, he is happy to repeat them. Though he clearly is also happy to make stuff up if the facts don't happen to support his agenda. Doesn't matter.

He an extreme "ends" guy who has no qualms about the "means" required to get there.

Yes, I agree that is one of the plausible explanations for his words. As I was musing earlier, perhaps he just takes the view that the function of words is not to convey true, factual information but to get you what you want. If, in performing that function, they do convey factual information, that is incidental. I can see the logic of that position. (In assessing people's words and actions it always helps if you can see a rational reason for them, from that person's point of view - a motive.)

If what you want is to teach and learn then clearly that correlation always exists, so it's easy to be mistaken as to the primary function of language.

[Grunth]

Grunth:

And I am not asking you for your understanding of the counting process of the US democratic voting system. I am asking if you understand WHY that process. It appears, so far, that you do not understand WHY votes are counted in the way they are.

In your view, if you ask somebody a question in this forum and they don't fully answer it here, does that demonstrate to you that they don't know the answer or don't understand the question?

Or he thinks he will be trapped by his answer. If so, then he is ware of the fragility of his position.

Like you, I am not American so did not learn about the reasons for the existence of the US electoral college system as a matter of course at school. I've had to look it up afterwards. These days I can Google it and get what seems like a reasonable summary from various sources pretty quickly. That's what I have done. How about you? How have you learned about it? Same general method? Or some other method, like reading American Studies or World Politics at University?

The level of each of our understanding could be bore out from a discussion of the matter.

[Dolphin42]

To give him his due: A lot of Trump's words after the election are matching quite closely his words during the campaign. Most recently, he has repeated his determination to fight fire with fire by re-instating torture. It looks like we can look forward to a return of the concept of "extraordinary rendition" - getting around the tricky problem of wanting to do things to people that are illegal under US law by taking them outside of the US to do them.

Is he just being a realist? After all, torturing and beating confessions out of people is standard practice in much of the world. Trump has stated that he wants to leave foreign governments to do whatever they want, but to create a USA which is an example for others to follow. It looks likely that many will be eager to follow this example. And maybe it works? In Syria, for example, starving, torturing, raping and killing terrorists and their families in prison appears to be standard practice, as numerous testimonies and smuggled photographs show. This, among other things, seems to be working for the Assad government. Against the expectations of many, Assad has survived and it looks like he will prevail. The current round of peace talks are apparently viewed by the Assad government as the terrorists negotiating the terms of their surrender.

Maybe Orwell was right in 1984? Maybe if you want a vision of the future you really should imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever? It works.

[Steve3007]

Or he thinks he will be trapped by his answer. If so, then he is ware of the fragility of his position.

On the subject in which you seem to be interested - the electoral college system - he didn't seem to have taken a position. He didn't seem to be talking about it.

So where did you learn about the US electoral college system? Good old Wikipedia did it for me. Is that a fragile position?

[Grunth]

Or he thinks he will be trapped by his answer. If so, then he is ware of the fragility of his position.

On the subject in which you seem to be interested - the electoral college system - he didn't seem to have taken a position. He didn't seem to be talking about it.

So where did you learn about the US electoral college system? Good old Wikipedia did it for me. Is that a fragile position?

The strength or weakness of your position on a matter is dependent on your interpretation of what you believe is reasoned information or education. So what do you think you learned from 'good old wikipedia' about why the electoral system exists and what it therefore does to maintain a United States?

[Steve3007]

So what do you think you learned from 'good old wikipedia' about why the electoral system exists and what it therefore does to maintain a United States?

Well, I hope somebody with a more in-depth knowledge of US politics will correct me here if I'm wrong, but one underlying reason for the general principle of the president being elected by other politicians, rather than directly by the people, seems to be not dis-similar from the reasons why other countries, such as the UK, also favour representative democracy, in which the leader is elected indirectly by other politicians who are themselves directly elected, rather than direct democracy in which the executive is directly elected by an overall popular majority.

Initially (I've read) it was proposed that this be achieved, in the case of the USA, by the president being elected by Congress. I guess this would be similar to the UK system in which we vote for MPs and they then elect a Prime Minister. But it was recommenced that, instead of that, the president (and VP) should be elected by a group of people appointed by each individual state whose number was proportional to the number of congressmen but who weren't prone to being seen as a kind of cosy, closed-door club with lots of other pre-existing interests to consider when making their choice. Apparently this was deemed to protect the election process from factionalism and private deal-making among a close-knit group. The states' electors came together for only that purpose.

The downside of the process of electing the leader by a "club" of MPs (or congressmen in the US) who already have lots of other interests to consider has been amusingly illustrated in various UK comedy satires of the processes of UK government. And we certainly do seem to see evidence in this behind-closed-doors plotting and deal-making when UK political party leaders are elected.

A wildly naive and ridiculous summary or reasonably accurate? Any Americans care to comment?

[Grunth]

So what do you think you learned from 'good old wikipedia' about why the electoral system exists and what it therefore does to maintain a United States?

Well, I hope somebody with a more in-depth knowledge of US politics will correct me here if I'm wrong, but one underlying reason for the general principle of the president being elected by other politicians, rather than directly by the people, seems to be not dis-similar from the reasons why other countries, such as the UK, also favour representative democracy, in which the leader is elected indirectly by other politicians who are themselves directly elected, rather than direct democracy in which the executive is directly elected by an overall popular majority.

Except, this was not the case. The President was elected 'by the people' based on the numbers in his favor in each state. Not by 'other politicians'. The electoral college electors, barring a handful, mainly democrats, voted along with the numbers counted from the ballot.

What do you think would happen if there were not state electorates but only a popular vote across the entire country, given the fact that California and New York are the most densely populated of states?