The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Does Trump Want To Be President?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 27th, 2017, 5:39 am

Yes, I think that's one technique. A related one is to persuade the "mark" (as I believe persuaders often refer to their victims) that the persuader's ideas were actually the mark's ideas, and he/she was very clever to have thought of them.

My favourite is the one that is traditionally associated with used car salesmen - going to talk to an imaginary boss and then giving the impression that the persuader is on the side of the mark against the unseen boss.

Anyway, in the context of the Trump presidency, do you have an actual persuader in mind?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2338
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Belindi » January 27th, 2017, 9:35 am

Steve wrote:
Anyway, in the context of the Trump presidency, do you have an actual persuader in mind?
Certainly, Don't you? Anyway that's how I interpreted her speech.

I'm not sure that she didn't use each of those techniques that you mentioned. I have more respect for her now. Isn't it a fact that politicians do need thick skins!

Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 27th, 2017, 10:10 am

Ah! You're talking about own Mrs May? Doing the compulsory "is the special relationship still intact?" visit that all British PMs have to do whenever the US elects a new president. I haven't actually listened to her speech in full yet. I'll do so.

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:11 pm to add the following --

Sorry, I meant to say "our own Mrs May". Typo.

Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Grunth » January 27th, 2017, 7:43 pm

Tim Donnelly: “No Voter Fraud in California” and Other Fake Headlines.

http://politichicks.com/2016/11/tim-don ... headlines/

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2338
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Belindi » January 28th, 2017, 6:01 am

Steve3007 wrote:Ah! You're talking about own Mrs May? Doing the compulsory "is the special relationship still intact?" visit that all British PMs have to do whenever the US elects a new president. I haven't actually listened to her speech in full yet. I'll do so.

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:11 pm to add the following --

Sorry, I meant to say "our own Mrs May". Typo.
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian thinks her visit is shameful. Also that the government's view is similar to the one I hopefully expressed. So much depends on Trump's character . I do believe however that Trump is a real and terrible threat to natural environment, world order, and individual liberty , and should not be played down, so anything that any leader can to to mitigate is to be welcomed.

Mrs May could have a parallel agenda to commercially support her Brexit , which seems a pretty poor substitute for trade with Europe .

Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 29th, 2017, 8:29 am

Belindi:
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian thinks her visit is shameful.
I don't see how a visit to a foreign leader could be shameful in itself. Obviously she has to visit and deal with all kinds of people. She simply has to make the best of the hand that she's been dealt. Regardless of what she personally thinks of either Trump or Brexit (I believe she was narrowly in favour of Remain) her job is to make the best of it. Perhaps the only way to do that is to play Trump's deal-making game. I suppose in attempting to get the best possible deal for the UK she can try to use the fact that Trump appears to have a particular view of the post-Brexit UK and Europe. Perhaps, for Trump consumption, it's worth playing up this image of the UK. Play a part to get the desired result. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be useful.

Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Grunth » January 29th, 2017, 8:31 am

Countries make deals. That is how the world works. Such a conspiracy!

Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 29th, 2017, 3:02 pm

Fooloso4: Going back to the discussion about the pros and cons of the electoral college system.

Me:
If I've got this right, then actually these electors don't really seem to serve much purpose except as simple communicators of the will of the people of their state. They're just messengers. Is that right, or am I missing something?
Fooloso4:
That is correct in part. But, given the historic number of electors who did not vote for the party candidate it may be that electors will once again be more than just messengers.
If they do become more than just messengers then surely it could be argued that they are no longer expressing the will of the people of their state as to who becomes president? They're becoming more like standard elected politicians.

Each state gets a number of electors which is a direct measure of the number of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives for that state. When you vote for a presidential candidate in your state you are actually voting for one of these electors but, if they act simply as messengers, it amounts to the same thing. If they don't act simply as messengers and cast their votes based on personal convictions about various policy issues then they are acting pretty much like any other elected representative acts - like a senator or a congressman. (Details of the process appear to vary slightly in some states, but the principle seems to be more or less the same.)

The question is: If they act simply as messengers then they are essentially no different from the "returning officers" and other functionaries in parliamentary democracies. But if they do more than that then they are acting essentially no differently from elected politicians in other systems, such as members of parliament who are elected by the people of their region of the country and then use their own judgement to elect a party leader.

In either case, to my simple mind they don't really seem to serve a distinct, useful function. They're either mindless machines or duplicates of already existing politicians.

I look forward to hearing from an American who can set me straight on this.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Fooloso4 » January 29th, 2017, 5:04 pm

Steve:
If they do become more than just messengers then surely it could be argued that they are no longer expressing the will of the people of their state as to who becomes president?
The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a democracy.The concern at the founding was the tyranny of the majority. Ironically, the point that was made is that the majority could elect a demagogue. So, yes, electors casting their ballots for or against a candidate contrary to the popular vote in that state would not express the will of the people of that state. But, the will of the people is not sacrosanct.

The assumption was that the people do not always know or do what is in their best interest. The expectation was that there would be a natural aristocracy who by their wisdom through concerted deliberation and debate would do what was in the people’s best interest. The reality today is obviously quite different, not only as a matter of procedure but of character. (The notion of a natural aristocracy is today typically rejected as elitist and anti-democratic).
They're becoming more like standard elected politicians.
The parties in each state determine who the electors for that state will be through their own procedures. The electors are not necessarily politicians and are not voted into office like standard politicians.
In either case, to my simple mind they don't really seem to serve a distinct, useful function. They're either mindless machines or duplicates of already existing politicians.
There are two differences: first, their only function is to cast their ballot for president and vice president. Second, the presidential candidate for one party might win the state election and a candidate for another party might win a house or senate seat. In practical terms their role is perfunctory. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state gets the electoral votes. Most people have no idea who their electors are, although in the last election there was an effort to identify electors and try to persuade them that it was their duty not to elect someone who is incompetent to hold office.

Gertie
Posts: 694
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Gertie » January 29th, 2017, 6:36 pm

Belindi
Mrs May could have a parallel agenda to commercially support her Brexit , which seems a pretty poor substitute for trade with Europe .
Yes and yes.

Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 29th, 2017, 6:55 pm

Fooloso4:
The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a democracy.The concern at the founding was the tyranny of the majority. Ironically, the point that was made is that the majority could elect a demagogue.
Yes, I understand that. We all know that the election of a demagogue is a real possibility...
So, yes, electors casting their ballots for or against a candidate contrary to the popular vote in that state would not express the will of the people of that state. But, the will of the people is not sacrosanct.
...but the use of representative democracy defends somewhat against that. And my point was that the USA is already a representative democracy by virtue of the fact that it has a house of representatives, and my understanding is that the original idea was that the indirect election of the president would be achieved by having him elected by Congress.
The assumption was that the people do not always know or do what is in their best interest. The expectation was that there would be a natural aristocracy who by their wisdom through concerted deliberation and debate would do what was in the people’s best interest. The reality today is obviously quite different, not only as a matter of procedure but of character. (The notion of a natural aristocracy is today typically rejected as elitist and anti-democratic).
Yes, when expressed in that way it is unpopular today. Of course, the idea of a Republic run by a natural aristocracy of the wise goes back to Plato's Republic. The point made by Plato that every field, including the field of legislation, needs experts and that you wouldn't ask a majority to make decisions in other fields of expertise, like medicine, is a compelling one. It's interesting to see how modern populists use the rejection of this idea as elitist to portray themselves as champions of the people against "so-called experts".
The parties in each state determine who the electors for that state will be through their own procedures. The electors are not necessarily politicians and are not voted into office like standard politicians.
Yes, so I've gathered.
There are two differences: first, their only function is to cast their ballot for president and vice president. Second, the presidential candidate for one party might win the state election and a candidate for another party might win a house or senate seat. In practical terms their role is perfunctory. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state gets the electoral votes. Most people have no idea who their electors are, although in the last election there was an effort to identify electors and try to persuade them that it was their duty not to elect someone who is incompetent to hold office.
Yes, I've read this too. The electoral college still doesn't seem to me to be radically different from other forms of representative democracy and indirect election of the leader. As far as I can see protection against tyranny of the majority, against election of despots and for local (states) rights has more to do with having two separate houses, a written constitution and an independent judiciary. It looks like we're seeing the utility of that last one right now with Trump's attempts to ban entry to the US of entire countries facing legal challenges.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Fooloso4 » January 29th, 2017, 8:00 pm

Steve:
As far as I can see protection against tyranny of the majority, against election of despots and for local (states) rights has more to do with having two separate houses, a written constitution and an independent judiciary. It looks like we're seeing the utility of that last one right now with Trump's attempts to ban entry to the US of entire countries facing legal challenges.
What is interesting is that the tyrant was not elected by the majority. The majority in this case would have prevented tyranny. The question of the balance of power is going to be of central importance. The pivotal point is whether the Republicans will follow him or oppose him. Together they are going to control the makeup of the Supreme Court and possibly control the Court itself by whom they appoint. Many high visibility, powerful Republicans who vehemently opposed him now act as his lap dogs.

It is telling that Bannon is saying that the press is the opposition party. The press has always served as another mechanism of checks and balances, but Bannon is attempting to discredit it by painting it as if it has taken sides against Trump rather than taking the side of truth. In addition, if the press is the opposition party then what are the Democrats? Does he think they are too weak to be of relevance? Has he underestimated them? And too, there is the opposition of large numbers of people. Public protest is only one aspect of what will be happening.

Steve3007
Posts: 5827
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Steve3007 » January 30th, 2017, 1:22 pm

It is telling that Bannon is saying that the press is the opposition party. The press has always served as another mechanism of checks and balances, but Bannon is attempting to discredit it by painting it as if it has taken sides against Trump rather than taking the side of truth.
This whole business with the latest executive order, and whether it's a ban on Muslims is a funny example of all this. The media starts from Trump's campaign pledges for a:
total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
They then see him trying to see if he can do that legally. Including doing things like asking Rudy Giuliani how he could do that:
"He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
Throw into the mix the words of, for example, Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser who characterised Islam as a "malignant cancer".

Then, sure enough, the executive order comes along with temporary blanket bans on people coming from 7 predominantly Muslim countries. Taking into account all of these events, it seems like the most reasonable thing in the world to describe that as the Muslim ban that was promised. It seems to be Trump attempting, within the confines of the law the constitution and wider geo-political reality, to do what he had pledged to do. But then we get Trump saying:
To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.
I can see how people in the media would be confused by all this. Why isn't he proudly declaring that it is indeed the promised Muslim ban, implemented to the greatest extent that is legally and politically possible, just as he'd intended? This would be more like the blunt, tell-it-like-it-is Trump that people voted for. Instead, his people point to the fact that there are some Muslim nations to which the ban does not apply. But, given the above, it seems obvious that those nations were excluded because it would be politically impossible to include them. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are key allies and Turkey is a NATO member.

It seems that President Trump wants the media to help him to escape from his own pledges and if they won't do so, they're all against him. I guess we can expect a lot more of this kind of chaotic fun and games in future.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Fooloso4 » January 30th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Steve:
They then see him trying to see if he can do that legally.
According to the NYT:
Mr. Trump’s plan received little or no legal review. The secretary of homeland security was not asked for guidance, and Customs and Border Protection officers were unaware.
… the secretary of homeland security was on a White House conference call getting his first full briefing on the global shift in policy.

Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.
Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the official said, stunned.
nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/dona ... 0&_r=0
I guess we can expect a lot more of this kind of chaotic fun and games in future.
Unfortunately.


Another important story is Trump’s:
… executive order giving [Bannon] a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council — while downgrading the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. It is a startling elevation of a political adviser, to a status alongside the secretaries of state and defense, and over the president’s top military and intelligence advisers.
nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-banno ... n_20170130

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Does Trump Want To Be President?

Post by Syamsu » January 30th, 2017, 9:22 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:The election {it should be called 'selection'} is already over - Hillary has been chosen - she can not lose - The media blitz
against Trump is just window dressing - There is no way in hell that 'they' are going to allow him to be President.

So yes, Hillary will be the first woman President - but it will not be of the USA - Hillary will be the first President of what
is often called 'The New World Order" - Western division.

And don't worry about 'the damn emails' as Bernie Sanders, the great Clinton shill called them - this is part of the agenda
- learn to accept corruption and rule by a criminal elite - Welcome to 'The New World Order' :!:
LOL

Post Reply