Trump and Tulsa - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Trump and Tulsa (/thread-19922.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Trump and Tulsa (/thread-19922.html)
Pages:
1
2
Trump and Tulsa - Genuine Realist - 06-20-2020
Trump the Man at his worst.
I'm sceptical of the accusations against Trump the Demon of negligently letting the virus take root, because I don't think that mythical utopia that handled Covid-19 efficiently actually exists. But times have changed since January. There is now a wealth of clinical data, concern, accompanied by the development of social distancing protocols that make a considerable amount of common sense, and as to which a fair consensus exists.
So here's a golden opportunity to proselytize to a crowd of supporters, who badly need the education, as well as defuse some of the racial division that has gripped the nation. (Tulsa is a great place for that, as it has a sordid history, but no contemporary cause.) And Trump will do . . . neither.
He's figured out that his best chance for re-election is to enlarge and exploit the divisiveness that has overtaken the nation. He hopes that the opposition will overreact (as it has), and he will sweep into office on the basis of voters who are angrier or more frightened of the extreme Democratic Left and limp into office. These tactics may prevail, because the opposition falls for them every time.
But, successful or not, they are still dreadfully unpatriotic, and absolutely unworthy of an American President. He should use the opportunity to set a cogent example about common sense about the virus. It's not that he doesn't know better - Donald J.Trump isn't dumb. It's that the tactic doesn't work for him. Pretty pathetic.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - magnus - 06-20-2020
6 of the advanced team have been confirmed positive. Not a good start for those worried about a super spreader event.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - fullmetal - 06-20-2020
The small mercy is that the crowds were smaller than expected, and indeed, they could not fill the venue. However, they crowded the attendees together to give the impression of densely packed crowds...so transmission might have been boosted.
It was a beyond foolish vanity project to do this in the middle of a pandemic that spreads through close contact.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Goose - 06-20-2020
(06-20-2020, 02:13 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Donald J.Trump isn't dumb.I think this is asserting a fact not in evidence. Some people are upsert he won't release his income tax. I am much more interested in why he won't allow the release his transcript from Wharton. Based on the fact he never lays out a reasoned argument for his actions, I do in fact believe he is dumb, and relies on his "gut" for all decisions. He relies on personal relationships to get his way, not rational argument. That is why loyalty is so important to him, and also why somebody can be "great" today and "very bad" tomorrow. His COVID-19 responses are, and have been, based on "feel", not data or reason. Sometimes, what his gut tells him is right. Often, it is not.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Genuine Realist - 06-20-2020
(06-20-2020, 06:48 PM)Goose Wrote:He's so dumb he demolished an entire field of Republican candidates, some of whom were quite impressive, then beat a Democratic icon against all odds to become President. I tend to evaluate intelligence on results.(06-20-2020, 02:13 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Donald J.Trump isn't dumb.I think this is asserting a fact not in evidence. Some people are upsert he won't release his income tax. I am much more interested in why he won't allow the release his transcript from Wharton. Based on the fact he never lays out a reasoned argument for his actions, I do in fact believe he is dumb, and relies on his "gut" for all decisions. He relies on personal relationships to get his way, not rational argument. That is why loyalty is so important to him, and also why somebody can be "great" today and "very bad" tomorrow. His COVID-19 responses are, and have been, based on "feel", not data or reason. Sometimes, what his gut tells him is right. Often, it is not.
Trump is a narcissistic jerk, but he knows exactly what he's doing. What he's doing is extremely bad for the nation, I hope in the short term only.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Goose - 06-20-2020
(06-20-2020, 08:02 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: He's so dumb he demolished an entire field of Republican candidates, some of whom were quite impressive, then beat a Democratic icon against all odds to become President. I tend to evaluate intelligence on results.You aren't demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence on results. You are demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence based on winning elections. Winning elections is not an intelligence test, or anything like it. Trump won because many of the American people felt (rightly IMHO) that the establishment politicians were not paying attention to their concerns. HRC was the poster girl for that condition and made no attempt to address that issue.
I think it is clear from past results over many elections that the "most intelligent" candidate often loses. Such persons often refuse to say things that they know are false in order to get elected. Other, less intelligent and/or less scrupulous politicians are not inhibited by truth or accuracy, and do much better saying what people want to hear. I think it would be great if Mexico would pay for a border wall, but I pretty much wouldn't expect it. I think saying it is pretty stupid, but apparently many voters bought it.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Genuine Realist - 06-20-2020
(06-20-2020, 08:45 PM)Goose Wrote: [quote="Genuine Realist" pid='283597' dateline='1592708548']You aren't demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence on results. You are demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence based on winning elections. Winning elections is not an intelligence test, or anything like it. Trump won because many of the American people felt (rightly IMHO) that the establishment politicians were not paying attention to their concerns. HRC was the poster girl for that condition and made no attempt to address that issue.
He's so dumb he demolished an entire field of Republican candidates, some of whom were quite impressive, then beat a Democratic icon against all odds to become President. I tend to evaluate intelligence on results.
I think it is clear from past results over many elections that the "most intelligent" candidate often loses. Such persons often refuse to say things that they know are false in order to get elected. Other, less intelligent and/or less scrupulous politicians are not inhibited by truth or accuracy, and do much better saying what people want to hear. I think it would be great if Mexico would pay for a border wall, but I pretty much wouldn't expect it. I think saying it is pretty stupid, but apparently many voters bought it.
[/quote
The question wasn't about the relative intelligence of candidates, but whether Trump can be fairly classified as dumb. I don't think that's accurate.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Farm93 - 06-21-2020
(06-20-2020, 06:40 PM)fullmetal Wrote: The small mercy is that the crowds were smaller than expected, and indeed, they could not fill the venue. However, they crowded the attendees together to give the impression of densely packed crowds...so transmission might have been boosted.Well funny thing...
It was a beyond foolish vanity project to do this in the middle of a pandemic that spreads through close contact.
If superspreader deaths are reduced we apparently will be able to thank South Korea, or more accurately its "Army" and "Blinks"
https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/TikTok-Teens-and-K-Pop-Stans-Say-They-Sunk-Trump-15355108.php
lex24 - lex24 - 06-21-2020
Define “dumb”.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Mick - 06-21-2020
(06-20-2020, 08:45 PM)Goose Wrote:(06-20-2020, 08:02 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: He's so dumb he demolished an entire field of Republican candidates, some of whom were quite impressive, then beat a Democratic icon against all odds to become President. I tend to evaluate intelligence on results.You aren't demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence on results. You are demonstrating that you evaluate intelligence based on winning elections. Winning elections is not an intelligence test, or anything like it.
My take is that you're both correct, but from different angles. If one's chief definition of intelligence is solely in the logical-mathematical sense, then Goose, you're right and Trump is, in all likelihood, not very intelligent. But if you agree with Howard Gardner that there are nine types of intelligence:
- Naturalist (nature smart)
- Musical (sound smart)
- Logical-mathematical (number/reasoning smart)
- Existential (life smart)
- Interpersonal (people smart)
- Bodily-kinesthetic (body smart)
- Linguistic (word smart)
- Intra-personal (self smart)
- Spatial (picture smart)
https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-intelligence-infographic/
If one believes in all nine types of intelligence, winning an election might be the ultimate in intelligence tests dependent as it is on the various forms of intelligence. If one defines the other eight types of intelligence as mere soft skills, well, that's why PhD's (outside of Wilson) typically don't become President. In 2016, HRC and the Republican primary contenders demonstrated comparatively little intelligence, though Hillary received three million more votes than Trump (and 18 mm and 21 mm more than Bill received in 1992 and 1996 and nearly 15 mm more than Gore received in 2000). But HRC got the votes in the wrong states, Trump got them in the right states.
Intelligent or no, Trump will lose and lose big in November. But it won't be because he's unintelligent. It will be because his repulsiveness has been on display for four years (an NYC-based billionaire being publicly arrogant and obnoxious - who knew?), and because of COVID-19, civil unrest and the cratering economy. Frankly, it won't be because the Dems will reluctantly begin to make halfway-intelligent decisions. Joe Biden as a candidate...yikes. And there's not a VP in sight who can really help him; perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But Trump will have mucked it up so badly, he'll be out on his rear end by the first Wednesday in November.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Farm93 - 06-21-2020
(06-21-2020, 10:12 AM)Mick Wrote: Intelligent or no, Trump will lose and lose big in November. But it won't be because he's unintelligent. It will be because his repulsiveness has been on display for four years (an NYC-based billionaire being publicly arrogant and obnoxious - who knew?), and because of COVID-19, civil unrest and the cratering economy. Frankly, it won't be because the Dems will reluctantly begin to make halfway-intelligent decisions. Joe Biden as a candidate...yikes. And there's not a VP in sight who can really help him; perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But Trump will have mucked it up so badly, he'll be out on his rear end by the first Wednesday in November.As a native New Yorker I could claim to be offended by the arrogant and obnoxious stuff, but maybe the key attribute was the billionaire thing. Still that perspective is why one has to give President Trump credit for becoming POTUS45. A billionaire NYC real estate tycoon who looked down upon most people not living in Manhattan for his entire life managed to convince people from places like South Carolina, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Michigan that he was genuinely concerned about their welfare and prosperity. That transformation in his image remains impressive and I am confident psychologists, sociologists and historians will study how that happened for years to come.
There are already more than a few people openly encouraging Joe Biden to continue to shelter in his basement. The mental image of Joe Biden as the Trump antidote likely exceeds reality for those eager to support any alternative to President Trump. President Trump's curious obsession to discourage masks and COVID testing in the USA may allow Biden to credibly use that shelter in the basement tactic until election day.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - BostonCard - 06-21-2020
I have lots of thoughts about Trump’s intelligence or lack thereof, but we’re starting to stray far away from the purpose of this board.
BC
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Genuine Realist - 06-21-2020
(06-21-2020, 12:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I have lots of thoughts about Trump’s intelligence or lack thereof, but we’re starting to stray far away from the purpose of this board.Let me get back to purposes.
BC
Trump may or may not be dumb, but his supporters aren't necessarily. My own thought as to the relatively disappointing turnout (from Trump's POV) in Tulsa was the number of possible attendees who wanted nothing to do with an event so unhygienic. They stayed away because of the indifference to social distancing, so I do believe. They may end up voting for him (or, as I view it conceptually, against Biden), but that doesn't mean they buy into the whole rubric about masks or are indifferent to the threat to health.
Trump would be strongly advised to abandon that whole theme (of anti-mask) and quietly back the program. I do believe the vast majority of the American public accepts the need and the rationale.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - BostonCard - 06-21-2020
This strikes me as a bad strategy to get the virus under control.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1274501301745917952?s=21[/tweet]
But hey, at least if you don’t test people you won’t get new cases...
BC
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Mick - 06-21-2020
(06-21-2020, 01:32 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: Trump would be strongly advised to abandon that whole theme (of anti-mask) and quietly back the program. I do believe the vast majority of the American public accepts the need and the rationale.
Had he done that in the first place (along with appropriately resourcing the CDC, encouraging appropriate behavioral adjustments, not recommending medicines that he knew nothing about, and basically shut up, stand aside and let the experts talk) he might have saved his second term. I would have figured he'd have done that merely out of self-preservation.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - magnus - 06-28-2020
Billboard is reporting that Trump campaign staff were spotted removing social distancing stickers off arena chairs before the event.
We all know Trump can change his opinion at the drop of a hat, but between this and the Task Force briefing (and, ok, several other recent things), it sure seems like he's going all in on flouting the virus. An about face seems near impossible at this point.
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Mick - 07-19-2020
(06-21-2020, 10:12 AM)Mick Wrote: Intelligent or no, Trump will lose and lose big in November. But it won't be because he's unintelligent. It will be because his repulsiveness has been on display for four years (an NYC-based billionaire being publicly arrogant and obnoxious - who knew?), and because of COVID-19, civil unrest and the cratering economy. Frankly, it won't be because the Dems will reluctantly begin to make halfway-intelligent decisions. Joe Biden as a candidate...yikes. And there's not a VP in sight who can really help him; perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But Trump will have mucked it up so badly, he'll be out on his rear end by the first Wednesday in November.
Thought it might be Elizabeth Warren...
https://www.axios.com/warren-biden-influence-policies-76513650-bf21-4f32-8ca5-68802b35ebe9.html
One thing is clear. Biden's VP will be the most powerful in history:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/joe-bidens-vice-president-powerful-history/614161/
Would Biden/Warren have approached the pandemic differently? Will they handle it differently once in office? Will we be more prepared?
RE: Trump and Tulsa - BostonCard - 07-19-2020
Well, Warren had a plan for COVID-19 (that she first put forth in the first week of March, the week after the first US death)
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/protecting-from-coronavirus
(updated here)
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/updated-plan-address-coronavirus
Whether it would be any good or not is probably beyond the scope of this site, however it would be a welcome contrast to the haphazard approach taken by this administration.
That being said, I don't think he picks Warren. Prediction markets have Kamala Harris in the lead, followed by Susan Rice:
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5883/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-vice-presidential-nomination
BC
RE: Trump and Tulsa - M T - 07-19-2020
This thread seems started as a political thread and mostly continues that way. Terry rule?
RE: Trump and Tulsa - Snorlax94 - 07-19-2020
The VP prediction markets are often wrong.
If we are predicting, I am predicting Rice (History, ‘86).