If Trump Is Half As Bad As His Critics Say…
…then how has he been cutting business deals for decades?
A progressive opponent of Trump, like Bernie Sanders, is being consistent. He thinks the market economy is a vulnerable thing that needs all sorts of government oversight to achieve even a basic level of functionality.
Also, fans of the market who strongly disagree with Trump’s policies (such as protectionism or immigration restrictions), but who think he is a sharp, misguided person, are also being consistent.
But what is weird to me are the (many?) thousands of libertarians / conservatives who revere a free market economy, and yet also think that Trump is a stumbling buffoon who is a pathological liar and surrounds himself with ignorant yes-men.
If that is the case, how is it possible that word on the street hasn’t alerted investors to this fact? Why was Trump still signing new deals before his political run?
I BESEECH YOU, in the comments please don’t say, “Bob, you can be good at business but awful with economic theory. Look at George Soros.” Yeah I get that. I specifically showed above that that’s not what I’m talking about here.
He pays junk bond rates to his creditors, Bob.
And I will absolutely admit that Trump is a publicity idiot savant.
No-one adjusts for risk in a market? You like Will are not answering Bob’s question.
Huh? My comment says exactly that people in the market adjust for what a risk Trump is when they lend to him.
You really think a “sharp, misguided person” is going to be deemed such credit risk?
This is really stupid, Craw. Do you and Bob really believe no one ever takes crazy risks in business on the off chance they pay off?
And if not, Craw, why do you think Americans should be obligated to take on the risk of Trump, without so much as the slightest protest against such an imposition?
Neither of you has any concept of risk preference, apparently. Which is baffling.
You make Trump sound like he never made billions
You ignore the nominal amount creditors lend to him
You try walking into a bank and asking for millions in loans
Murphy is right, there is something really strange in the minds of the “Trump is an idiot” critics
Almost as if there is envy there
You guys are caricaturing yourselves here, come on. It would really shake your worldview if sometimes stupid people got rich or did business? The magnitude is totally irrelevant.
Well, honestly I think you are embarrassing yourself by publicly declaring you are envious, resentful, with an inferiority complex
Would it shake your worldview if what YOU consider to be stupid, is just you purposefully blinding yourself to those characteristics of people that motivate and influence people to organize around them?
Since when was the smartest person supposed to be the wealthiest? Didn’t Einstein die relatively poor?
I think it is your worldview that you are having trouble reconciling with reality
Please note that my assessment here is not so much directed at you personally Andre_FL, it is just something that I see so often from people who otherwise are intelligent and influential people themselves
I’m f*cking offended that you think I begrudge Trump his wealth just because he’s a moron. I begrudge him his political office, not the same thing.
“I’m f*cking offended…”
Cognitive dissonance!
Except he didn’t make his wealth while in office, and you have been criticizing his life pre-office
I’m confused
I have not said one word of criticism of his private life.
MF, please clarify. Did you mean Trump’s life pre-presidency, or did you mean just his *private* life? Did you, while discussing at length and repeatedly his business dealings, mean to exclude his business dealing?
Andrew_FL, you started this thread off with criticizing his business ability and stuff before he was President, i.e. a public official
What is it? He sucks because of what he has done since Jan 20? Or he sucks because of what he did prior?
Look, the point Bob made was people do deals with him. You asserted — with no evidence– that he pays junk bond rates as if that showed Bob was wrong. But it doesn’t. The market isn’t just Blue Chips. It’s a whole range of things all of players must perform or perish. Including those who deal in high risk, high reward ventures. So Trump is a player in such a functioning market. Bob is addressing people who worship the market. By that standard Trump *has earned and deserves* to be a player in the market. That is not the description of a stumbling buffoon and pathological liar surrounded by yes-men.
The disconnect is between Trump is Col Klink and Trump is a part of a market that never errs.
As Bob well knows, and you should to, I have never asserted something so ridiculous as the market never errs. Maybe check my comments on some of the posts here on EMH.
What is a “publicity idiot savant”?
Is that someone you don’t like who made a lot of money in the market?
It means there is one thing he’s good at and that’s publicity, but otherwise he’s an idiot. I can’t believe that wasn’t self explanatory.
It would better or more fair if wealthy people needed to be intelligent but anti-social creeps? Is that it?
How is he an idiot? He has an economics degree from Wharton. You make it sound like he is a high school drop out hick from Arkansas
I recommend you read Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) and his assessment of Trump
It is analytical and without the emotional baggages of hate and envy
I don’t know why you are reading envy into the things I’ve said, MF, but frankly it’s insulting because you seem to be under the impression that having a problem with Trump politically makes me a socialist.
Where are you explaining your issues with his political views though? All I see is you dissing on his personal intelligence and alleged lack of success in the market
Forgive me if what I wrote conveyed the impression you were socialist
Nowhere did I intend to say that
I can’t believe you didn’t know MF’s question was self evidently mockery.
I’m starting to get a good sense of who IS an idiot…
Hi Stephen, did you have something to contribute to this conversion? No? Just gonna call people idiots for not liking Trump? Okay glad we’ve established that I can totally ignore your content free comments.
What makes you think SD is implying you are an idiot simply because you dislike Trump? You have a (Trump-like) fit when I characterize your arguments, then feel free to (mis)characterize his, with an insult on top!
Ask people in NY real estate. Trump is widely considered a joke who overpays and under delivers. His public company wiped out his investors, his casino deals wiped out his creditors,etc. He inherited a ton of money, and hadn’t blown it yet, but his returns are less than if he had just stuck his cash in the market, despite being handed a NY real estate company at the beginning of the largest real estate boom in the history of mankind.
That ignores Bob’s question. Why were people dealing with him still? Even if he’s still solvent because he was born so rich, if he is that awful for his partners and creditors, and if markets suss out such things, why would people do deals? By your theory they would be better sitting on their money than getting a Trump rate of return.
They mostly stopped doing deals directly with him. After his casino disaster, he moved to less reputable lenders, which lead to the stories of his Russian connections. After that well started drying up, the Apprentice brought him back and his business mostly shifted to licencing his brand name to anyone who wanted it.
He was mostly successful as a reality star licensing a brand. He has been more a Kim Kardashian than a real estate guy.
“Trump’s real estate holdings form the core of his assets and provide much of his income, with a wide array of real estate licensing, branding and marketing deals and royalties that provide millions in annual cash flow.[34][35] As of 2005 Trump-branded condominiums in New York City sold for 36% more than comparable properties, according to the Corcoran Group.[36] In 2015, Trump earned $71 million from condo sales and collects $41.9 million in rental income on his buildings annually.[37]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
Yeah what a financial loser huh? Losing money left right and centre
Note it says “a wide array of licensing, marketing and branding deals” as I said- more Kim Kardashian than developer. He used his time in reality tv to build a brand.
No one is saying he isn’t rich – the issue is his rate of return, which has been middling at best, below market returns. We have the most information about his old public company, which lost money every single year it existed.
“Note it says “a wide array of licensing, marketing and branding deals” …
What an idiot! He makes lots of money on very low-risk ventures… how could you be stupider than that!!!!
What “casino disaster?” Do you mean the recession of the 2000s spurred on by the housing market failure? Do you mean the collapse of the Atlantic City casino scene as a whole as a result of the economic downturn? Do you mean the closing of the Revel, which he had no money in, after more than a decade of development, two bankruptcies, and just two and one-half years in operation? Do you mean when he sold his casino properties?
Do you now what you are talking about???
Will, he has started over 500 companies. You write as if he has started two! Out of the 500, around 10 have gone bankrupt. Fantastic success rate. And I personally know people in NY real estate. They consider Trump very shrewd.
The number of companies you start is irrelevant, it’s your rate of return. If you start one company and double your money, and I start 500 and only increase my money by 10% then you are the better businessman. Trump has been bad for his investors, across the board, and had only middling returns for himself.
But he did stick his money in the market. Do you not know how real estate development works?
He’s a multi-billionaire with property assets of various types in several states and a handful of companies.
What are you talking about???
Give it up Bob Murphy. I can see you are trying to be consistent and fair in judging Trump, and not just giving in to emotional responses, but it’s a lost cause pitching that approach to others. Even Landsburg refuses.
INCENTIVES. Trump behaved better in the marketplace than he does in public life because the marketplace has better incentives. In public life, he just needs to appear to stick it to the establishment on some issues to be a hero to many of us.
See Andrew and Matt? This is what an answer looks like. I am not sure it’s right, but it addresses Bob’s point. It doesn’t just sputter “He’s an idiot.”
This is not an answer, it’s just slobbering worship of Donald Trump. Which is the only thing you ever tolerate, Craw.
Shailesh,
OK I like that, but doesn’t Trump want to succeed politically? E.g. yes the incentives would explain why, say, Trump would authorize $54 billion in defense spending that contains a lot of waste, whereas he wouldn’t authorize $54 billion in spending on condominiums without more oversight of the subcontractors.
But some of Trump’s critics are saying he refuses to tolerate any advisor who criticizes him. Isn’t that a dumb thing to do, in any sphere of activity? Wouldn’t you want good legal advice on your Executive Orders, good economic advice on a border tax, etc.?
I think Trump has an incentive: ego. i think that’s more of an incentive for him now than more money.
Trump picked a few appointments who clearly do criticize him. Mattie will, Gorsuch has, Pence has.
When we say the President / politicians have bad incentives, it also means that finding good advisers is very difficult. A very high majority of the known experts are either clueless, misguided, influenced or outright evil.
For a person like Trump who has below average understanding of public policy, to find good advisers who he can trust, who can survive the hostile establishment and who also agree with his/his core supporters’ misguided convictions is almost impossible.
Also, Trump is way past his prime.
This place is getting weird
Zack M if you’re saying that my commentary isn’t the “Trump is a savior” or “Trump is Hitler” that you can get elsewhere on the internet, then my work is done here.
I was referring to the comments section
Got weird years ago.
Oh OK Zack M. Sorry I’m as defensive as General Turgidson lately.
>But what is weird to me are the (many?) thousands of libertarians / conservatives who revere a free market economy, and yet also think that Trump is a stumbling buffoon who is a pathological liar and surrounds himself with ignorant yes-men.
This may shock people to hear, but I believe thousands of libertarians and conservatives who praise the free market, do not truly understand it.
They’re the kinds of boorish louts who habitually engage in self-righteous, virtue signalling hatefests against wealthy “personalities” like the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, and yes, Donald Trump. They grew up reading economics and political philosophy books written during times when “real producers” were the popular wealthy people. They never think of entrepreneurs like PT Barnum. They have this rather quaint and quite frankly hokey image of ideal capitalism. They more often than not lack the characteristics such as persuasive and influential. They do not understand that people who are just great speakers and influential, can make billions by organizing people around them who want to be so organized by that influential person. They are not breaking their backs working in the mines, or getting triple PhDs and developing on their own time machines or teleporters. A lot of the geeky libertarians want to believe that all their education and “skills” will one day pay off, and they resent it when they see blowhardknow-nothings convince other people to pay them millions or billions. The world just wouldn’t be fair if that was normal.
So to feel better about themselves, much like liberals and progressives calling everyone else racists and sexists, these libertarians and conservatives need to constantly hate on the loud mouthed know-nothing millionaires. It is just catharsis. White noise
What many hate about markets is that *people like that* can succeed. Insert the appropriate people. Leftist intellectuals hate that plumbers can get rich for instance.
If you’ll excuse me if you’ll pardon me, but I will say that there are many MANY so-called progressives and democrats who I believe deep down, unintentionally, want as many blacks as possible to remain poor (with a few extremely wealthy people for cover page stories)
I think there is a carnal fear that if “blackness” was ever finally ceased to be pointed out at all, and black people were finally free to make themselves wealthy and not molly coddled or harassed, then black people will start to become more and more “right” wing oriented, and the left will lose politically
The Democratic party is the party of slavery. There were the slave plantations, now the Democratic party wants to maintain and control inner city “free range” plantations.
If we don’t bow down and worship at the alter of the businessman President, we must hate him for having money we don’t. This isn’t economics or libertarianism. This is a left wing caricature of Randianism.
But that’s just it Andrew_FL, nobody is asking or implying that you need to go to the other extreme and “bow down and worship the alter of the businessman”
Rand herself, if you read her works closely, wrote that wealthy capitalists were the world’s first socialists, and are often the most eager to expand state power and crony capitalism
A lot of haters are misinformed about her thoughts. Haven’t you read her book Atlas Shrugged? There were many, MANY wealthy cronies that she allegorically lampooned and chastised
She didn’t write that being wealthy is itself proof of a badge of honor. She wrote of her ideal capitalists, and her nemesis capitalists, as an ancouragement to understand objectivist moral imperatives, not a description of every capitalist ever.
You do realize that you can causally gloss over people who are wealthy, and you don’t need to force yourself into a love them or hate them dichotomy? I just respect what Trump did in the market, and that’s it. I neither worship him nor loathe him.
You managed to interpret my comment about a caricature of Randianism exactly opposite what I meant. I think it’s clear at this point we are arguing about nothing.
You’ve neatly explained exactly my point yourself so I have nothing to add.
But what you called a caricature of Randianism was your description of what I said which I believe is not a caricature at all
When I’ve raised this issue with people, the typical response has been that Trump is a con man who is very good at getting people to give him money but not much else.
This comports with the responses I’ve gotten too. Which is silly, if you think about it; surely Trump excels at fooling people into underestimating him. If we’ve learned nothing else from the last two years, we should have picked up on that.
Josiah, the Music Man has to leave town after 2 hours (of movie time).
Clearly my plan for a private legal system, which depends a lot on private organizations keeping tabs on people’s reputation, can’t work, if a famous guy can be a con man for decades and keep bilking people for hundreds of millions of dollars, right?
Or that he keeps (allegedly) stiffing contractors? No labor union or other organization checks the Better Business Bureau before signing a huge deal with someone on a new building?
Trump is something of an enigma.
” and yet also think that Trump is a stumbling buffoon who is a pathological liar and surrounds himself with ignorant yes-men.”
It is pointless to try to argue he s not a liar. He lies about loads of easily provable things, some of which seem to have no purpose. This is simply fact.
Does that make him a pathological liar? Wiki says “”falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime” It also says that the person may or may not know he is lying.
That is a good enough fit for me to believe he is a pathological liar. We don’t need to know if he is aware of the lies.
And buffoon. Again from wiki:
“In similar vein, buffoon is a term for someone who provides amusement through inappropriate appearance or behavior…Originally the term was used to describe a ridiculous but amusing person. The term is now frequently used in a derogatory sense to describe someone considered foolish, or someone displaying inappropriately vulgar, bumbling or ridiculous behavior that is a source of general amusement.”
How good a fit is that? Inappropriately vulgar behavior? That fits to a tee. He certainly provides amusement (among other things) through his behavior inappropriate for a president. The foolish aspect is optional.
As for surrounds himself with ignorant yes men, I am not sure that the critics necessarily think the yes men are ignorant. Bigoted and narrow minded, yes, but not necessarily ignorant. I am not sure about that one. Certainly some of his picks seem to be, but other times he seems to make reasonable choices of people who are likely to be the opposite of yes men – the supreme court judge and latest security adviser spring to mind. Both have a reputation for standing up to inappropriate authority.
So it is pretty clear that Trump has aspects of the buffoon, appears to be a pathological liar, I am undecided on the yes-men.
So given these facts, how is that he is successful? He has made a lot of money. Probably not as much as he says, but certainly a lot. It is also true that was given a good start, and has been bailed out by his father to the tune of millions. Business genius? Probably not. Business ignoramous? Not that either. Why do people do deals with? I don’t know. I presume he can make money and still be a lying buffoon. But the fact that they do does not stop him being a (partial) buffoon and a liar.
Maybe people misunderstand what I’m saying. Trump has certain narrow areas of talent-especially publicity-that he’s been able to parlay into a moderate amount of success. Bully for him.
I am pushing back against the idea that if you are not completely shut out of the market, you therefore must be some kind of general application genius, which to me seems like a left wing caricature of a pro market position and I am embarassed to see people here acting like they literally believe it.
Who is actually alleging that? In your tiff above with MF, he says:
“Since when was the smartest person supposed to be the wealthiest? Didn’t Einstein die relatively poor?”
Regardless of whether that was a good response to your position or not, it seems to imply he would agree Trump is not a genius, but competent enough. Or am I misinterpreting his statement somehow?
“Also, fans of the market who strongly disagree with Trump’s policies (such as protectionism or immigration restrictions), but who think he is a sharp, misguided person, are also being consistent.”
Implying that if you disagree that he’s “sharp” you’re obviously wrong because nobody would EVER do business with someone who isn’t “sharp.”
You’re not
I indeed meant to argue that making lots of money does not necessarily require or demand lots of intelligence
This is one reason, I believe, why so many life academics (not all of course) are often the most vocal and vociferous anti-capitalists. It takes a level of maturity and self-awareness to admit that all of one’s hard work in school and straight A’s does not necessarily translate into riches.
Andrew_FL wrote:
I am pushing back against the idea that if you are not completely shut out of the market, you therefore must be some kind of general application genius,
I certainly wasn’t taking that position, so you can relax.
I was taking the mirror-image of it: I’m saying that if you are a stumbling buffoon who is a pathological liar and surrounds himself with ignorant yes-man, then you wouldn’t be able to keep convincing other investors to do business deals with you.
*That’s* the thing. If Trump had a knack for guessing how foreign currencies would move, and he managed to keep up with the market rate of return over a few decades through speculation, then I wouldn’t have made this post.
But no, he keeps getting people to invest money in his ventures, and he keeps getting all sorts of labor unions and contractors to provide services assuming they will get paid. Over the course of decades.
It is weird to me that the guy described by Trump’s critics could achieve that.
“I’m saying that if you are a stumbling buffoon who is a pathological liar and surrounds himself with ignorant yes-man, then you wouldn’t be able to keep convincing other investors to do business deals with you.”
And I think that’s a ridiculous position. Obviously *sometimes* taking a risk on Donald Trump pays off, and that’s why people are willing to do it. Doesn’t mean he’s not high risk.
How often are his investors getting ROI, and how often are the labor unions and contractors getting paid for the services they provide him?
Andrew is arguing, to torture the word, that high risk is bad, and that only low risk shows skill. Rommel was a bad general, Pasteur a bad researcher.
Hi Craw, I have a policy that when people outright put words in my mouth, I tell them to screw off and never engage them again. Sorry!
“Obviously *sometimes* taking a risk on Donald Trump pays off”
In other words Trump is human, not a perfect predicting universal Turing machine, right?
Sometimes having a debate with you pays off, Andrew, and I think you would agree that your (and I admit my) inability to always make the perfect argument, really shouldn’t be ipso facto cause to refuse to debate you anymore
“Trump has certain narrow areas of talent”
That’s all I intended to emphasize
By the way, ALL OF US, besides Leonardo Da Vinci, have “narrow areas of talent”. That is nothing to be ashamed of. Maybe to the more spirited and self-alienated, who think about having a persistent resentment of their own finitude, will “narrow talents” be an issue. Marx’s ideal man was of course a person who extended their skills “in all directions” (which in practise actually means none). He too was agitated. He wrote of a hatred against the concept of “God” for example. He hated the fact he was not God and his entire life was definitely motivated by a deep desire to crush the concept of God. In practise that militant sort of atheism often leads to pretty scary and disgusting practises. Militant atheism, it should be pointed out, presumes God exists.
“I am pushing back against the idea that if you are not completely shut out of the market, you therefore must be some kind of general application genius”
Who, seriously, is saying that?
I have a policy that when people say someone put words in their mouth I ask them for the quotation.where did I ascribe a quotation to you? I mocked your silly arguments, but put no words in your mouth. Feel free to run away.
“Andrew is arguing” “high risk is bad, and that only low risk shows skill.”
Now screw off.
Andrew_FL in past exchanges I have also become exasperated with the artist currently known as Craw but try to contain your microaggressions, please.
Sorry Bob, I’m going to leave the matter at that. If people want to argue against a position that isn’t mine I only ask that they don’t attribute it to me. I’ll go somewhere else for a while.
I direct a lot of my contempt to pedophile rings, which by the way are going down as we speak
“A while” adj, not long enough.
That is not me putting words in quotation and ascribing them to you. Ergo it is not me putting words in your mouth.
I know a picture rarely tells the whole story, but this picture is one that I think really does convey the worldviews of former and current President, of people who are black:
https://i.imgur.com/3xDv4c9.jpg
Some people see the black community as producing predominantly entertainers, while others see it as producing respectable leaders.
MF, I hope you don’t consider that picture as evidence. You are just expressing an opinion. We can find lots of pictures of Obama with black leaders.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C531e4zVMAA081e.jpg
I consider it evidence, because it confirms the theory that Trump is not actually racist against blacks
“I consider it evidence, because it confirms the theory that Trump is not actually racist against blacks”
How absurd. That photo cannot confirm what you say i does. At best it confirms a hypothesis that Trump is not so anti black that he refuses to be photographed with successful black people.
You may have heard the line “I am not racist, some of my best friends are black”. It is ridiculed as a nonsense proof for non-racism.
You are offering something very similar.
If you are not familiar with this I suggest you have a look here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
The essential part:
“The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one “friend,” completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone’s views. This is simply not valid reasoning”
“At best it confirms a hypothesis that Trump is not so anti black that he refuses to be photographed with successful black people.”
You’re a complete joke.
I believe this applies to you:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving
As Harold rightly points out, we cannot be sure Martin Luther King did not hate blacks. He, like Trump, might just have hidden it cunningly. We need real proof dammit!
Indeed, we need o look at all the evidence. We cannot conclude from a single picture of MLK with black leaders that he did not hate blacks. We need to look at the whole picture.
I would be very, very surprised if someone suggested simply on the basis of a picture of MLK with some black people that MLK was clearly a supporter of black rights. I would imagine that the evidence of his actions over a long period of time would be more important.
Merely looking at the evidence is not enough. You have to understand it.
You are denying the evidence that confirms he is not racist. You are pretending to making an unbiased, skeptical argument, but you casually claim that you have isolated instances of evidence that Trump is racist, and that is what is supposed to falsify the other evidence.
You cannot have it both ways. If you call those isolated instances evidence of racism, and I may or may not agree with those cases, as evidence he is, then the so-called isolated cases I cited are evidence he is not.
MF, maybe you posted this before you read my response lower down, so I will repeat it here
“If you look back at my posts over the whole Trump era you will see that I have not called him racist. I do not know. What I have said is that he says things that promote racism.
I think very difficult to prove he is racist. I think it is impossible to prove he is not racist. I think it is easy to demonstrate that he has said things that promote racism.”
So that is my view out of the way.
One piece of evidence is just one piece of evidence and the pieces you present here cannot prove that Trump is not racist. The first picture you presented was not even evidence that he is not racist except of the most extreme form.
Richie. Your link has no relevance to my comments as I have not expressed any moral outrage. I am simply pointing out a logical fallacy.
I simply pointed out that a single photograph (or even several) cannot be conclusive proof of non-racism.
I am interested in your response, and I would like to know what part of my post you interpreted as moral outage. If you can elucidate on his point I may be able to refine my posts in the future to avoid this confusion.
“…as I have not expressed any moral outrage.”
HA! Yeah, the whole “Trump is a racist!” thing is not moral outrage. Ooookaaaay.
He has a point. Only the sincere can be outraged.
Richie, I have not said Trump is racist.
I cannot let a characteristic bit of Haroldian dishonesty pass unremarked. He talks about some supposed *single* piece of evidence. But the award Trump was given was given for consistent, repeated behavior by a reputable organization that investigated him before honoring him. The point is not a picture of Trump with Rosa Parks. The point is Trump winning an award that even Rosa Parks considered an honor. It’s not a “single” piece of evidence!
And what part of an alleged flood of contrary evidence does Harold adduce? None! Just innuendo and an appeal to prejudice.
This is just so typical of Harold’s modus operandi.
Several points.
1) the first photo was not of Trump receiving that award. My modus operandi is to point out errors and fallacies. The posting of the first pair of picture as proof was clearly just such a case.
2) Trump receiving that award is not conclusive evidence of his non-racism. See previous link.
3) He was one of 80 people to receive that award in 1986. This is not proof that he is not racist.
4)However, it is supporting evidence for Trump being not racist, but it in not conclusive. It is just one piece of the evidence.
5) We should examine all evidence and no just those bits hat support our beliefs.
If you look back at my posts over the whole Trump era you will see that I have not called him racist. I do not know. What I have said is that he says things that promote racism.
I think very difficult to prove he is racist. I think it is impossible to prove he is not racist. I think it is easy to demonstrate that he has said things that promote racism.
Harold’s blather was about there being supposedly a single piece of evidence. Now he talks about the “first” picture!
And of course, winning the prize is a result of there being a lot of bits of evidence, and that evidence convincing the prize jury. It’s not a “single” piece of evidence.
Harold, what would Trump need to say or do to prove he is not racist?
Hypothetically?
The answer to your question Major is “Hillary for President.”
“Harold’s blather was about there being supposedly a single piece of evidence. Now he talks about the “first” picture!”
The first picture MF posted, which he claimed proved Trump was not racist but did no such thing.
MF: Proving such a negative is difficult. It cannot be done with a single thing. I am surprised you think such a thing is possible. How can I prove that I don’t like Brussel Sprouts? I can eat them with pretend relish.
All we can do is consider the evidence. There is some evidence that Trump is not racist. There is other evidence that he is racist. We have to consider that most people do not want to be thought of as racist even if they are. So it is very little evidential value if someone says “I am not racist”, but it is quite strong evidence if someone says “I am racist”.
This is similar to someone saying “I didn’t do it” compared to someone who confesses. We take he confession much more seriously.
So you weigh the evidence and come to the conclusion Trump is not racist. That is just about possible for reasonable people. What is not possible is to be both reasonable and convinced that Trump has been proved to be not racist.
Overheard at a party.
“John Bardeen is an idiot.”
“John Bardeen is no idiot, he’s very smart.”
“What a crock! What’s your evidence?”
“Here’s a picture of him when he received his second Nobel Prize in physics.”
“That’s the ‘friend’ fallacy, thinking a single point of evidence disproves all the rest.”
Craw, please look at your analogy. It is not remotely similar.
One can conclude that recipient of a Nobel prize is not an idiot. One cannot conclude that recipient of the Ellis prize does not promote racism, or is not racist.
The original photo posted by MF was no evidence at all. Yet he declaimed “I consider it evidence, because it confirms the theory that Trump is not actually racist against blacks”
This is clearly nonsense as it does no such thing. If he wants to now introduce other evidence that Trump received the Ellis award and this supports his non-racism we can consider that on its merits, but the original claim was wrong, and obviously so. I can introduce evidence that he settled a claim for discrimination in 1973 for racial discrimination and lots of other stuff that suggests he is racist.
No individual piece of evidence conclusive on his racism, unless we wish to believe it so. If we wish to take the evidence that supports our belief and not consider the contrary evidence, we know what to call that. At least I do.
Harold,
“One can conclude that recipient of a Nobel prize is not an idiot. One cannot conclude that recipient of the Ellis prize does not promote racism, or is not racist.”
You mean if a person is a wealthy white male, then nothing they can say or do can disprove the default suspicion or belief that he is racist, amiright?
“The original photo posted by MF was no evidence at all. Yet he declaimed “I consider it evidence, because it confirms the theory that Trump is not actually racist against blacks”
Actually it is evidence. And, it certainly does not constitute falsification of the theory he is not racist.
You have not shown how the argument it is evidence is “nonsense”.
“I can introduce evidence that he settled a claim for discrimination in 1973 for racial discrimination and lots of other stuff that suggests he is racist.”
That does not constitute evidence of Trump being racist. At most, it might show his 1973 employees who actually managed the company, preferred to avoid bad publicity of racially motivated business practises.
Plus, settling is not necessarily guilt. It might be, but that is not evidence of Trump today.
Getting the Eillis Island medal is the result of years of multiple acts of compassion and understanding towards inner city blacks. It is not representative of one single piece of evidence.
The evidence confirms Trump is to racist. Sorry to burst your false narrative politically motivated bubble.
Actually MF, you ARE wrong about the rich white male thing. Harold has not called John Kerry a racist. Nor Bill Clinton. It is really quite easy to avoid being called racist by Harold.
“You mean if a person is a wealthy white male, then nothing they can say or do can disprove the default suspicion or belief that he is racist, amiright?”
No you are completely wrong and nothing I have said suggests that the default position should be that wealthy white men are racist. What is it that when it comes to Trump people seem to lose the ability to reason?
How many people protested about Bill Clinton’s racism? He is wealthy and white. Your argument is simply nonsense again.
The Friend defense is a fallacy, plain and simple. Pointing to one photo is the same as the friend defense. It is not proof.
My point anyway is that Trump promotes racism. There is plenty of evidence that points to him being racist himself, and I tend to believe he is racist, but I would stop short of saying it was proved. To my mind that is the less important thing anyway. Racist is as racist does would be a simplified version. He promotes racism and it doesn’t matter much if he believes it or not.
“There is plenty of evidence that points to him being racist himself, and I tend to believe he is racist, but I would stop short of saying it was proved.”
So evidence is not proof? And where is the evidence that he is?
“So evidence is not proof? And where is the evidence that he is?”
See what I mean about reasoning? Of course evidence is not proof. Proof consists of sufficient cumulative evidence to have whatever confidence in the answer that you define as proof. If we set this at 100% we can never have proof as there will always be some fanciful but unlikely explanation, such as it is all a dream or super-intelligent aliens are planting ideas in my head.
As where is the evidence that he is, if you have failed to spot any of this over the last year you must be living on Mars.
A few examples. He is reported as having black people removed from the casino floor. He ran full page adverts about the Central Park 5 and has never retracted his belief in their guilt even after conclusive evidence. He was instrumental in the Birther campaign. He talks of different races as monolithic groups. He referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists. He said he wanted to ban all Muslims until we get it figured out. The list goes on but enough to demonstrate that there is some evidence.
Please note that these are pieces of evidence. None is conclusive on its own, just like the photo is a piece of evidence and not conclusive.
This is obvious basic stuff. Why are you having a problem with it?
“At best it confirms a hypothesis that Trump is not so anti black”
It ALSO confirms that theory, yes
But it would be absurd to believe the evidence above falsifies the theory Trump is not racist
It is not absurd, I think you just have a theory in mind and you can’t see the evidence
Trump was never called racist for over 35 years, until he ran against the Democrats
“You may have heard the line “I am not racist, some of my best friends are black””
Yes, I have heard that, from people who call other people racist no matter what they do or say, because “they just feel it and know”
MF, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Trump is racist?
The Ellis Island Award may not be quite such strong evidence for non-racism as it first appeared. The award was set up by a chap called Fugazy, with whom Trump had extensive business dealings. Trump paid Fugazy more than $500,000 in fees. It was reported at the time “Mr. Fugazy said the medal was thought up in June, after the foundation’s naming of 12 naturalized Americans for the Medal of Liberty had produced an outcry.”
The medal was a response to non American born people being awarded medals, half of whom were of Jewish descent. That is a little off color. Most of the recipients have been white. The whole set up is rather suspect, certainly in the inaugural year when Trump won. He is listed as “Donald J. Trump, German, developer.”
I have not done that much digging, but enough to be somewhat suspicious of this award. There is not much information readily available about who in NECO decided on the awards. It is possible that Fugazy more or less decided himself, or it is possible that there was a proper panel. If anyone has better information please share.
This award is far from proof that Trump is not a racist.
One more thing; the award was not given for contributing to the conditions of inner city black youths.