Trump on the Joe Rogan podcast

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Elections are won on social media.

Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders were both interviewed on Rogan and lost 

[hoodrow trillson]

12 hours ago, mojsterr said:

It's interesting how you see that Rogan is the diva here.

If I was Vice president, running for the president of the god damn USA, with not much time left, and doing badly on every poll, I would do everything I can to to make as many appearances as possible to try to get as many voters on my side before the election starts.

She's really just sabotaging herself. A person wonders how she can make so many wrong decisions.

 

Years ago this forum was a place to me to find quality posts and a leveled debate, but I see everyone's gone downhill. It's now an echo chamber.

 

[Scholar]

I'm profoundly sick of having to walk down all the steps to garbage-tier low consciousness just so that I can engage in politics.

 

It's like I have to intentionally limit my intelligence just so I can fathom what is going on in this country. It's an actual clown world.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar You are an eagle and politics is for pidgeons, who feast on garbage 

It helps to know that.

Edited October 31 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

There is profound beauty in garbage. 

[lostingenosmaze]

Speaking of garbage!

Trump, with a vest and props, turns his attention to trashing Biden over ‘garbage’ gaffe:

Edited October 31 by lostingenosmaze

[Bobby_2021]

23 hours ago, Raze said:

Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders were both interviewed on Rogan and lost 

Using social media does not guarantee a victory. But not using it would destroy your chances of victory.

[Bobby_2021]

 

 

[What Am I]

JD Vance is about a million times better at being a podcast guest. Seems like a very smart guy.

[Nemra]

 

[Joshe]

5 hours ago, What Am I said:

JD Vance is about a million times better at being a podcast guest. Seems like a very smart guy.

Yeah, he went to Yale law school. I think you usually have to be smart to make it to such high positions. Vivek seems brighter than Vance though IMO. There are many good influential spinsters now surrounding Trump. Tucker, Vivek, Vance. 

Unrelated, but have you ever see that movie on Netflix called "Don't Look Up"? It captures the essence our current situation really well. Pretty damn funny. Especially the scene where the centrist says he looks up and down. You gotta see it if you haven't. 

[What Am I]

19 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yeah, he went to Yale law school. I think you usually have to be smart to make it to such high positions. Vivek seems brighter than Vance though IMO. There are many good influential spinsters now surrounding Trump. Tucker, Vivek, Vance.

I don't know what kind of alternative form of intelligence Trump has, but it's definitely of a different type than Vivek, Vance, and the rest. It's a wild phenomenon that he gained the position of power that he has. If life is like an RPG, he must have had his luck attribute maxed.

22 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Unrelated, but have you ever see that movie on Netflix called "Don't Look Up"? It captures the essence our current situation really well. Pretty damn funny. Especially the scene where the centrist says he looks up and down. You gotta see it if you haven't.

I have, but it's been a while, so I can't remember the details. I saw it when it came out. I do remember it being a scary close approximation for reality in a whole bunch of ways. Maybe I should revisit to look for parallels I may have missed.

[Joshe]

44 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I don't know what kind of alternative form of intelligence Trump has, but it's definitely of a different type than Vivek, Vance, and the rest. It's a wild phenomenon that he gained the position of power that he has. If life is like an RPG, he must have had his luck attribute maxed.

Vivek and them can actually think and use logic and good reason. 

Regarding Trump, what other skill does he have aside from making people like him and making them believe the things he says? 

If someone can't go 5 minutes without telling a lie and if they are skilled at making people like and listen to them and believe them, what do you call that? Would you say that fits the definition of a con artist? 

If you watch a good documentary on Trump that goes over his life history, you'll see that his dad wanted to groom him for greatness at an early age, which eventually manifested into malignant narcissism. Trump himself published books that outline his history and mindset. It's all there in his own books. 

He was born an extravert and I think because of his dad's influence, he became super competitive and had a strong desire to be better than everyone else. To boot, he had a lot of drive and was very devoted to the task. He started projecting sort of an alpha personality, I believe sometime in his teens. 

If you know any real life narcissists, you know they can put in crazy work building their image. I think malignant narcissists are even more driven than normal narcs. So, his next-level drive was directed at bullshitting people, and he had all the time in the world to practice it because you can do that when you have a rich daddy. And that's what he did. And he got good at it. I don't call that intelligence.

So, I think what you think is a form of intelligence is actually just a really strong drive to be better than others mixed with a silver spoon that allowed abundant opportunity to figure out how to trick people. 

I think you and I both could do what he did if we were extroverts with a silver spoon and our daddies warped us into malignant narcissists, and if we had the same degree of luck.

Edited November 1 by Joshe

[What Am I]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Vivek and them can actually think and use logic and good reason. 

Regarding Trump, what other skill does he have aside from making people like him and making them believe the things he says? 

If someone can't go 5 minutes without telling a lie and if they are skilled at making people like and listen to them and believe them, what do you call that? Would you say that fits the definition of a con artist? 

If you watch a good documentary on Trump that goes over his life history, you'll see that his dad wanted to groom him for greatness at an early age, which eventually manifested into malignant narcissism. Trump himself published books that outline his history and mindset. It's all there in his own books. 

He was born an extravert and I think because of his dad's influence, he became super competitive and had a strong desire to be better than everyone else. To boot, he had a lot of drive and was very devoted to the task. He started projecting sort of an alpha personality, I believe sometime in his teens. 

If you know any real life narcissists, you know they can put in crazy work building their image. I think malignant narcissists are even more driven than normal narcs. So, his next-level drive was directed at bullshitting people, and he had all the time in the world to practice it because you can do that when you have a rich daddy. And that's what he did. And he got good at it. I don't call that intelligence.

So, I think what you think is a form of intelligence is actually just a really strong drive to be better than others mixed with a silver spoon that allowed abundant opportunity to figure out how to trick people. 

I think you and I could both do what he did if we were extroverts with a silver spoon and our daddies warped us into malignant narcissists, and if we had the same degree of luck.

Well, in this case, I was actually insulting Trump and possibly even suggesting he lacks any significant form of intelligence at all, or at least one that we'd typically associate with elite leaders. It's not clear to me how he landed where he is, but the history you mentioned does sound like it played a part in being formative for him. It may be that his success is due to raw charisma, or some type of animal attractant that we don't fully understand.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

Well, in this case, I was actually insulting Trump and possibly even suggesting he lacks any significant form of intelligence at all, or at least one that we'd typically associate with elite leaders. It's not clear to me how he landed where he is, but the history you mentioned does sound like it played a part in being formative for him. It may be that his success is due to raw charisma, or some type of animal attractant that we don't fully understand.

My bad. I thought you were highlighting intelligence in Trump. 

Yeah, I think it's mostly just bluster and telling people what they want to hear. He was doing that for a long time but it never really worked for him until he got into politics. As far as I know, most people who knew him didn't like him.

It could just be my bias against him but I don't actually think he's charismatic. If you went back to before he was president and if you were to poll people who watched the apprentice, they might say he's entertaining, but I don't think they would call him charismatic.

Here's how I think the idea that he's charismatic was born: People started listening to him because he gave a couple of good one-liners in 2016, people hated Hillary, and they were tired of the establishment. So he made people laugh a couple of times and he seemed like a viable solution to the corrupt government. Then, when he was attacked all the time, it made a lot of people double down on their choice and they found themselves defending him hundreds of times until eventually, liking Trump became an aspect of their identity. 

Bounty, the paper towel brand, held a $10,000 cash contest for whoever could write the best essay on why they love Bounty so much. The idea here is the more you get someone to say they like or dislike a thing, the more they actually do. So paying 10k to have 100,000 people write a love letter for your brand is money well spent. 

Same phenomenon occurred with Trump when he was attacked so much. THAT is why people listen to him. It's because they affirmed over and over that he is good. Not because he's just so charming and knows how to pull them in. 

Just an idea. I could be wrong, but in a world where Trump never came into politics, I'm pretty sure the people I know who love him now, would never call him charming. 

Edited November 1 by Joshe

[voxun]

6 hours ago, What Am I said:

Well, in this case, I was actually insulting Trump and possibly even suggesting he lacks any significant form of intelligence at all, or at least one that we'd typically associate with elite leaders. It's not clear to me how he landed where he is, but the history you mentioned does sound like it played a part in being formative for him. It may be that his success is due to raw charisma, or some type of animal attractant that we don't fully understand.

You can't do what he did and not possess any kind of intelligence.

[What Am I]

4 hours ago, voxun said:

You can't do what he did and not possess any kind of intelligence.

Probably an accurate statement. Someone who's fully unintelligent would likely stumble beyond recovery at some point, and Trump has overcome a ton of hurdles for a long time, and he's still here. Anyways, I don't really want to engage in judging him too much. Who am I in comparison?

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Democracy isn't good.

We need a world dictator with a high IQ and a good heart.

I m 100% for a philosopher king.

Not all dictators are evils that's just your bias.

And not everyone get corrupted by power. That's a folk myth to feel good about having none.

-

1. Rule by Non-experts: Socrates and Plato feared that democracy allowed unqualified individuals to hold power. They believed that governing required knowledge and virtues that most citizens lacked.

2. Influence of Passions and Emotions: In a democracy, decisions are often driven by emotions rather than reason. Skilled speakers could easily manipulate the public, leading to irrational and dangerous outcomes.

3. Risk of Tyranny of the Majority: Plato argued that democracy could devolve into "mob rule," where the majority enforces its will, even at the expense of justice and the common good.

4. Political Instability: They saw democracy as an unstable system, prone to shifting into more extreme regimes, like tyranny, as crowds could be swayed by demagogues or personal ambitions.

 

Edited November 2 by AerisVahnEphelia

[Scholar]

19 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

Democracy isn't good.

We need a world dictator with a high IQ and a good heart.

I m 100% for a philosopher king.

Not all dictators are evils that's just your bias.

And not everyone get corrupted by power. That's a folk myth to feel good about having none.

-

1. Rule by Non-experts: Socrates and Plato feared that democracy allowed unqualified individuals to hold power. They believed that governing required knowledge and virtues that most citizens lacked.

2. Influence of Passions and Emotions: In a democracy, decisions are often driven by emotions rather than reason. Skilled speakers could easily manipulate the public, leading to irrational and dangerous outcomes.

3. Risk of Tyranny of the Majority: Plato argued that democracy could devolve into "mob rule," where the majority enforces its will, even at the expense of justice and the common good.

4. Political Instability: They saw democracy as an unstable system, prone to shifting into more extreme regimes, like tyranny, as crowds could be swayed by demagogues or personal ambitions.

 

We know this is not true though. Democracies are far more stable than pretty much any other political system. Mob rule is avoided through constitutions.

 

There are limitations to democracies, but the limitations of dictatorships are simply far greater and lead to far greater risks. Even if you have a philosopher king, it is a matter of time before someone takes their place who is not interested in representing the will of the people.

You also underestimate how impossible it is for a singular individual to actually get an accurate and unbiased grasp of what is good for the people.

 

Just the presence of an unaccountable monopoly of power can turn the entire society into a system in which the most powerful individuals strive to take that position. Given that the most powerful individuals can exert most pressure on the system, they can position themselves such that they will end up being the "philosopher king". This is what you observe in these types of systems.

Edited November 2 by Scholar

[Consept]

@Scholar

Basically there are pros and cons of every form of government, but the question is do you want the system to be decided by one person that is granted complete power or at least majority power or should it be a system created and maintained by many people and every stake holder has at least some say?

A dictatorship in theory could be amazing if you have a benevolent leader that cares about the will of the people, but I think it's unlikely that someone who wants that position wouldn't be concerned with wanting power for themselves. I feel a genuine leader doing it for his people would want to go more democratic to avoid a malevolent leader gaining power and ruining their country. 

In Trumps case it's clear that he wants to minimise the system as much as possible to consolidate more power to him, he's not interested in a democratic system. 

It is weird that society has regressed to point of appointing a wannabe dictator to the highest political position. You just have to look to history to see how that has always turned out.