Blithering idiot, or mentally ill?

Post Reply New Topic

Pointing out flaws in reasoning, doesn't equal apologetics.

I know I'm supposed to fall in line with the mob mentality, express unreasoning hatred, and not do any critical thinking. But that's not how my mind works.

I don't think my feelings are unreasoning hatred, more a mix of dislike of the man together with valid issues over his lack of rational thinking and reasoned debate.

Take this border wall, for example.
What analysis has Trump put forward to show that this border wall will be beneficial and recoup the cost involved in building it through societal improvements?
Anyone?

Analysis? None.

Assumptions? False Accusations? Racial Profiling? Attacking the Opposition? Lies and Deceptions? The server for this website may not have the capacity to all the details of every instance.

Agreed. Seems to me the logical brain would be asking:

1. How big a problem is illegal immigration? And we need numbers here - not just numbers of immigrants, but the demographics of who they are, and how much of a burden they are on society e.g by taking jobs. And not only how much of a burden they are but how much benefit they are, too, e.g. by creating jobs. And then evaluation of the net scale of the issue.

2. Why is this illegal immigration happening? What are the socio-economic drivers? Because you can't solve a problem until you understand it.

3. What are the options for addressing this? Do we spend huge money on a wall or would that huge money be better spent on other measures? In my work as an engineer I'm expected to present 3 options and assess the pros and cons of each before making a recommendation, so why should we accept less from the government? Where are the option comparisons and the cost-benefit analysis?

I mean, I'm not entirely naive and I know the above kind of analysis rarely happens with any president - politics is driven by ideology not by logic. But at least some are willing to be guided by experts who understand the issues. Obviously Trump is not one of those.

So I'm failing to see how supporting Trump can be seen as logical and rational. When the man acts like a dictator, the logical action of those aware of historical precedents would be to speak up against him.

Edited to add: putting this forward in the spirit of a debate, this is not intended as an attack on Ezra. I absolutely defend his right to state his point of view without risk of personal attack.

Not an apologist or defender of Trump per se, but I dislike how conservatives and their ideas face more social pressure on average than liberals.

Ron Perlman demonstrates Trump's typical speech pattern.

Trump seems to jump from detail to detail (rambling), rather than speak in a unifying big picture, top-down manner.

This gives the impression of incoherence.

I like Ezra, so I don't engage with him on political topics. He's wrong, but I don't feel the need to prove it to him.