The "anything goes" mentality

[GenesisNemesis]

So naturally, the Trump tapes didn't cause Trump to lose a lot of voters. This obviously means that, according to his base, anything goes, and we shouldn't care about anything bad Trump does or may have done. However, the problem with that is, if there are absolutely no standards, then obviously it's not about morality. But if we shouldn't care about a candidates' values or actions, then by that logic neither should we care about a president's values or actions, and therefore, it becomes entirely self-defeating. What's the point of electing someone if you're just willing to dismiss every disagreeable thing they do? It means they can do whatever the fuck they want to, and get away with it.

Oh right, Trump supporters don't think about these things at all.

 

[Sarpedon]

What do you mean, 'obviously?' How many polls have there been since this came out?

People who vote for Trump are either racists, people who want to sabotage the system, and/or republicans who only care about getting the party back in. People who are principled and disgusted by Trump are likely not to vote at all. Or we might have a bunch going to Johnson, in which case Clinton benefits, unlike what was being said before.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What do you mean, 'obviously?' How many polls have there been since this came out?

True, I shouldn't have said obviously.

 

[repoman]

If Trump in this election was replaced by the 1992 Ross Perot (not as old as he is now), who was a self-made honest businessman and fairly trustworthy as far as policy and then this exact tape was released with Perot saying this stuff...

I would have not a second of hesitation to still vote for 1992 Perot over 2016 Clinton.

But Trump is dumb egotistical self righteous and completely untrustworthy. So it is not like he has a lot of positive points to burn with people.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Apparently in tonight's debate, Trump's strategy will be to rake up Bill Clinton's old sex scandals, if Fox News reports from Trump and his surrogates is taken seriously. This is going to be ugly. But not anything goes. Of course we all remember how well that worked for Newt Gingrich. But this is all going to get bizarre before this election is over. The other trope is that Hillary Clinton was a failure as a Senator and as a Secretary of State. But that will bring up Trump's bankruptcies, failed businesses, and cheating people who were foolish enough to do business with him. For Trump, anything goes. This is all getting so depressingly ugly.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's going to be ugly.

 

[RavenSky]

It's going to be ugly.

Yep. WhichPhilosophy will actually have something to complain about tomorrow.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's going to be ugly.

Yep. WhichPhilosophy will actually have something to complain about tomorrow.

I've already complained the American Communist Party isn't standing as I hoped for a more credible candidate

I did see the debate after the first hour but again they were attacking each other not the issues.

I would like to compliment both candidates however (taking inspiration from the last question).

Libya would not be what it is today without Hilary Clinton.
Trump's contribution to the Casino industry enabled him to reduce his tax burden.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So naturally, the Trump tapes didn't cause Trump to lose a lot of voters. This obviously means that, according to his base, anything goes, and we shouldn't care about anything bad Trump does or may have done. However, the problem with that is, if there are absolutely no standards, then obviously it's not about morality. But if we shouldn't care about a candidates' values or actions, then by that logic neither should we care about a president's values or actions, and therefore, it becomes entirely self-defeating. What's the point of electing someone if you're just willing to dismiss every disagreeable thing they do? It means they can do whatever the fuck they want to, and get away with it.

Oh right, Trump supporters don't think about these things at all.

That's a pretty ancient way of looking at political leaders. It's back from the royalty of the great chain of being. The leader as a role model, a person with impeccable moral values to emulate. I think it's dangerous.

Political leaders don't have to be morally upstanding. Leadership is just a skill set, like any other skill set. A leaders personal abilities aren't as important as the abilities of the people he leads. That's where Trump fails IMHO. He's clearly a grandios narcissist, ie a person who doesn't listen when he should. That's also how the "just grab them by the pussy" comment is problematic. It suggests a lack of social skills. That's more important to me than any kind of morality.

 

[RavenSky]

Political leaders don't have to be morally upstanding. Leadership is just a skill set, like any other skill set. A leaders personal abilities aren't as important as the abilities of the people he leads. That's where Trump fails IMHO. He's clearly a grandios narcissist, ie a person who doesn't listen when he should. That's also how the "just grab them by the pussy" comment is problematic. It suggests a lack of social skills. That's more important to me than any kind of morality.

I agree, but I think GenesisNemesis is making a similar point in a different way:

But if we shouldn't care about a candidates' values or actions, then by that logic neither should we care about a president's values or actions, and therefore, it becomes entirely self-defeating. What's the point of electing someone if you're just willing to dismiss every disagreeable thing they do? It means they can do whatever the fuck they want to, and get away with it.

 

[prideandfall]

What's the point of electing someone if you're just willing to dismiss every disagreeable thing they do? It means they can do whatever the fuck they want to, and get away with it.

Oh right, Trump supporters don't think about these things at all.

the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is the assumption that trump supporters believe what he said was disagreeable.

you do understand that the US "conservative" movement is pretty much entirely one predicated on wanting to return society to a fiefdom structure, where only rich white men are recognized as people and women are objects, don't you?
you're acting like trump supporters would hear him saying these things and go "oh my, that's horrid, i no longer support him" and then assuming that since that reaction isn't happening that the corollary must be they're going "oh my, that's horrid, but fuck it i still support him."
the reality is that trump supporters listen to those tapes and go "yep, that sounds about right, this guy is awesome."

 

[whichphilosophy]

What's the point of electing someone if you're just willing to dismiss every disagreeable thing they do? It means they can do whatever the fuck they want to, and get away with it.

Oh right, Trump supporters don't think about these things at all.

the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is the assumption that trump supporters believe what he said was disagreeable.

you do understand that the US "conservative" movement is pretty much entirely one predicated on wanting to return society to a fiefdom structure, where only rich white men are recognized as people and women are objects, don't you?
you're acting like trump supporters would hear him saying these things and go "oh my, that's horrid, i no longer support him" and then assuming that since that reaction isn't happening that the corollary must be they're going "oh my, that's horrid, but fuck it i still support him."
the reality is that trump supporters listen to those tapes and go "yep, that sounds about right, this guy is awesome."

I haven't seen any agenda for any Republicans that would suggest white supremacy in a feudal society; certainly not in this day and age.

 

[prideandfall]

I haven't seen any agenda for any Republicans that would suggest white supremacy in a feudal society; certainly not in this day and age.

well then congratulations on either your total lack of paying attention to republican politics for the last 30 years, or your blissful ignorance.

 

[blastula]

Poll: After Trump Tape Revelation, Clinton's Lead Up to Double Digits - NBC News

 

[whichphilosophy]

I haven't seen any agenda for any Republicans that would suggest white supremacy in a feudal society; certainly not in this day and age.

well then congratulations on either your total lack of paying attention to republican politics for the last 30 years, or your blissful ignorance.

Of course extremists will support something in the mainstream that remotely mirrors their agenda. The American Communist Party endorsed Hilary Clinton but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party has busts of Karl Marx in their campaign offices or that any of its policies are Marxist.

 

[prideandfall]

well then congratulations on either your total lack of paying attention to republican politics for the last 30 years, or your blissful ignorance.

Of course extremists will support something in the mainstream that remotely mirrors their agenda. The American Communist Party endorsed Hilary Clinton but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party has busts of Karl Marx in their campaign offices or that any of its policies are Marxist.

i'm not talking about fringes or guilt by association, i'm talking about the central GOP political party in the US and the broadly mainstream bulk of the voters who make up their base.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course extremists will support something in the mainstream that remotely mirrors their agenda. The American Communist Party endorsed Hilary Clinton but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party has busts of Karl Marx in their campaign offices or that any of its policies are Marxist.

i'm not talking about fringes or guilt by association, i'm talking about the central GOP political party in the US and the broadly mainstream bulk of the voters who make up their base.

You may well get members of the Republican party who are racist. However that does not mean the may rank and file are racist and the Republican Party is inhrently racist. About 60 years ago there was racism because of segregation and discrimination.

There is always the possibility of ultra right wing groups with small membership who would try to infiltrate the party.
Certainly the Latin and Afro American members of the Republican party are not likely to be racist against those of their own ethnic background.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

With the GOP we get gerrymandering and voter suppression. We get caging and purposeful efforts to make voting harder for minorities. If that isn't institutionalized racism on a grand scale, what is?

 

[Elixir]

i'm not talking about fringes or guilt by association, i'm talking about the central GOP political party in the US and the broadly mainstream bulk of the voters who make up their base.

You may well get members of the Republican party who are racist. However that does not mean the may rank and file are racist and the Republican Party is inhrently racist. About 60 years ago there was racism because of segregation and discrimination.

There is always the possibility of ultra right wing groups with small membership who would try to infiltrate the party.
Certainly the Latin and Afro American members of the Republican party are not likely to be racist against those of their own ethnic background.

Gee whiz WP, your apologetics are getting even weaker. Who ya planning to vote for?

 

[KeepTalking]

You may well get members of the Republican party who are racist. However that does not mean the may rank and file are racist and the Republican Party is inhrently racist. About 60 years ago there was racism because of segregation and discrimination.

There is always the possibility of ultra right wing groups with small membership who would try to infiltrate the party.
Certainly the Latin and Afro American members of the Republican party are not likely to be racist against those of their own ethnic background.

Gee whiz WP, your apologetics are getting even weaker. Who ya planning to vote for?

WP is not American, so he will not be voting in our election.