Viv S wrote:I always thought not mocking people's disabilities was just basic human decency that should come easily to people regardless of their political affiliation. I don't know, maybe I've been straitjacketed by 'political correctness'.
On the topic of "disabilities" and "people in need", Trump has in the past shown his caring, even affectionate side. I've read and seen videos of him going out of his way and helping people who needed help, or being kind to somebody who had lost his arms.
He has got his decency and humaneness, at least as much can be expected from anybody on an average.
But there is also the other side of Trump. Trump describes himself as a "Counter-Puncher". He is also more of a "Shoot first, think afterwards" kind of guy. But this mode of Trump is seen ONLY when he is under attack. When he is under-attack, all his holding-back goes out of the window and he lashes out, at least verbally.
The incidence with the disabled journalist also shows something else, other than the suspicion that he lacks human decency. It is that unlike most other groomed politicos, especially in the art of "political correctness", Trump just reacts the way he feels like. You hurt him, and he would hurt you back. But this is not using the back-stabbing, in the darkness of an alley, kind of way. He just does it like a kid on the school play-ground. If kids on the school play-ground are evil and lacking human decency, then yes, Donald Trump also is evil. But if this impromptu reaction shows that a person is genuine, then Donald Trump is genuine and I guess that is why he has got such a huge fan-base and following.
If some politico had responded to an attack by that disabled journalist in a reserved respectable way, that would have definitely been "political correct", it would have shown that the politico has a thick skin, that the politico is used to such attacks, that the politico is calculating. But does that in itself reveal to anybody how that politico feels about disabled people? Would the politico go out or have intimate relationships with a disabled person? Being "political correct" also helps in hiding a lot of "real personality".
Sure, what Donald Trump did in his imitation of the disabled guy was wrong. But may be Donald Trump felt he was being wrongly attacked by this journalist, and that gave him the right to retaliate in whatever way he can.
Does Donald Trump however go around and make fun of disabled people without any provocation, I don't think so. That would truly be lacking human decency. Though, it needs to be said, Trump has an eccentric sense and awareness of aesthetics and social perceptions of aesthetics. But despite that, he would not be unkind to a disabled person, with the rider "unless provoked", as far as I feel.
Viv S wrote:On the subject of lies, many politicians lie, most tell half-truths at some point, very very few are scrupulously honest. And Hillary Clinton sure as hell isn't one of the honest ones. Yet I have never seen anyone lie with the frequency and ease with which Trump does. It comes naturally to him, one after the one. And a falsehood being pointed out doesn't faze him in the least, he simply follows it up with a new one.
Of course all this is simply an explanation of what shaped my personal opinion and why I cringe whenever the Trump Mouth opens.
Let's put it another way. Trump always says the truth about something as he feels about it at that very moment. The truth lies in his mood, but the mood is often defined by the situation and others.
Those who are fans of Trump at some level are aware of this and basically they don't grudge him to have different moods, or being in different situations, and thus to have different perceptions of the immediate reality.
So what is genuine about Trump? I guess, his followers have made a decision that his patriotism and his general empathy for the dire economic situation of American people are genuine. His followers believe that Trump believes he can fix the situation. His aversion to Islam seems to be genuine.
To them that is what counts. The rest is policy riffraff or appeasing some social constituency and it does not matter for the people. If the intentions are good and the person is capable, then the right policies come on by themselves in due time.
Viv S wrote:That aside, if we look at it objectively, there are very clear reasons why the world cannot afford to risk a Trump Presidency -
1. The combination of over-confidence and ignorance is dangerous when that person wields power. I'd wouldn't particularly have cared if it only affected the US, but unfortunately the nature of the world is such that the outcome will affect India. The fate of hundreds of millions of Indians, particularly the poorest segment is closely linked to the country's economic growth, which in turn is closely linked to the state of the global economy.
Trump's idea of exploiting low interest rates to run up the US debt and then strong-arming creditors into accepting write-downs under the threat of default, would never get past the US Congress, but is ample evidence of how the Trump Brain works. Someone that ignorant in President's office still has the power to some major damage to world economy and, by extension, the Indian one.
Trump often looks for immediate verbal gratification when he lashes out at provocations, and so his words often lack the finesse of being well-thought out or reserved. He completely lacks a coating of "political correctness" which can moderate his choice of words and reaction. That is how his brain works.
But that doesn't mean he is dangerous per se. When he acts on anything, there would be a range of voices who would push him to second thoughts after the wave of initial reactiveness has passed over. "Political Correctness" wasn't really a hallmark of western leaders for centuries as it has become today, and yet many knew how to act with responsibility, nonetheless, at least considering the interests of their constituency.
Viv S wrote:Same applies to the geo-political front (which again impacts the global economy). Trump has a huge ego and an erratic personality (history of which long precedes his run for office). Aside from that fact that a man like that really shouldn't be in control of 4,500 nuclear weapons (which BTW he's <b>not</b> ruled out using against ISIS), he's likely to create further instability.
Even if his instincts are correct on many fronts - Islam, unchecked illegal immigration, neoconservative international interventions, jobs, etc., he obviously does not have much experience in how to get those views formulated as a government policy in an executable form. For that he would have plenty of advice and help, once he is President.
Even as far as going to war is concerned, including with ISIS, he would be getting advice. What is clear is that he would pursue Islamic Jihad differently than his predecessors, who were invested in sleeping in the same bed of dollars as those funding Jihad.
Viv S wrote:2. Ordinarily I'd have also pointed out his trade protectionist & isolationist policies being as issue of concern for India, which is a net exporter to the US and shares a China-focused burgeoning strategic relationship with it. But seeing as he's taken both sides on practically every debate, there's nothing to say his positions here will be any more durable. And that makes him unpredictable and that is concern.
He's been pro-gun control & anti-gun control, pro-choice & pro-life, for gay marriage & against gay marriage, for lower taxes & for higher taxes, for higher govt spending & for govt spending cuts and the list goes on and on.
It is the trade-deficits that he doesn't like and will not want to tolerate. In principle he doesn't have much against trade.
His main targets are China and Mexico and not really India.
Viv S wrote:As for Clinton, I think she's mostly a continuation of Obama. Uninspiring but stable, predictable & safe. Ideally, one would have a preferred a right-of-centre moderate like Kasich, but given the alternative Clinton will have to do.
Clintons are very much in bed with both China and Islamic Gulf. Her policies would be pro-Islam, pro-China and anti-Hindu (USCIRF, NGOs, Missionaries, Religious Freedom, Press Freedom, Intolerance) and there would be still more of criticism against India on treatment of Kashmiris and minorities. It is also unclear what more color revolutions she may like to pursue.
Apart from the pro-Pakistani (Kashmir Azaadi) policies her husband pursued when he was President, Hillary Clinton has:
- sent investigative teams to find mass graves in Gujarat of "Muslim genocide" in 2002 and to "fix" Modi when he was Gujarat CM
- Clinton-founded group sponsors U.S. premiere of banned Indian rape film
, whose purpose was to defame all Indian men as rapists
Clinton is poison pure. Clinton is predictable, but there is nothing about her which is "safe".
I am not an American, and from an American PoV, I don't care if Trump becomes US President or not or whether he can save America or not or bring back jobs to America or not. Trump is not going to be my President and I don't care if he is nice to disabled people or women or Mexicans.
I even don't care if Trump is good for the world, though I am sure he would be.
But I do care if the next US President is good for India or not. But I guess, I do somewhat understand from where you are coming.