Donald Trump is Intentionally Offensive!

[ClearConscience]

Every "offensive" remark that Donald Trump has made has been intentionally offensive, to incite rage into a very insignificantly small minority, with the sole purpose of gaining media coverage.  Donald Trump said, at his most recent New Hampshire speech, "How many cameras are lit, yeah there's a lot of them.  Every time I speak now, it's on live television.  You know why?  It's a very simple business.  Ratings!  If I didn't get ratings these cameras would not be on.  Okay?  They would not be on."

So when you hear Donald Trump make silly remarks that seem to invoke intense emotional responses in relatively insignificant vocal minorities, I want people to know exactly why that is happening, and that it is totally calculated and intentional.  These insignificant vocal minorities are being used as pawns.

EDIT: If you haven't seen the new South Park episode, it couldn't have come at a more perfect time.  It's about how absurd political correctness has become in this country.  Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee... and if the Democratic party gifts him the opponent of Hilary Clinton, who he will absolutely destroy, then he is going to be America's next president.  You've been warned.  I hope he doesn't totally fuck up foreign policy, although he likely will... In that South Park episode, Tom Brady was identified as the ideal for how to manage public scrutiny.  Deny involvement and claim hypocrisy on those who rightfully accuse him of wrongdoing.  Today, Donald Trump announced that Tom Brady has official endorsed his presidential campaign.  I can't make this shit up.

[J. D. Stembal]

It's all designed to be a circus media sideshow intentionally. Trump is meant to be offensive to liberals so Hilary's campaign is a slam dunk and we can have a woman behind the desk in the Oval Office getting head from her female interns.

Ask yourself what Trump gets out of all this. He supposed to be greasing the wheels of politics, not vying for the highest office in the land. Trump exists outside of politics, and that's his place. He must be getting some sort of financial benefit or deal out of running for president because he's never going to win it.

[powder]

I don't understand why this stuff should matter to me.  What is the point of bringing this up?  You understand what kind of forum this is right?  

 

I know the political circus show can be entertaining and even compelling.  Trump, or Hillary, or whichever member of the ruling class you want to focus on, may have a bad influence on the state of affairs, and,....?  

[AccuTron]

Maybe he just likes the opportunity to speak his mind honestly, when nearly all other politicians speak pander lies.  (Panderfaust!)

[Kevin Beal]

I have a friend who makes a point of offending me. I sometimes find it enjoyable, but mostly I don't care: yawn.

 

Lots of things offend me, but why should anyone care about what offends me? They shouldn't. What they should care about is what is real and true and moral.

 

Offending someone is not immoral.

[ClearConscience]

It's all designed to be a circus media sideshow intentionally. Trump is meant to be offensive to liberals so Hilary's campaign is a slam dunk and we can have a woman behind the desk in the Oval Office getting head from her female interns.

 

Ask yourself what Trump gets out of all this. He supposed to be greasing the wheels of politics, not vying for the highest office in the land. Trump exists outside of politics, and that's his place. He must be getting some sort of financial benefit or deal out of running for president because he's never going to win it.

I think Trump is a fan of having power and of building his own legacy.

 

I don't understand why this stuff should matter to me.  What is the point of bringing this up?  You understand what kind of forum this is right?  

 

I know the political circus show can be entertaining and even compelling.  Trump, or Hillary, or whichever member of the ruling class you want to focus on, may have a bad influence on the state of affairs, and,....?  

 

What happens in the world is important.  America has the strongest military in the world.  Who the commander and chief of that military happens to be should be concerning.  The tactics currently being employed to attain power are interesting to some people.

 

Maybe he just likes the opportunity to speak his mind honestly, when nearly all other politicians speak pander lies.  (Panderfaust!)

 

I think Trump is probably more calculated than you want to believe.  Also, he claimed explicitly that his behavior is such that it maximizes media coverage.

 

I have a friend who makes a point of offending me. I sometimes find it enjoyable, but mostly I don't care: yawn.

 

Lots of things offend me, but why should anyone care about what offends me? They shouldn't. What they should care about is what is real and true and moral.

 

Offending someone is not immoral.

Well if you offend enough people you won't be likely to win public elections I guess.  But the topic of my post doesn't really have anything to do with the moral virtue of offending or being offended.

[powder]

I think Trump is a fan of having power and of building his own legacy.

 

 

What happens in the world is important.  America has the strongest military in the world.  Who the commander and chief of that military happens to be should be concerning.  The tactics currently being employed to attain power are interesting to some people.

 

 

Well if you offend enough people you won't be likely to win public elections I guess.  But the topic of my post doesn't really have anything to do with the moral virtue of offending or being offended.

What happens in the world is important?  What does that mean?  To whom, and in what way?  You address this topic as if there is something that we can do about it.  Then you say that the tactics of the political class are 'interesting' to some people.  Important, interesting,... so what is the post about?  

[ClearConscience]

What happens in the world is important?  What does that mean?  To whom, and in what way?  You address this topic as if there is something that we can do about it.  Then you say that the tactics of the political class are 'interesting' to some people.  Important, interesting,... so what is the post about?  

I'd urge you to go through Stefan Molyneux's youtube videos over the course of, oh let's say 7 months, and jot down the titles of each video that has over 100,000 views.  I hope this will enlighten you on how much you are the minority when it comes to the idea that current events don't matter to people.

[david.mick323]

After watching the second GOP, judging by Mr. Trumps mannerisms, disregard for lengthy policy initiatives, and acute scuffs with other republicans, plus watching Jimmy Fallon late night, I came to a more skeptic view.  Not owning cable, being an avid youtuber & onliner, I realize Jimmy hits home with a lot of viewers, esp with his raps, rhymes & karaoke with celebrities and must certainly draw in influence through the entertainment market.  Unfortunately, media has a monopoly on a dumbed down america that are propagandized easily by entertainment rather than critical-thinking.  After watching Trump's skit & then Hilary Clintons, everything seemed fake and theatrical.  Its as if Trump is paralleling what many social academics have observed in media over the decades as a declining or ego-maniac patriarchal figure where now "wife knows best".  After reading the "Flipside of Feminism" by author Suzanne Venker, it became apparent to me that that elite feminists have a lot of control in the media and upper echelons of our political hierarchy.  With that said women were the majority vote for Barrack Obama pushing for liberal or socialist politics.  Through Mens Rights organizations I have learned that Men are the majority producers & taxpayers while women are the majority receivers.  It seems the left/feminist/socialist agenda is very keen on manipulation and producing a dumbed down dependent culture on Government and one of the  caveats is emasculating men and dividing women from families and stable relationships.  What better way to do this than to make the conservative party look egomaniacal and self-fladulating big fat-cat rich white males that they not dare tarnish the reputation of planned parenthood and the like without looking insidious.  I mean, who would want to question women having complete control of life, paternity, procreation, and contraception while devaluing and disposing of masculinity and its traits as violent, protective, and aggressive.  Why would elite super powers want a balanced economy with the threat of strong men willing to egress? I think masses of men die off easy or lay in hot water when they don't know their lying in it or who put them in it.   I'm starting to think Trump might very well be a decoy, and to think, I cheered his style, assertiveness on obvious issues as immigration control, and willingness to be politically incorrect while being unapologetic. However, for many decades now, it seems as though an oligarchy is driving for gender sameness/obedience and is using the media to project its will.   

    

[ClearConscience]

After watching the second GOP, judging by Mr. Trumps mannerisms, disregard for lengthy policy initiatives, and acute scuffs with other republicans...

 

In the debates thus far, he's only been given about 2 minutes to reply, if that... I agree that this is not even remotely close to enough time to give substantive responses to the questions asked, but I cannot, in good conscious, fault Donald Trump for the structure of the debates thus far. it's sad.

Plus watching Jimmy Fallon late night, I came to a more skeptic view.  Not owning cable, being an avid youtuber & onliner, I realize Jimmy hits home with a lot of viewers, esp with his raps, rhymes & karaoke with celebrities and must certainly draw in influence through the entertainment market.  Unfortunately, media has a monopoly on a dumbed down america that are propagandized easily by entertainment rather than critical-thinking.  After watching Trump's skit & then Hilary Clintons, everything seemed fake and theatrical.  Its as if Trump is paralleling what many social academics have observed in media over the decades as a declining or ego-maniac patriarchal figure where now "wife knows best".  After reading the "Flipside of Feminism" by author Suzanne Venker, it became apparent to me that that elite feminists have a lot of control in the media and upper echelons of our political hierarchy.  With that said women were the majority vote for Barrack Obama pushing for liberal or socialist politics.  Through Mens Rights organizations I have learned that Men are the majority producers & taxpayers while women are the majority receivers.  It seems the left/feminist/socialist agenda is very keen on manipulation and producing a dumbed down dependent culture on Government and one of the  caveats is emasculating men and dividing women from families and stable relationships.  What better way to do this than to make the conservative party look egomaniacal and self-fladulating big fat-cat rich white males that they not dare tarnish the reputation of planned parenthood and the like without looking insidious.  I mean, who would want to question women having complete control of life, paternity, procreation, and contraception while devaluing and disposing of masculinity and its traits as violent, protective, and aggressive.  Why would elite super powers want a balanced economy with the threat of strong men willing to egress? I think masses of men die off easy or lay in hot water when they don't know their lying in it or who put them in it.   I'm starting to think Trump might very well be a decoy, and to think, I cheered his style, assertiveness on obvious issues as immigration control, and willingness to be politically incorrect while being unapologetic. However, for many decades now, it seems as though an oligarchy is driving for gender sameness/obedience and is using the media to project its will.   

Sorry if the edit is unacceptable but I was caught up in the editing of such a comment. I really can't speak to some of the generalizations that you made in this remainder part of your post. I think that if candidates were afforded 10 minutes to respond, in detail, then Trump would be exposed on his complete lack of knowledge on the issues. But at the same time, most voters don't seem to actually care about how much knowledge a particular candidate has amassed. It's not important. What's important to the average voter is the confidence and personality that any given candidate exudes and how well they are able to dominate a particular discussion. I think that is important to understand when watching the debates and assessing the situation. Donald Trump may hold every ideal that you want in a candidate, but Donald Trump is probably the most calculated politician I've seen in a long time. He only does what is best based on polling data, and what gives him the most media coverage. That's the point I was trying to demonstrate. And it's important to point out that he has gained a huge following solely on the basis that he hasn't accepted donations from organizations that he doesn't support. He is capable of fully funding his own political campaign on his own dime. That's huge to a lot of voters.

[powder]

I'd urge you to go through Stefan Molyneux's youtube videos over the course of, oh let's say 7 months, and jot down the titles of each video that has over 100,000 views.  I hope this will enlighten you on how much you are the minority when it comes to the idea that current events don't matter to people.

I did not say that people are not interested in current events.  I acknowledge that most people care about certain things, including football scores and who Tom Cruise is dating, so what does that tell me?  and you did not answer my questions.