Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking Calls Trump A 'Demagogue' Who Appeals 'To The Lowest Common Denominator' (go.com)
An anonymous reader writes: British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking told ITV's morning show that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Party candidate for U.S. president, "is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." He said, "Gone are the days we could stand on our own against the world. We need to be part of a larger group of nations, both for our security and our trade." ABC News writes, "Stephen Hawking understands the workings of the universe -- but says he cannot fathom the popularity of Donald Trump. He went on to say that British voters should keep the United Kingdom in the European Union in a June 23 referendum, saying the EU provides essential support for British scientific research as well as its economy and security.
I don't understand why Hawking's opinions about anything outside of physics is given publicity. Although one of the most brilliant minds of our time, in his field, he's not a politician nor a businessman.
The UK has plenty of issues including the Brexit and the desire of Scotland to secede. Worry about your own country. Let Americans concern ourselves with the affairs of the US. And here's a hint: it's pretty damn unlikely we'll elect Trump as President.
I see the current establishment keeps pulling out bigger and bigger guns to keep in power.
The definition of a demagogue is a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
I'm no fan of Trump, but doesn't that describe the political strategy of EVERY politician seeking/maintaining office?
Where does Stephen Hawking live? Where does he get his news? Do you trust a British Knight to be up-to-date with US politics? If so, why?
How much time do you suppose he invests in looking into the dissenting opinions?
How many people do you think he has around him that might debate the pros and cons of Trump's statements vs. Sanders or Clinton?
Personally, I think this is true for most celebrities that have a legion of personal assistants and entourages surrounding them. I don't think ti's deliberate isolation, but I don't think they're exposed to both sides of most arguments, either. I've had too many 'friends' that *BRAGGED* about how their only/main source for news was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
He should be smart enough to realize that regardless of what he thinks, we're going to get President Trump this fall.
President Trump is exactly the kind of president that the United States hasn't had in over half a century, but has very badly needed.
President Trump doesn't mince words like other politicians do. He describes things as they are, and that's why so many Americans love him, and will vote him into the presidency in just a few short months.
Maybe leftists don't understand this, but the support for President Trump is well beyond what they expect it to be.
Many leftists think that because President Trump has spoken out against illegal aliens, that all foreigners will dislike him. That's actually the opposite from the reality we're seeing! Legal immigrants are among his biggest supporters. After all, they went through the legal immigration process, and this isn't an easy thing to do by any means. Nothing makes them angrier than seeing people who bypassed the immigration process, and who knowingly entered America illegally, get amnesty and other special privileges. President Trump's plans to make it harder for illegal aliens to get into the country appeal very much to legal immigrants.
We see the same when it comes to many other stances that President Trump has taken. Leftists are perhaps blind to what non-leftists think. Despite all of their talk about "tolerance" and "acceptance", it's like leftists are unable to see things from different viewpoints. They just can't comprehend non-leftist positions on various issues.
While everybody else already knows that President Trump will be leading America by this time next year, for whatever reason this will come as a huge surprise to many leftists.
I think Trump is actually saying what he genuinely feels (warts and all), which If true then by the dictionary definition of demagogue he CAN'T be one.
I was ready to comment but already found scamper_22 opinion that match my own: https://science.slashdot.org/c... "People aren't voting for Trump because they are amazed at his policies. They're voting for Trump because he's the only one (aside from Bernie) actually speaking about issues people want addressed instead of dismissing their concerns. If progressives/liberals actually began addressing the concerns of people. In the stereotyped Trump supporter case, poor white people, they might get somewhere. Instead probably the only message poor white people hear from the left is... you have white privilege..." My big question is: Why progressives/liberals dismiss so easily the real concerns of most voters? I am starting to believe that SOME progressives/liberals actually believe that they MUST BE the leaders above the rest of the people because somehow they are "better" than their fellow citizens... and that is exactly how most deadly confrontations began.
you idiots. You destroyed your own continent by allowing a walking army to colonize you.
While you are too busy celebrating declining populations, and abortion you've just made yourselves part of the Caliphate. Maybe if you'd ever read a book on European history, you'd know how many thousands of years the west has been at war with Syria and friends.
Way to go, now white guilt yourselves some more into why being the rape capital of the world is good for your guilt.
You're seriously arguing that because so many people are here illegally, we shouldn't do anything for fear that they'll burn our cities to the ground?
Well, I'm even more extreme than that. I have this crazy idea that we're all citizens of Earth, and all policies that suggest which patch of dirt you're allowed to stand on, and for how long, are fundamentally evil and racist.
As a first generation Canadian I'm okay with letting most people into my country, but I still want a border/filter to keep out the folks from (say) ISIL/Daesh. Letting in most people is fine; letting in all people is not.
If anyone can move anywhere at anytime, one risks the tragedy of the commons where people arrive, shit all over things, and then move on and not care about the results. Having some barrier to entry, and some "skin in the game" helps to ensure that anyone in a given area has some vested interest in keep that area/community in decent shape.
Well, I'm even more extreme than that. I have this crazy idea that we're all citizens of Earth, and all policies that suggest which patch of dirt you're allowed to stand on, and for how long, are fundamentally evil and racist.
I have yet to see anyone who floats this thought acknowledge that some cultures are in fact better than others. If you let the wrong person in- and they're far more common in shitty cultures- they will degrade and destroy everything we've built with our nicer, more secure, more productive cultures.
I'd go further, in fact, and state that people who float these 'borderless' ideas are the ultimate chauvinists, as they imagine that people only naturally think the same way some left-leaning westerner does.
Either that, or you actually seek to undermine and destroy western civilization, and you make compassionate-sounding arguments in order to advance that cause. It's the same way that 'peace activists' are often not against war, per se, but they're simply on the other side, and are hiding their true motives for the sake of expedience.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I think that migration should be allowed freely. I also know that some cultures are better than others. Thatâ(TM)s pretty obvious. That theocratic culture that kills and tortures their people is inferior to one who isnâ(TM)t based on religious principles, does not impose capital punishment and is peaceful and prosper. I see that you think that if you happen to be in a place that embraces a good culture you want to keep people from bad cultures out. I think this is borne out of fear. Good cultures, for the most part, thrive on letting others in. How would you question your religious ideas if you are not exposed to alternate viewpoints? How would you enrich your life with new types of food? How would your political and personal views change to embrace new ideas? You need to have exposure to those. Bad cultures also need to improve. We are all together on this space ball. If you let many people from bad cultures in where people of good culture live, they are now exposed to new ideas and ways, an exposure which would not happen in any other way. Many will reject their new culture, because bad culture has some stickiness to it, but those that do not will spread the seed of doubt, spark interest, even back home where the bad culture thrives. Adding to this, bad cultures are rarely universally bad. They bring some valuable ideas, perspectives, that we can import. Even if the ideas are all bad, there will at least be some good food. Youâ(TM)d be surprised how open people of bad cultures are to new ideas, if you approach them with respect instead of fear and contempt.