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.
Better definition: a demagogue proposes premises he knows are false to people he knows are fools.
So i should vote for the guy who i disagree with but know he's lying?
So you should vote for the woman you agree with even though you know SHE is lying?
That is better why again?
In the end you are voting for a woman who fundamentally is the ultimate tie-in to every status quo between government and business insider dealing that has existed for decades. Or you vote for the person who is part of none of that existing government/business wheel of fortune.
Or you can vote for the woman the press have an inherent interest in covering for and let her continue with behind-doers deals with business and governments all over the globe. Or you can vote for the person who the press will spend four yours putting every action under a microscope.
Think about what RESULTS you want, and vote for that. Not for what the person says they will or will not do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Saying "gone are the days when you can operate as a singular nation" needs to be explained. First, you'd have to say that anyone is actually suggesting such a thing. Second, whether people are doing that or not doesn't mean that is or is not a good or reasonable idea.
I think that you have misunderstood what Mr. Hawking was referring to with that comment. It seems that the interview was wide-ranging, and covered both Mr. Trump's candidacy and the (concurrent) referendum in the United Kingdom on whether to remain in the European Union. The statement that you quoted referred to Mr. Hawking's belief that the United Kingdom is better off within the European Union than it is without it.
His dismissal of Mr. Trump as a demagogue is given without any support, though demagogue has about the same meaning as populist if not the same connotation. His position that the UK is not an island entire of itself is supported by his experience, as a scientist, that it's very difficult to do research without cooperation between nations. He also points out that British security and economic performance is enhanced by cooperation with Europe. I think that it's well understood that modern human endeavours work best when we work with each other, even though he is only able to speak with authority about scientific research.
Stephen Hawking is a loser. He's stupid and says stupid things, not like Trump, who is smart, has a good brain and a lot of words.
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Perhaps that is exactly WHY people want to vote for him, voters are beyond tired of the status-quo, politics-as-usual, cookie-cutter politicians, and party hard-liners. They are looking for someone to shake up things.
Is it risky? Perhaps. But without risk, there can be no real gain, either.
I think Trump is a mess. But we will be offered only two choices come November, so look at the other choice. Yeesh. The bigger problem is that we desperately need to reform the election process and bring in IRV http://fairvote.org/ but we live in the here-and-now.
Just about everyone I know, including myself, want better choices.... but that time is over now. And even if it seems reckless to vote for Trump, remember that 1) it is only the President (Congress has just as much power) 2) it is only for 4 years 3) we have a set of checks-and-balances.
As for Hawking? I have a great deal of respect for him as a scientist and physicist.... but he should stick to what he knows. America is not his country and his field is not politics, economics, sociology, or management.
Better definition: a demagogue proposes premises he knows are false to people he knows are fools.
Still fits most politicians, they all promise more than they could possibly deliver. If Jesus Christ himself ran for office and said he'll feed five thousand with two fish and five loaves of bread, they'd promise to feed ten thousand with one fish and five buns.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes, I also can't figure out why preventing illegal immigration to save literally billions per year is a good idea.
And that's just for California.
Who'd've thought that people don't want political correctness, extra crime, migrant welfare, and a change of culture?
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're right. He's a Nationalist. America FIRST.
And considering that what passes for normal in today's Republican party as evidenced by the last 8 years, given inviting foreign leders in to disrespect a sitting president - which was for all intents and purposes swearing alliegience and fealty to a foreign country over America, and their purposely shutting down the Government. He is certainly more of an American than they are.
Which by the way, should the Republican party survive, they will hopefully learn not to make the zealotry of fundamentalists a party principle. Those people demand the right to deny others their rights, cannot compromise, and even totalitarian governments have to compromise at times.
Anyhow, nationalism isn't that good an outlook either. That tends to lead to a lot of dead people.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Pretty please! Im Italian and I've spent the last 20 years getting lectured and laughed at because Berlusconi. Now you're on the brink of electing a person so special and unique that Berlusconi is Mother Teresa in comparison. I'll be lighting a candle if you do. Sincerely yours.