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.

Comments

So?

[ITRambo]

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.

Re: So?

[ArmoredDragon]

The more people like him insult the people that support politicians like Trump, the more effort they'll put into making sure their candidate gets elected.

Re:So?

[quantaman]

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.

One could say something similar about Trump.

Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.

Trump is a businessman/reality TV star who won a Presidential primary on the basis of ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories.

Why can't someone who's achieved celebrity through a combination of brilliance and science communication then speak up in response?

Re:So?

[sribe]

You could probably have done those things.

Well, I could have made his billions for sure. I would have taken his inheritance, and put it into an index fund.

Re:So?

[quantaman]

> One could say something similar about Trump.

Well, one of them is the Republican nominee now.

Though as I mentioned in the very next line he got to be the nominee by relying on his authority as a businessman and a media personality. There's no reason to consider Trump a credible candidate while not consider Hawking qualified to comment on it.

> Except for the "brilliant mind" part of course.

He made billions and defeated the entire Republican establishment. But, I'm sure he's a dummy. You could probably have done those things. I guess you're just not almost 70 yet, you'll probably have the world in your hand by then, right?

I'm sure he's pretty good in his domain of real estate, but it also helps to start out with a ton of money, family connections, and a bit of luck too. His biggest legitimate success seems to be in personal branding. Don't assume business is a strict meritocracy.

There's also a lot of speculation that his net worth is a lot less than he lets on, possibly on the order of $250 million or so. That's the most popular theory for why he won't release his tax returns.

Re:So?

[quantaman]

If in the future Stephen Hawking has his science proven wrong is he then considered ignorant? Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?

If you think Newton was ignorant you have a bad definition of ignorant.

Ignorance is defined by your beliefs in relation to your society, both Hawking and Newton are far from ignorant by that definition.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements at a ridiculous rate. That is a verifiable fact.

I think a scientist would be well justified in calling his ideas and statements ignorant.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they just think he'll be better than the other lizards. That's a fairly low bar.

Re: So?

[Billly Gates]

Then they are morons. This if the freaking President of the United States needs to be somewhat competent and not a freaking Joe Six pack! I assume most sane intelligent people or semi intelligent people realize oh gee we need some smarter than me who has the integrity and prestige who is high caliber to handle the job and make correct executions of decisions on difficult choices.

Trump talks shit out of his ass and almost everything he says is WRONG. He is a coward who mocks disabled reporters and can not handle a female reporter. Jesus! How can he handle a confrontation with Russia or China? Cry it is unfair? Insult their wives?\

Americans like to look at politics like football. Vote for the team and hate the opposite party. Well, this is not freaking football and I do not care if Trump supports 100% of my beliefs or not. He is not qualified and is the most unpresidential candidate in history who is outright dangerous with his positions of ending free trade, putting up walls, regulating markets, and insulting leaders.

Yes my post is going to be modded WAY DOWN, and hopefully WAY UP too. But, this is very important and yes read what Hawkings said? Hawkings addressed trade (which will cause a worse recession than 2008 in which Walmart could go out of business with a trade war), security, and other issues. Yes, he has a brain and I wish people would use their's

Re: So?

[scamper_22]

This is absolutely true.

Progressive:
Why are people voting for Trump? They must be uneducated, racist, idiots!

Yep, that's going to have them voting progressive!

Not to mention that modern politics completely ignores huge swaths of the population. When they voice their concerns, they are simply dismissed. It is why Bernie Sanders and Trump are even in the running.

Dare to question free trade as you have lost your job!
Modern politician: That's just free trade. A natural good thing.

Dare to worry about immigration (jobs, services, community).
Modern politician: You must be a racist!

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.

Re: So?

[Dutch Gun]

So the solution is, of course, to keep our borders open and actually refuse to deport people that came here illegally? 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? And people wonder why Trump's message is resonating? Because I'd imagine a lot of workers in blue-collar jobs that have been eliminated or depressed because of the glut of easily available illegal labor are thinking we have a pretty shitty policy, and they see no end of it from anyone else.

I mean, consider how much whining we hear on Slashdot about H1B workers. That's the white-collar equivalent. We never cared before, because it's awesome to have cheap lawn care and housekeeping, right? But as soon as low-paid foreign workers start threatening OUR jobs through some shady deals, we're all up in arms. Why, it's outrageous that foreign workers are replacing qualified native IT folks! Welcome to the club, tech industry.

Oddly enough, Trump is the only front-runner clearly and vehemently opposed to the current H1B abuse that's going on right now. Hillary has previously flip-flopped on the issue (2007 was for more H1B visas, then later said outsourcing was a concern), and hasn't mentioned it at all recently, at least that I can tell. Bernie, bizarrely, agrees with Trump on this issue, but doesn't have a real shot at the nomination, which is a shame, as that would make a much more interesting race, IMO.

Re:So?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Isaac Newton was proven wrong, he was ignorant. Did anyone prove Trump wrong? Or is it just opinion that doesn't have scientific merit?

If you think Newton was ignorant you have a bad definition of ignorant.

Also, well, there's the well-known discussion about the relativity of wrong by Asimov.

If you (or GP) hasn't read it, it's worth it -- but basically, it would be more accurate to say that Newton's theory was "incomplete" given what he knew and had observed at the time. Nobody else in his era had better data, so he couldn't be called "ignorant" and really not even "wrong" in some sense. (That's why we still teach his physics to students -- it's really not absolutely "wrong," just an approximate understanding that's incomplete in special circumstances that most people don't encounter every day.)

Trump, on the other hand, utters known factual errors on a daily basis... and actually doesn't seem to care. When someone calls him on it, his reaction is usually either to deny he's wrong (with no evidence) or to act like a bully and insult the person who called him out. Either way, he epitomizes ignorance.

Re: So?

[brantondaveperson]

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. However, I'm not going to bother arguing that with you. I'm aware that it's a minority view, and not very practical in today's world. Nevertheless; Many of the people you're talking about deporting so easily, are working people with families living in homes. So what's going to happen? They're just going to leave because you said so? And then, when they get back 'home', they're going to build a wall? Let me know how that works out, should Trump the insane get in. Except, of course, you'll not have to let anyone know, because we'll be watching the violence, carnage, bloodshed and misery unfold from across the world. And that's just one - ok, two - policies. What about the other ones? What about his crazy 'university'? His rampant anti-intellectualism? His hatred of women? Reproductive rights? It's madness, and it's sad, and it's frightening.

Re: So?

[Lord Apathy]

Most foreign slashdoters, and even most local, have no clue how the U.S. government works. Most of them think of the President as a king or dictator. His word is law. That isn't the way it is. Outside the scope of his office the president has no more power than a normal citizen of the United States. Granted the power inside his office is vast but it is limited.

When it comes to shaping public policy the president can only really issue decrees called executive orders. Inside the executive branch, the presidents branch, those orders have a lot of weight. But outside they are usually not worth the paper they are printed on. Like the latest executive order stating that transgenders can use any bathroom in they want to in any public school. There are lots of schools setting this order aside. Other than punitive funding actions there is little the president can do to enforce this order. Even those actions can be over ruled by congress that really holds the purse strings.

Also any order that the president gives to the public can be cancelled by the Judiciary or the Legislative branches.

Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in. I predict that trump will be a one time president who's term in office will be little more than a foot note on history.

Re: So?

[Jason Levine]

My parents are pretty right wing but it was refreshing to hear them during the primaries say how horrid Trump was. Unfortunately, now that he's the nominee he's somehow turned into the only one who can save this country and I'm "brainwashed" (my father's exact words) for seeing Trump as dangerous. When I brought up stuff like him retweeting stuff from neonazi's, my father doubled down on insisting that this was all lies concocted by the media.

The really dangerous thing about Trump is how vague he is - even moreso than your run of the mill politician. Trump supporters pick what they like from Trump's conflicting statements, ignore the rest, and insist that their vision if Trump is who would be President if he was elected. In truth, though, nobody knows just what Trump would be like in the Oval Office. I don't even think Trump knows. The best case scenario is bad, though, and I shudder to think of the worst case scenario.

Re: So?

[johanw]

The US have a recent example of what happens when too many foreigners invade a country. Go ask an Apache, Comanche or Sioux indian about what happens then.

Re:Appealing to the emotions and prejudices?

[Deadstick]

Better definition: a demagogue proposes premises he knows are false to people he knows are fools.

"I like her lies better than his!"

[SuperKendall]

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.

The Wall

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

real concerns of most voters

[AlejandroTejadaC]

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.

borders = filters

[Anonymous Coward]

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.