Hillary v Trump - The Double Standard

theprestige

Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
80,300
Location
The Antimemetics Division
I think the problem isn't that there's a double standard for Trump. I think the problem is that Hillary's supporters keep trying to apply the same standard to both candidates. Because they think Hillary will look better by comparison than she looks on her own terms.

But the two candidates are on completely different terms. Trump is pro wrestling. Hillary is a fixed prizefight.

When Bruce Seldon was accused of taking a dive in his 1996 championship fight against Mike Tyson, he could hardly have defended his reputation by pointing out that Yokozuna was paid to lose to Shawn Michaels in the WWE Royal Rumble earlier that year. It's an absurd tu quoque!

WWE has all the trappings of legitimate competition. But that's all they are: trappings. Everybody knows it's scripted entertainment. The whole thing is fake, but it isn't a lie.

I say it's a similar situation with the candidates. Trump isn't really running on the idea of being more competent than Hillary, or more transparent than Hillary, or more honest than Hillary. Sure, he's paying lip service to those things, but what he's really running on is Being Donald Trump. And everybody knows what that is. Just like everybody knows that pro wrestling is fake. And just like a lot of people like pro wrestling anyway, for other reasons.

Hillary, on the other hand, is absolutely running on the idea that she's competent, and transparent, and honest, and so forth. So questions about her competence, etc., are relevant to her in a way they're not relevant to Trump. Because she's actually serious when she claims to be honest. Because she actually wants us to accept that claim at face value. And because she wants us to accept that claim, evidence against her honesty matters. Trump doesn't care. So the evidence isn't that important.

Hillary is running for the position of Serious Statesman. Trump isn't. Maybe he should be, but he isn't. Pointing out that he isn't won't help Hillary much, because the people who support Trump don't really want or need a Serious Statesman. And pointing out that he's not serious won't really deflect the criticisms that Hillary isn't qualified for the position of Serious Statesman.

And of course, going up to the fans who like to experience pro wrestling as if it were real, and trying to browbeat them into admitting it's fake, just makes you look like a douchebag. Especially when you keep pretending that your supposedly honest prizefight wasn't fixed.
 
This is the silliest rationalisation for boorish, incompetent, ignorant and insulting behaviour I've ever seen in my life.

Nah, he's still a tool and an insult to the intelligence.
 
For me, I would think the better way to frame this is that whatever basis they are running on, they are both running for a serious statesman role - namely the role of president of the United States.

And Trump is so obviously unfit for the presidency that it makes sense to argue that Clinton - as bad as she is - would make a better president (or at least a preferable president) to an American wrestler whose damage to the world in diplomatic terms and maybe in many other ways is potentially far greater than it would be if Clinton gets elected.

Therefore it makes sense to argue with those Trump supporters that they are understimatingbthe risk and the damage that a vote for him could cost. And similarly to argue with those who have said they will sit out or vote third party that by doing so the worst possible candidate could win.
 
theprestige said:
... Hillary is running for the position of Serious Statesman. Trump isn't. ...
Click to expand...
You got one thing right in all those words.


You might want to take a good look at Trump's latest meltdown because a former Miss Universe is out there badmouthing him.

#thinskinned
 
lionking said:
This is the silliest rationalisation for boorish, incompetent, ignorant and insulting behaviour I've ever seen in my life.

Nah, he's still a tool and an insult to the intelligence.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's a rationalization. To me it comes across as an explanation of why we only have one serious candidate running for president.
 
He stepped into the boxing ring. Willingly. He will be judged by those standards. A wrestler and their supporters cannot cannot show up at a heavy weight boxing match then scream unfairness that their pick isn't being held to the standards of a WWE wrestling match while the opponent is still kept to the standards of a boxer. Especially once the hits start and the candidate doesn't accept they made a mistake and bow out.

Trump doesn't want a serious campaign? Tough. Both will be judged. The candidates don't exist in independent sterile environments. They exist in competition with one another. Our system is adversarial. It is not rudeness to call out disruption, or to choose the stronger candidate.
 
The other thing is that it's not the 1980s any more. A WWE wrestler possibly could have got away with vile sexist and racist insults back then. If he were to try this now, he would be out of a job.
 
lionking said:
The other thing is that it's not the 1980s any more. A WWE wrestler possibly could have got away with vile sexist and racist insults back then. If he were to try this now, he would be out of a job.
Click to expand...

Good point. Even bad guy wrestlers could not wear a "White Is Right" t-shirt today.
 
The Fallen Serpent said:
He stepped into the boxing ring. Willingly. He will be judged by those standards. A wrestler and their supporters cannot cannot show up at a heavy weight boxing match then scream unfairness that their pick isn't being held to the standards of a WWE wrestling match while the opponent is still kept to the standards of a boxer. Especially once the hits start and the candidate doesn't accept they made a mistake and bow out.

Trump doesn't want a serious campaign? Tough. Both will be judged. The candidates don't exist in independent sterile environments. They exist in competition with one another. Our system is adversarial. It is not rudeness to call out disruption, or to choose the stronger candidate.
Click to expand...

Yep. While the OP is a bit of a strained analogy, you can carry it with your addendum... that it's a boxing match. The Trump team want it very badly to be WWE, but they signed on to a match under a set of rules. Trump can come flying off the top rope and wowing the crowd all he wants, and he'll please that portion of the crowd,... which isn't big enough to win.

Liken the voters to the five judges. Trump's got one WWE judge. That's his solid 20%. Then he's got a judge from MMA. They hate boxing so much that they'll pull for Trump and probably score him well. And it ends there.... around forty per cent. Half of that is devoted fans who love the tear-away yellow muscle shirt routine, fear the flying arm drop and take their Hulkavitamins every day. Half of that know it's fake but hate the heels so much that they'll play along. The remaining 60% look at the spectacle and scratch their heads, reminding themselves of Bobby Heenan's famous analysis. "What has twelve teeth and and IQ of 145? The first two rows of a WWE audience."

A WBA/Ring Magazine candidate vs a WWE candidate is a mixed metaphor and it doesn't work. And we're not talking Hulk Hogan, here. We're talking no sporting talent much acting talent like Rick Flair. "And Flair struts like a peacock to the center of the ring pointing at Tyson and and shouts "Woo!" and gets the crowd going wild. Tyson crouches and throws a right hook from his shoe laces. The referee seems to have found most of the pieces of Flair."

And the Hulkamaniacs Trumpsters wait for him to get up and hit her in the back with a folding chair or for Ann Coulter to toss a chain into the ring.... and when it doesn't happen wait for Mean Gene to come on and tell them about the big rematch coming at Vote-a-Mania 46.
 
I think it is only fitting that in order to explain Trump's strengths, the best metaphor a supporter could come up with is professional wrestling.
 
Extending the analysis of the OP a little further, then, wouldn't the ideal solution be to elect Clinton President and to give Trump the lead role in a sitcom in which the central character is the President?

Dave
 
The thing is that the match they're having actually is a boxing match. If you use WWE moves in a boxing match you're going to get disqualified. It really doesn't work to just say that even though it's a boxing match, the fight YOU'RE having is a pro wrestling one.

All your analogy shows is that Trump should never have run in the first place because he's not fit for the kind of fight he's signed up for.
 
theprestige said:
I think the problem isn't that there's a double standard for Trump. I think the problem is that Hillary's supporters keep trying to apply the same standard to both candidates.
Click to expand...


You're saying that the problem is that there isn't a double standard.

Hillary is running for the position of Serious Statesman. Trump isn't.
Click to expand...


Last time I looked, they were both running for the same position.
 
Last edited:
So what you are saying is.... we should elect Vince McMahon president?
 
To address the OP more seriously...

theprestige said:
I think the problem isn't that there's a double standard for Trump. I think the problem is that Hillary's supporters keep trying to apply the same standard to both candidates.
Click to expand...

I think you are onto something here, but there's a flaw in the above statement.

Not only are Hillary supporters trying to apply the same standard to both candidates, but so are undecided voters. That's what elections are all about, right? What do you want in a President? Of the available choices, which one comes closest to what you want?

For me, and I think for millions of Americans, Hillary comes up short when we apply presidential standards, but Donald Trump isn't even measurable by presidential standards. Your post practically says that. He isn't playing the same game. He isn't following the same rules.

Most of the people who vote for Hillary Clinton this fall will not be "Hillary supporters". They will be people who, given the two options, disliked her the least.

Meanwhile, your post does inspire a thought about how Trump might win the next debate. Maybe when Hillary starts to give an answer, he can grab a chair and hit her in the back with it. It would probably work better than what he did last time.
 
Meadmaker said:
To address the OP more seriously...



I think you are onto something here, but there's a flaw in the above statement.

Not only are Hillary supporters trying to apply the same standard to both candidates, but so are undecided voters. That's what elections are all about, right? What do you want in a President? Of the available choices, which one comes closest to what you want?

For me, and I think for millions of Americans, Hillary comes up short when we apply presidential standards, but Donald Trump isn't even measurable by presidential standards. Your post practically says that. He isn't playing the same game. He isn't following the same rules.

Most of the people who vote for Hillary Clinton this fall will not be "Hillary supporters". They will be people who, given the two options, disliked her the least.
Click to expand...

This is why the GOTV is so important. Dems are currently motivated by hating Donald Trump. They need to be motivated by supporting Clinton. Plouffe made that observation in an interview this week. He didn't mention it as a strength for Trump but I feel it is. He may poll lower numbers but they're devout fans. If the Dems can't light some fire under voters it could be closer than it should be.

Meanwhile, your post does inspire a thought about how Trump might win the next debate. Maybe when Hillary starts to give an answer, he can grab a chair and hit her in the back with it. It would probably work better than what he did last time.
Click to expand...

Clint Eastwood may have that chair left over from the 2012 convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom