Recommended Posts

This is interesting, since winning delegates is what gets you nominated.

After the first four states vote and the campaigns move into March, candidates would be awarded delegates on a proportional, rather than winner-take-all, basis. The scenario is designed to allow insurgent candidates the chance to stay competitive and prove their campaign mettle in larger states that might otherwise favor better-funded candidates.

Now that changes the math and with this field, it looks like no one may have enough delegates when the convention opens in June.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Rand Paul asserts, Trump is the consummate insider. He buys politicians. He bribes. He demands favors. He is a crony capitalist... which we know really means fascist.

Peter,

The one thing people always leave out of this equation is the enormous amount of stunning highest-quality buildings, shows, books and so on Trump produced. This is not a fascist. That word is silly applied to Trump. If he just wanted money and/or power, he could have done that without all the hassle of producing major preeminent projects correctly and with polish.

Besides, Rand Paul's entire characterization is in the wrong tense and in the wrong frame.

Let's try past tense. Trump WAS the the consummate insider. He BOUGHT politicians. He BRIBED. He DEMANDED favors. He WAS a crony capitalist...

(And he built... but that apparently means nothing to Paul.)

That insider stuff was when he was a businessman and had two choices: do it or don't build great things. There is no third choice when there is a ton of environmental laws, zoning laws, legal construction standards, laws favoring labor unions, government regulations, regulations and more regulations and God knows what all else.

Now that he is a politician, he is on a mission from God to make America great again. (Not literally from God. I say it that way for emphasis.) I really believe that's in his heart. Why else would he be honest about his past wrongdoing?

I think he still wants to build great things, but is sick of the whole insider game. I believe he is showing what's in his heart and soul when he says politicians are morons.

It's silly to think a person would expose himself to the extent Trump did if all he wanted to do was the same as before. Here's just one consideration. How many other politicians is he going to be able to buy now?

Think about it.

Many, many people are resonating with Trump because they sense he is in a different mental space now. He's fed up with elite incompetents who are always gumming up everything and destroying the country. He's fed up with them just as much as disillusioned voters are. And these folks are coming out in droves to support him.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't posted about the SJW Baiting Technique in a while, but now is a good time to bring it up again. (To see my previous discussion on this very thread, go here.)

SJW means Social Justice Warrior. In my previous discussion, I described how SJW Baiting works for public relations and marketing. But Trump is such a master at it, let's look at it from his standpoint.

The idea is to take a product, attach a villainous tie-in to it with one of the favorite SJW themes (racism, homophobia, misogyny and/or promoting violence against women, etc.), find an active Social Justice Warrior and get him/her wound up about dastardly evil product enough to start posting about it on social media, and encourage people (real people or sockpuppet accounts) to defend the product and call the SJW people names.

A shitstorm ensues and the product gets a ton-load of free publicity.

Trump just did this with Megyn Kelly. After thinking about the entire spat through the lens of SJW Baiting, it dawned on me. Megyn inadvertently dangled herself as a Social Justice Warrior right in front of him during the debate.

And his killer instinct kicked in just like a shark smelling blood. Oh. You don't like how he called women bad names? You wanna play gotcha? Try this one, Miss SJW. Out came the "bimbo" tweet.

But it didn't get much traction. So now, in the video with Don Lemon, Trump insinuated that Megyn was on her period during the debate and that was the reason for her aggressive questions. He said: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her... wherever."

:)

Expect the shitstorm because it is on the way.

:)

Notice that Trump waited for ratings before he did that. SJW Baiting works best when you have a crapload of defenders chomping at the bit in the wings.

Now here's the end game with SJW Baiting. If you cave and apologize, an entire school of SJW piranhas suddenly appear and start feeding on your carcass. (Think Paula Deen.) If you stand up and hit back, you win.

Social Justice Warriors are buzzkills, busybodies and guilt mongers who traffic in nonstop shaming. They irritate people so much, folks like to see a SJW smacked down when it happens with candor and certainty.

Trump knows this and that's why, I believe, he says such outrageous things. He is baiting Social Justice Warriors to get them riled and active.

When the uproar hits, lots of disengaged folks get interested to see what all the yelling is about and they end up supporting Trump simply because he doesn't back down, he smacks the detested SJW side hard, and he throws the covers off the rot underneath. It doesn't matter what rot, his own rot from his past or the general corruption and stupidity rot of others. All the suddenly-engaged folks discern is that Trump is exposing rot and those who cover it.

People feel this like an Avenging Angel appeared to set things right.

The Social Justice Warriors, bless their hearts, fall for it every time.

And Trump's support grows bigger and bigger.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he's snowballing before the sun comes up.

The whole idea seems to be him or Hillary.

Watch out what you wish for. You might just get it.

--Brant

do we know who we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote about Trump’s feuds: He is baiting Social Justice Warriors to get them riled and active. end quote

Interesting theory. Let’s see the evidence. He is certainly getting free publicity. He is certainly pissing off a lot of women (from their where-evers) and activating the SJW’s who are then ready for the fall. But there are some downsides to that theory. Each time this technique is used there will be another percentage of people who will never vote for you. He has lost corporate sponsors and the TV venues for his shows, but I agree with Michael too. Trump got HUGE ratings during the Fox Trump Debate. Notice I acknowledge it was The Trump Debate? Does the net gain equal the net lose? I will think that is a good strategy when he wins in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, now many people have enough evidence to make up their minds to not just NEVER vote for Trump but now they think he is an angry, angry bird and a buffoon. Who comes to the front of my mind when I say, they have heard enough? Ayn Rand. How would she characterize the Talking Trash Trump-ster? What would Rand use as evidence? Michael’s characterization of Trump is to use the past tense.

Michael wrote: Trump WAS the consummate insider. He BOUGHT politicians. He BRIBED. He DEMANDED favors. He WAS a crony capitalist . . . . Now that he is a politician, he is on a mission from God to make America great again. (Not literally from God. I say it that way for emphasis.) I really believe that's in his heart. Why else would he be honest about his past wrong doing? end quote

That does make Trump sound complex, in Randian terms. He did build a lot using a corrupt system. He WAS a combination of Peter Keating and Howard Roark. He used people to get the housing project done. And he never had to blow it up, like Howard Roark. He still has his billions and a proven track record as a builder.

But back to the evidence. For this theory of redemption to work it requires faith.
Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is certainly pissing off a lot of women (from their where-evers) ...POST # 631 supra

Really? None of the ones that know him...his ex-wife, employees, the apprentice women, Sarah Palin...
Is this what you think from the media spin Peter?
The women I know are confident and not in a permanent state of "being a victim" of the big bad MAN archtype and Trump supporters.
A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, now many people have enough evidence to make up their minds to not just NEVER vote for Trump but now they think he is an angry, angry bird and a buffoon. Who comes to the front of my mind when I say, they have heard enough? Ayn Rand. How would she characterize the Talking Trash Trump-ster? What would Rand use as evidence? Michael’s characterization of Trump is to use the past tense.

Michael wrote: Trump WAS the consummate insider. He BOUGHT politicians. He BRIBED. He DEMANDED favors. He WAS a crony capitalist . . . . Now that he is a politician, he is on a mission from God to make America great again. (Not literally from God. I say it that way for emphasis.) I really believe that's in his heart. Why else would he be honest about his past wrong doing? end quote

That does make Trump sound complex, in Randian terms. He did build a lot using a corrupt system. He WAS a combination of Peter Keating and Howard Roark. He used people to get the housing project done. And he never had to blow it up, like Howard Roark. He still has his billions and a proven track record as a builder.

But back to the evidence. For this theory of redemption to work it requires faith.

Peter

Yeah, Ayn sure could judge competence...right Peter?

Excommunicated Nathanial and Barbara and gave her corpus of work to a complete incompetent who never built anything or did anything intelligent to advance her ideas.

She was not a manager Peter.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating to observe the complete frustration with the political class and the media class [might as well play the fake marxist class semantic] as to why Trump has not cratered.

I also am observing a certain look in their eyes that is fundamental shock at what Trump is accomplishing and a fundamental fear that they cannot stop him.

This building fear is that:

OMG if he succeeds, our game/gig is over!! And that would mean that they would lose power and money.

This could be a truly stunning time to be alive.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, now many people have enough evidence to make up their minds to not just NEVER vote for Trump but now they think he is an angry, angry bird and a buffoon. Who comes to the front of my mind when I say, they have heard enough? Ayn Rand. How would she characterize the Talking Trash Trump-ster? What would Rand use as evidence? Michael’s characterization of Trump is to use the past tense.

Michael wrote: Trump WAS the consummate insider. He BOUGHT politicians. He BRIBED. He DEMANDED favors. He WAS a crony capitalist . . . . Now that he is a politician, he is on a mission from God to make America great again. (Not literally from God. I say it that way for emphasis.) I really believe that's in his heart. Why else would he be honest about his past wrong doing? end quote

That does make Trump sound complex, in Randian terms. He did build a lot using a corrupt system. He WAS a combination of Peter Keating and Howard Roark. He used people to get the housing project done. And he never had to blow it up, like Howard Roark. He still has his billions and a proven track record as a builder.

But back to the evidence. For this theory of redemption to work it requires faith.

Peter

No, not faith, just observation--to see what happens; to see how it's going to play out. Personally, I think the country is being sluiced into a Hillary or Donald situation with him being the best choice, but that wouldn't be much of a difference. You see, media being taken down is not the same thing as taking down the power of the media. They'll just keep rotating the talking heads and repeating themselves.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox sure misfired with the constitutional conservative base.

 

Here's a big crack busting wide open.

 

Mark Levin is pissed at Fox and focuses on Megyn's question. He's really, really pissed. And he said he probably will not end up supporting Trump. Maybe, but probably not.

 

But one thing's for sure. He is mad as hell at what Fox did to Trump.

 

 

 

If you want to hear the details of what was behind Megyn's gotcha question to Trump about what he called women, Levin goes all the way down and puts it all in context.

 

It ain't pretty. For Megyn. Or for Fox.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush, too. From yesterday.

The Orders to Take Out Trump Must Have Gone to Fox, Not the Other Candidates

From the transcript:

It was just 24 hours ago, ladies and gentlemen -- a mere 24 hours ago -- that I was behind this very Golden EIB Microphone informing you that I had come across a bit of news. The bit of news was that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.

We all made a mistake. We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates. But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out. The broadcast network did; the candidates didn't.

. . .

Here's the point. Not one of the remaining nine candidates joined Megyn Kelly in taking the shot at Trump. Not one. Yet we have been told that there were orders from Republican donors to take Trump out. And there were a couple of other instances when Trump restated his views.

Remember the contretemps when the moderators were demanding that Trump prove that the Mexican government was knowingly sending rapists, murderers, purse snatchers, and so forth? Finally he said, "Well, I've been down there. I met with the Border Patrol. I've talked to the Border Patrol guys. There's no question that the Mexican government is doing this!" I can't recall off the top of my head now either.

But I've reported stories like the Mexican government is advertising in Mexico how to get on the American welfare rolls, how to get food stamps. The Mexican government is doing it all. Trump was right. He just could not recall where he saw it, who told him, how he knew it, or what have you. And that's why not a single other candidate piled on. The candidates were given at least maybe three chances here to pile on.

Join the moderators in the whatever you want to call it, the hit or the criticism or the questioning of Trump, and they didn't. They didn't go there when Megyn brought up the business about what Trump said about women in the past and Twitter and wherever else. And when immigration came up, no one -- no one -- joined the fray. No one tried to dump on Trump. What do you make of that? And in fact, when Trump's name came up, John Kasich and Rubio said, "Hey..." They praised Trump. "Hey, he's preaching a group of Americans..."

. . .

I'm just gonna tell you this: If Trump maintains his support or if it grows, you are gonna see a mainstream establishment that will not have any idea how to explain it. They will not believe it, and it might drive 'em nuts, because they think he didn't finish last night.

It looks like Trump's support is growing, so this is not going to go well for Fox re a huge chunk of its target audience unless Fox kisses and makes up with Trump.


I predict this will happen, but I also know Trump is a master negotiator.

It's going to cost them.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Adam and Brant make some good points. Ayn Rand certainly did botch a number of command decisions as regards her staff, and her supporters like me. I was using the Roark – Keating combination to shorthand a lot of explaining and typing. Trump is a paradigm of compromise and idealism. I am basing that observation on what he has done and SAID recently. I still require a written contract from Mister Trump, which is a sound business practice when dealing with a proud mind changer like him. I just don’t have the respect for him that is required for total support. Yeti. I mean yet. I accidentally typed yeti and had a picture of the donald in a yeti costume so I stuck it back in. I supported Mitt after a lot of soul searching and seeing / knowing his positions in writing, not just verbally or through hearsay. Donald! Show me the beef!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing on Trump's master of the media, look how the entire mainstream fell for a high-school gotcha joke.
 
First, Trump says Megyn was bleeding out her eyes and out her whatever.
 
Oops. Did someone say Social Justice Warrior?
 
Outrage.
 
Major outrage.
 
Trump's a dirty old man, misogynist and so on. Let's drag out buffoon again. Dirtbag.
 
Someone cancels his invitation to speak.
 
The SJW brigade is out in full fury condemning Trump. It's all over the place.
 
Even Carly Fiorina weighs in in total outrage mode.
 
Then Trump tweets this:
 




Ha ha!!!
 
Gotcha!
 
The dirty minds are you folks. Shame on you.
 
:smile:
 
Haven't you fallen for this one at some time or another back in high-school? I sure did.
 
And don't think Trump's the only one who is saying gotcha.
 
Look here at TheBlaze, which is not Trump-friendly:
 
‘Total Loser:’ Trump Addresses Controversial Comments He Made About Megyn Kelly and Responds to RedState’s Editor
 
Man, am I having fun.
 
I gotta stop following this shit because I need to get some work done. But it's just so damn irresistible as a case study for my marketing, persuasion and neuroscience studies. And it's unfolding in real time, almost faster than I can analyze it.
 
:smile:
 
Just one last comment. Trump then drives home one of his core messages that is resonating so much with his growing supporters.
 



Man, am I learning things I didn't realize about media manipulation.
 
Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using the Roark – Keating combination to shorthand a lot of explaining and typing. Trump is a paradigm of compromise and idealism.

Peter,

Instead of using Roark to link Trump to Rand, I use Nat Taggart.

The archetype fits better.

(btw - Sorry about deleting and reposting my previous post. The script embed from Twitter went to hell when I tried to correct a misspelled word and this screwed up the entire post's formatting. So I deleted it and started over.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK wrote: Mark Levin is pissed at Fox and focuses on Megyn's question. He's really, really pissed. And he said he probably will not end up supporting Trump. Maybe, but probably not. end quote

From re-reading Trump’s tweets I think he may be as savvy as Michael suggests.

And he may win the HE BOUGHT POLITICIANS SO HE WILL BE BOUGHT TOO debate. Some excerpts.

Here are the politicians Donald Trump has 'bought' By Rick Newman August 7, 2015 11:02 AM
Trump’s donations reveal a typical businessman looking out for his interests -- and what politicians can do to help him -- more than an ideologue backing like-minded candidates . . . . For all his self-reported wealth, Trump is not a megadonor when it comes to politics. He’s given nearly $600,000 to federal candidates and third-party groups since 2010, but that doesn’t even place him close to the top 100 donors. That could change, however, since Trump has now committed to making lots of big donations to a new candidacy: his own. Trump better be as rich as he says, because he’s going to need the money. end quote

However are any payments under the table going to come up as evidence? And what of the worst case scenario. When you deal with Tony Soprano, you end up being owned by Tony Soprano. Any mob connections going to come up in Trump's dealings?
Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote: Really? None of the ones that know him...his ex-wife, employees, the apprentice women, Sarah Palin... Is this what you think from the media spin Peter? end quote

So it isn’t Trump the misogynist or Trump the mobster? Forgetaboutit. So far no one has taken these tweets from Trump like they would if they got a private call from him. Years ago, I was talking to Adam?? About pissing off a rich guy like Mick Jagger, vs. pissing off a motorcycle club member. The cyclist might come after you but multimillionaire Mick Jagger could hire a hundred assassins to silence you forever, and probably make it look like natural causes. Sorry. You aren't supposed to reference threats over the internet so this is in no way . . . . etc.

Still thinking about Michaels letter . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never expected the full gotcha to be in the headline of an MSM outlet, but here it is in the Daily Mail:

Banned Donald Trump says: I was talking about Megyn Kelly's NOSE! Tycoon declares war on 'politically correct fools' who kicked him out of GOP conference for his 'sexist' attack on Fox host
- Made remarks about Kelly in a CNN interview over GOP debate
- Frontrunner declared there 'was blood coming out of her...wherever'
- Comment was widely interpreted as a reference to the menstrual cycle
- Influential conservative organizer Eric Erickson banned Trump from major RedState gathering in Atlanta on Saturday
- But Trump hit out at his critics, calling them 'politically correct fools'
- He also claimed on Twitter that he was referring to blood from Kelly's nose
- His campaign said in release: 'Only a deviant would think anything else'
- It called Erickson 'pathetic' and said being disinvited was an 'honor'

By Sophie Jane Evans and Francisca Chambers and Kieran Corcoran
8 August 2015

The Daily Mail

I don't even need to quote from the article.

But when Trump says the elites running this country are morons, he's proving it.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's a little conspiracy theory for folks who like that stuff.

 

Rupert Murdoch and Trump had a telephone conversation a few days ago where they buried the hatchet. Up to then, Murdoch was in total Trump-bash mode.

 

However, it looks like Murdoch was giving Trump the Godfather kiss (meaning Trump was marked for elimination and the kiss was a code for it). Murdoch knew full well what the Fox A-Team was going to do to Trump on the debate.

 

Now, after Donald shot himself out of the ambush and started gunning for the ambushers, lookee how Murdoch responds--on Twitter, at that:

 


 

"Friend" Donald?

 

:smile:

 

That sounds like "gulp" to me. I can almost hear Murdoch thinking what if this fool actually becomes president? What will happen to my interests?

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some stock in Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (THCR) which went into bankruptcy in 2004.

I was notified by mail that I would receive an amount per share which was about 25% higher than I had paid for it a few years earlier. Not bad I thought...the company didn't forget its shareholders. This guy understands business.

I liked how he schooled Wimpy Wallace at the debates. Wimpy should pay him a consultants fee.

For your enjoyment:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/06/trump_turns_around_question_about_casino_bankruptcy_blames_chris_christies_atlantic_city_collapse.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump better be as rich as he says, because he’s going to need the money. end quote

Perot spent 60 million or so on his bid.

A significant portion of a campaign budget for a national campaign is advertising for name identification.

Interviewing and hiring key campaign staff.

Trump has neither of these problems since he is completely known with probably close to a 90% name penetration before he ran for President.

He has his management structure in place and will fill in with specialized hires.

Back to Perot, when the first January after his run arrived, he had made more than the 60 million just on the interest paid to him by his underlying assets.

I don't think Trump has any money issues at all. Where he would run into substantial money would be the third party access to all 50 states.

However, it is doable.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Adam.

Trump has the money needed & the brain to get it done right.

His major obstacle, I believe, will be getting air time from the Left & Right wing media outlets who reach a significant amount of the voting public.

-J

P.S. Your Yanks doing well. I remember the book here had them at 22-1 just before the start of the season to go all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Adam.

Trump has the money needed & the brain to get it done right.

His major obstacle, I believe, will be getting air time from the Left & Right wing media outlets who reach a significant amount of the voting public.

-J

P.S. Your Yanks doing well. I remember the book here had them at 22-1 just before the start of the season to go all the way.

Believe me we are just as surprised as everyone. We always expect being in contention.

However, everything is clicking and Alex has allowed me to change my mind about him. He is a different man.

Marc thinks Toronto is going to pass the Yanks in September which would make us one of the wildcard teams so anything is possible.

Toronto just took their second in a row, making Tanaka's game tomorrow an early pivotal game that we need to win.

They would then have cut only one game in the loss column which would be acceptable,

A sweep would be a serious oops by NY.

And my Mets are in first, all is in perfect karmic balance lol. meditate-smiley-emoticon.gif

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has the money needed & the brain to get it done right.

His major obstacle, I believe, will be getting air time from the Left & Right wing media outlets who reach a significant amount of the voting public.

Joe,

I don't want to sound like a sycophant, but I've been studying Trump's behavior ever since he started this presidential run.

Your comment would be spot on if we were talking about a person who needs the media. I mean that in a priority sense of the person needing the media more than the media needs the person. In other words, a person who cannot get exposure and goes hat in hand to media outlets begging for a bit of airtime so he can become news.

Trump is different. He either studied persuasion or has an innate talent to be a celebrity or both. (I suspect both.) Regardless, in his case the media needs him much more than he needs them. He does not need to go to any media so they can graciously let him become news. He already is news. He knows how to become news. And he knows how to do it over and over and over.

If one media outlet does not report on him when his news happens (generally a shitstorm :) ), another will.

Guess who will get the ratings?

And guess which advertisers pay for? Ratings or political persuasion?

:)

Trump may have other problems if he goes third party, but media coverage will not be one of them.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...