Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

For MSK:

Snort!

--Brant

snort!

snort!

snort!

snort!

[Backlighting]

I keep being intrigued by the extent to which Trump's popularity is mystifying and alarming party leadership on both left and right. Neither side has been paying attention to the existence of the "silent majority" of "the producers in America."

Ellen,

I get the oddest feeling when I talk about this to intellectual types or read their analyses. Whenever I mention the producer angle, there is no dispute. There is just simply nothing. A big fat silence. It's even worse than talking to an empty room, where one can imagine a person entering at some point. It's like talking in outer space where there are no oxygen molecules to carry the sound waves.

Yet when I interact with Trump supporters, they may not use the same words I do, but they all treat Trump like a producer as if this were a given. This is generally apparent in comments of comparison. Something like, "These politicians are all talk, but they don't do anything. Trump gets the job done."

I have a collection of articles I have clipped from the web by people explaining the Trump phenomenon. Talk about boneheaded theories! It's enough to make you lose faith in the human reasoning faculty. Look at some of these gems: Hillary plant, emasculated white men, (recently) a conspiracy by big business or conservative small government pundits, Trump taps into white privilege bigotry, entertainer, covert persuasion skills, and on and on.

Most of the explanations then go to the "story behind the story" and that falls into two premises. Sometimes both are given in the same article, sometimes only one:

1. People are angry.

2. The American people are stupid.

These are the prime movers of Trump supporters according to the enlightened masters of deep insight.

I could offer a defense against both being the fundamental urge, starting by saying, "Just go to a Trump rally and look," but even when I have done that, never is the concept of producer-to-producer anywhere near all the depth-plumbings by the elevated souls who instruct us.

Why can I see this and they can't? Maybe it has something to do with my former addictions and recoveries. I did both AA and NA. The premise behind these treatments is simply talking and telling stories without the BS, one addict to another. It takes one to relate to one, so to speak.

So my antenna is tuned to see what is common between Trump and his supporters (meaning me, too). Where it is they relate to each other without the BS, not in words, but in how they live? The one thing I keep encountering over and over at the very bottom is producer--with an emphasis on competence.

On top of that, some of the other reasons our intellectual superiors so generously school us in (like the ones I listed ) might apply to this person or that, but at the root, there is the silent majority producer.

Even anger is secondary. Trump supporters are mostly happy upbeat folks. But none of the intellectual elite class seems to notice. Their anger is like the anger they feel at an inept employee or service provider. They just want to get rid of the incompetent folks in government (but maybe mock them and yell at them a little ) and replace them with competent folks. That means competent at producing, not competent at politics.

This is not like the raw hatred I keep seeing displayed toward Trump.

That sounds similar to leftists viewing the masses as not capable of running their own lives and needing an informed elite to take care of them.

Now we're getting into my Big Disillusionment with the Objectivist world. They've made an elite to ultimately rule over the mind of mankind, although I doubt any of them would own up to this.

And Rand presented it well in that essay ("Don't Let It Go"), which essentially boils down to "the American people are stupid" argument. It's a glass half-empty perspective. The idea is let's fix the defective nature of people before it's too late, before they destroy themselves and what little good they managed to be lucky enough to have. Their good is an accident and we must now make it real.

What makes Rand and followers (the fixed mindset side) believe they don't suffer from this same metaphysical design flaw as the other humans? Ah, but they do. Except they corrected their innate human defects with a fixed doctrine that is supposed to make them morally perfect.

I think humans are wonderful, even those who disagree with me. That's my default. And I don't believe there is a cap on human evolution. Personal growth might be subject to the limitations of a particular individual, but as a species, we have doubled our life-span in a short amount of time, vastly increased our numbers, educated most of our individuals with at least literacy, eradicated many of the plagues and diseases that used to kill folks, exploded the amount high-quality cultural artifacts and availability, and on and on. And I don't see this trend abating. On the contrary, I see it getting better all the time.

Notice that this all happens in the midst of diverse doctrines, not a specific one.

And the empty part of the glass? To me, that is the room for growth, not the defect to be corrected.

Once I realized that this was my fundamental difference with most of the rest of the Objectivist world, I changed the purpose of Objectivist Living to "working through ideas" and started saying Objectivism was a starting point here, not the end point. And that wherever a person took his or her honest thinking from there was alright by me.

Your descriptions of a "fixed" versus "growth" mindset are resonating with me in connection with the difference between the surface "spirit" of Rand's fiction and the reality of how Objectivism in practice has played out (so far). The reality has (often) been a "fixed" mindset - and there's an undertext of that in Rand's fiction. The surface, though, looks like a "growth" mindset. Thus adherents of Objectivism can think that they're being bold, daring, adventurous, creative, when actually they're living in a regimented mold.

There is a huge number of world movers out in the culture who follow Ayn Rand. But they get the growth mindset aspect from her work and simply ignore the fixed mindset parts. They don't belong to any formal Objectivist movement. Instead, they are producers: Mark Cuban, Joe Polish, Dean Jackson, Yanik Silver, many of the entrepreneurs around Richard Branson, many involved with Singularity University, many Silicon valley folks, and so on.

They tolerate each other's intellectual quirks, but they all produce great things, not just talk about producing.

I once made a quip to Barbara Branden and she laughed harder than I ever saw her laugh. This was before my clarity on all this happened, when I was still working my way through to it (from my admittedly fixed mindset back then).

I said instead of Objectivism being a philosophy for living on earth, it seemed like it was a philosophy for controlling other people's living on earth. Man, did she crack up.

Unfortunately it is both, meaning both are present in Rand's works, not just in her followers. I agree with you on this point. Rand herself is the source of both.

So it is up to each person interested in Rand's ideas to see which part interests him or her. The self-help growth part or the fixed mindset part which, ultimately, is about maintaining an inner and outer image.

This is the innate contradiction in Objectivism. It is like nuclear energy, which can light up a city or blow it up, depending on the mindset of the wielder. That makes it appeal to many different people. Popular religions, the ones that endure, also have their contradictions and diverse appeals.

Incidentally, getting back to Trump and Robert, he referred to me in one Facebook discussion as an Objectivist and said it was unbelievable how I could possibly be that and support Trump. My response? I asked him to please not call me an Objectivist.

I don't mind when OL people call me an Objectivist when it is clear that they are referring to the growth mindset type. But I don't want to be identified with the intimidation Objectivists. The save-the-world movement Objectivists. The ones with cultish characteristics. The only thing I have in common with them is interest in Ayn Rand. I live according to vastly different values, starting with actually producing great things (at least trying for now ) based on my own vision, not just talking about how others should live according to someone else's vision.

Ironically, that is the thing I most admire about Robert's achievements in fiction. He did this according to his vision, not Rand's. I can't say the same for his nonfiction thinking.

Michael

I don't like being, as AR said in her Playboy interview, if I remember correctly, "being lumped with any group"

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist, libertarian, tea party member, the "right", etc.

Do I share many of the values they profess?...yes

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert [bidinotto] thinks Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, Steyn and maybe some others are complicit in a "right-wing version of 'Journolist.'" You can tell him you see what they see (like I have done), and explain what that is, but his mind is fixed in a storyline where Trump cannot possibly be a producer and perceived as such by other producers.

Until we have a new Parliament up here in Canada, I am not commenting on US 2016 primary election campaigns, candidates and what have you -- but I am still quite interested.

Can you let us have a link to the Bidinotto opinions you are describing?

William,

Sure.

Go here for that particular discussion.

I didn't comment on that thread, but I was sorely tempted to. Why? Because Robert started off asking a question, one I call a question of identification. (In my world, I try to identify correctly before judging.)

He summed up what he thought the conservative pundits believed, all the while saying he didn't get it why they didn't bash Trump, then asked if his bullet-list understanding was correct.

I was going to chime in and mention the producer thing and some other thoughts, but something in the back of my mind kept saying this isn't just an attempt at clarity. There's something more. Maybe a prejudice looking for random facts to back it up or something.

So I decided to wait and see. I'm glad I waited.

Read the comments and you will see him gradually move toward the conspiracy idea in all its glory.

He didn't hammer it as a formality like Beck did (i.e., "I hope to prove this over time"), but he did makes statements like, "The fact that they are ALL doing it (except Beck) makes me very suspicious that there is coordination going on... you know, like a right-wing version of 'Journolist,'" and "Something is going on here that they aren't disclosing. Limbaugh a couple of weeks ago intimated that there were cryptic reasons for what he was doing, and essentially told his reasons to trust him, that he knew what he was doing," and so on.

To his credit, he did not bleed this theory over to his other discussions of Trump (at least in the stuff I've read, but granted, I'm not being super-diligent so I might have missed something--after all, this is not my full-time job ).

If you want to see my discussions with Robert, just go to his wall and go through the anti-Trump pro-Carly posts. You will find me in the middle of several.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Can you let us have a link to the Bidinotto opinions you are describing?

Sure.

Go here for that particular discussion.

Lordy. Tim Starr is in the comments. I haven't read him since he became an anti-Iraq warrior over a decade ago and started a Yahoo Group promoting it. I don't think he ever tried to match it up with his purported libertarianism.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Robert [bidinotto] thinks Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, Steyn and maybe some others are complicit in a "right-wing version of 'Journolist.'" You can tell him you see what they see (like I have done), and explain what that is, but his mind is fixed in a storyline where Trump cannot possibly be a producer and perceived as such by other producers.

Until we have a new Parliament up here in Canada, I am not commenting on US 2016 primary election campaigns, candidates and what have you -- but I am still quite interested.

Can you let us have a link to the Bidinotto opinions you are describing?

William,

Sure.

Go here for that particular discussion.

[...]

If you want to see my discussions with Robert, just go to his wall and go through the anti-Trump pro-Carly posts. You will find me in the middle of several.

That will take some digging, for later. I was wondering just how he dealt with the 'producer' angle you bring up, and where you took on his 'fixedness.' I guess you haven't given him a link-back to your discussion here!

I did find this; Bidinotto is hilarious in that thread, right or wrong (he said before skipping back to the scandals churning the Canucki election campaign, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... ).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was wondering just how he dealt with the 'producer' angle you bring up, and where you took on his 'fixedness.'

William,

I already mentioned how Robert treated the producer angle by including him in the other intellectuals. It was like speaking in outer space. The word "producer" did not even have oxygen molecules to vibrate the sound. Or as Rand would say, blank-out. Let me add, total blank-out.

It's hard to communicate how this is. There was no rebuttal. There was no agreement or disagreement. There was no condescension about it (although at the beginning there was plenty of condescension toward me--he even taught me what philosophy is ). No mocking about it or pat on the head. Not only no acknowledgment of it, there was no acknowledgment I spoke anything near the idea. There was nothing. It was as if I didn't write that part.

(btw - Robert is by far not the only Trump-hater who does it like this.)

I don't remember if I discussed fixed mindset versus growth mindset over there (I think I might have and even mentioned Carol Dweck, who I greatly recommend), but I know I did not analyze my view of Robert's thinking according to this perspective.

I did that here because I was working through my thinking out loud, so to speak. It was more appropriate to do that here.

Also, I didn't link to this discussion in my comments to Robert on Facebook, not because I am afraid of him reading my thoughts. Hell, he's welcome to if he wishes, but it's irrelevant to me whether he does or not. I didn't write them as an attack or criticism. They were more like a case study I am looking at, trying to figure out what's nagging at the back of my mind.

So why didn't I link? The fact is, I don't want to promote OL to his people.

This is out of respect. Robert was thrown out of his job at The New Individualist (and for all effects, TAS). It was very painful for him, so I don't want to be the ghost of O-Land haunting the new audience he created for his new profession. He earned his public the hard way and I have no wish to get it talking about his past conflicts. Nor do I wish (or need) to dip into it.

Michael

[Selene]

Another annoyingly deceptive headline which said she "won" the debate...[it is not a debate and therefore, no one can win the "debate."

The question that the poll asked is "who did the best 'job' in the debate."

Carly definitely did a "better job" in that debate...

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-online-survey-fiorina-won-debate-trump-still-leads-n430316

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Talking about] the producer angle [...] was like speaking in outer space. The word "producer" did not even have oxygen molecules to vibrate the sound. Or as Rand would say, blank-out. Let me add, total blank-out.

It's hard to communicate how this is. There was no rebuttal. There was no agreement or disagreement. There was no condescension about it (although at the beginning there was plenty of condescension toward me--he even taught me what philosophy is ). No mocking about it or pat on the head. Not only no acknowledgment of it, there was no acknowledgment I spoke anything near the idea. There was nothing. It was as if I didn't write that part.

(btw - Robert is by far not the only Trump-hater who does it like this.)

Not so much "blank out" as not registering at all. Like you said in the first paragraph, "like speaking in outer space [...] did not even have oxygen molecules to vibrate the sound."

I'm well familiar with this kind of reaction from what sometimes happens with questions asked of anthropogenic "climate change" advocates. As if the sounds of the words didn't travel to the recipient's ears.

The image which I think of is that it's like talking in an anechoic chamber.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Anechoic chamber: I love the concept.

--Brant

[anthony]

The first purpose and theme of Objectivism is to "save yourself".

If more of the "world" - each individual, at a time - only sees and thinks clearly with the genuine self-interest which goes with it, that'll go a long way to saving the world. And it's not essential that many of them are Objectivists or even atheists.

[Brant Gaede]

We all have our own perspectives.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The image which I think of is that it's like talking in an anechoic chamber.

 

Ellen,

 

I used to use anechoic chambers all the time to record music. So silence doesn't work in my mind with that image. But I liked the idea of coming up with a different image and I remembered a story from my past (true story).

 

One day I had to have my car fixed (this was in Brazil). I was in a hurry and a bit frazzled with something or other. I stopped at a car repair garage only because I had to.

 

There was a mechanic sitting on the ground working on the bottom of a car. He was facing away from me.

 

I went up behind him and said, "Excuse me." There was no reaction.

 

I was used to being ignored by then because of my American accent. Some Brazilians get shy when they don't understand your accent, so they pretend they don't hear. Knowing this, I spoke a little louder.

 

"Excuse me!" Still no reaction. The man went on working as if I did not exist. This started pissing me off. I was in a hurry, dammit.

 

I yelled, "Excuse me!"

 

Still nothing. Man, was I angry. I tapped the guy on the shoulder.

 

He turned around with a serene expression and a slight smile. What's he smiling about? I was seething.

 

"Why didn't you answer me?" I demanded loudly. 

 

He looked mildly curious, then an "A-Ha" look crossed his face. He pointed to his ear and shook his head no.

 

He was deaf.

 

And suddenly I felt like an asshole.

 

 

However, my feeling of nonexistence when I talked to the back of that deaf man who didn't know I was there was identical to what I feel when I talk about "producer" to Trump haters. 

 

This actually is a great metaphor.

 

I understand perfectly how you feel when talking to manmade climate change proponents. People get so mentally filtered in the story they believe in, they don't even know you're there as an individual. You're merely a character in an inner first person shooter video game to them. Your role is either enemy attacker or bystander and you have no dialogue. So they either shoot you or ignore you.

 

This is the sad end of a fixed mindset. If people allow themselves to go far enough, they literally don't perceive anything outside of their mental parameters, even when it is standing right in front of them.

 

I'm reminded of the gorilla and basketball thing:

 

 

If all your attention is fixed by a task or core story or belief or prejudice, you literally don't perceive something obvious, even when it's dressed up in a gorilla costume.

 

The climate change discussions are rife with fixed mindsets on all sides, but, from what I have observed, the manmade global warming side is by far the worst. By far.

 

Now they even want to prosecute those who disagree with RICO charges (see here with some juicy pushback). How's that for a fixed mindset on a rocket? This is identical to ISIS, differing only in religion and the severity of punishment for infidels.

 

They've made the climate change issue so toxic, they've corrupted so many facts, used so many double-standards, and had so many predictions fizzle, growth mindset people won't even look at the science anymore (pro or con). 

 

I don't know what's worse when dealing with these people, playing nonstop whack-a-mole with their deceptions or talking to them in outer space.

 

Michael

[9thdoctor]

[Talking about] the producer angle [...] was like speaking in outer space. The word "producer" did not even have oxygen molecules to vibrate the sound. Or as Rand would say, blank-out. Let me add, total blank-out.

It's hard to communicate how this is. There was no rebuttal. There was no agreement or disagreement. There was no condescension about it (although at the beginning there was plenty of condescension toward me--he even taught me what philosophy is ). No mocking about it or pat on the head. Not only no acknowledgment of it, there was no acknowledgment I spoke anything near the idea. There was nothing. It was as if I didn't write that part.

(btw - Robert is by far not the only Trump-hater who does it like this.)

Not so much "blank out" as not registering at all. Like you said in the first paragraph, "like speaking in outer space [...] did not even have oxygen molecules to vibrate the sound."

I'm well familiar with this kind of reaction from what sometimes happens with questions asked of anthropogenic "climate change" advocates. As if the sounds of the words didn't travel to the recipient's ears.

The image which I think of is that it's like talking in an anechoic chamber.

Ellen

But when two people are in an anechoic chamber and they talk to each other, they hear each other fine. There just isn't any echo.

But anyway, more importantly, if a certain group of "concerned scientists" have their way you're going to have much bigger problems you racketeer you...

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/21/racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-climate

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's how Trump keeps people honest:

 

 

I believe that's how he manages his projects when people slack off or do things wrong. They get it right in front of everyone.

 

Imagine him doing this with his staff when running the country. Nobody will be too big to get called out...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who want to see a slightly different side to Donald Trump, here is a gotcha-less interview with Hugh Hewitt:

 

 

Trump says he will be unveiling some of his picks for key positions shortly. He also said he has been sought out by many top people in the military who want to get on board with him.

 

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm well familiar with this kind of reaction from what sometimes happens with questions asked of anthropogenic "climate change" advocates. As if the sounds of the words didn't travel to the recipient's ears.

The image which I think of is that it's like talking in an anechoic chamber.

Ellen

But when two people are in an anechoic chamber and they talk to each other, they hear each other fine. There just isn't any echo.

But anyway, more importantly, if a certain group of "concerned scientists" have their way you're going to have much bigger problems you racketeer you...

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/21/racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-climate

Right, re anechoic chamber, so the image doesn't really work. I was thinking in terms of no sound getting out of the chamber.

Re being a racketeer, yeah, the life of a "denialist" is getting to be hazardous.

Ellen

[Mikee]

For those who want to see a slightly different side to Donald Trump, here is a gotcha-less interview with Hugh Hewitt:

Trump says he will be unveiling some of his picks for key positions shortly. He also said he has been sought out by many top people in the military who want to get on board with him.

Michael

That was good.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the things I love about Trump:

 

"@coolgirl6978: @oreillyfactor @FoxNews this is bull fox. O'Reilly, I expect better from you. What is going on? Fair and balanced my ass"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

September 22, 2015

 

 

I haven't seen the show so I don't know what happened. But I'm sure we'll all know about it before too long.

 

Trump makes news even when there is no news. And he makes it about him. 

 

O'Reilly, with all his media savvy, is getting ready to get punked big-time.

 

 

This reminds me of my bad time in the streets. I always had the good sense to not pick fights with those who had nothing to lose. Those guys would mess you up bad if you tangled with them.

 

Trump is self-funding, so there are no backstage power-players to keep him in line. But O'Reilly works for Fox. He does have something to lose if he pisses the backstage guys off...

 

Guess who is going to get the better end of this one?

 

 

When this dies down, what will the public see? That Trump can't be bought and can't be intimidated. They won't remember the details too much, just the impact.

 

Michael

[Selene]

From the tomb of the unknown polls:

A strong performance in last week’s Republican presidential debate has raised former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s public profile, but not nearly enough to cut into real estate mogul Donald Trump’s lead over the rest of the GOP field.

Trump takes 32 percent of the vote among self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, according to a new Morning Consult tracking poll — far ahead of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s 12 percent and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s 11 percent.

Fiorina finishes in fourth position, at 6 percent, just ahead of Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), who clock in with 5 percent each.

However, her trajectory is definable and headed in an upward arc.

Carson, Bush and Fiorina are all bunched together in the race for second place. Thirteen percent of voters say they would pick Carson as their backup choice, compared with 11 percent for Bush and 10 percent for Fiorina.

Republican voters are still deeply intrigued by the outsider candidates in the field, all of whom poll higher than more established, veteran politicians. More than 60 percent of Republicans say they have a favorable impression of Carson (62 percent) and Trump (61 percent). Fiorina, who was unknown to much of the GOP base before turning in two consecutive rock-solid debate performances, is seen favorably by 51 percent of Republican voters, while 20 percent view her unfavorably.

More than half of Republican primary voters say they see Bush, Rubio and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee favorably.

On the Dem side Evita's arc is down:

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the first time has fallen below the 50 percent mark. She maintains a strong lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — 49 percent to 28 percent — though her 21-point lead is at its lowest point since Morning Consult began surveying the Democratic field.

And:

Clinton maintains a strongly favorable image among self-identified Democratic voters, 76 percent of whom say they see her in a positive light. But Sanders, too, is broadly popular with Democrats: 59 percent see him favorably, versus 13 percent who view him unfavorably.

Clinton has a net-unfavorable rating of 45 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable among registered voters. Among that broader sample, only three candidates have favorable ratings higher than their unfavorable ratings: Sanders, Carson and Fiorina.

But Clinton maintains leads over every possible Republican nominee against whom she was tested. Registered voters favor Clinton by a 45 percent to 39 percent margin over Bush, by a 46 percent to 38 percent margin over Rubio and by a 45 percent to 41 percent margin over Trump.

Just one-third of registered voters say the country is headed in the right direction, while two-thirds say the country is on the wrong track. Forty-two percent say they approve of the job President Obama is doing, a statistically insignificant difference compared with last week. Fifty-five percent disapprove of Obama’s job performance.

The Morning Consult survey polled 4,033 registered voters for an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. A subsample of 1,551 self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning independents carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, while a subsample of 1,761 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.

http://morningconsult.com/2015/09/poll-trump-leads-clinton-under-50/ <<<< Some really nice chart graphics that I cannot embed and of course I have no idea why either.

A...

[Selene]

And from the Tomb of Unknown Pols, comes the Bush Pacs...

 

Here comes the first LSTS's to hit Beach Trump ...

 

 

The battle against Donald Trump is ramping up on a new front: Super PACs.

The economic conservative Super PAC “Club for Growth Action” is jumping into the fray, unveiling an Iowa ad buy with two television spots worth more than $1 million. The ads start Thursday in Iowa, both on local television and on Fox News.

The move represents the first major effort by an outside group to bring down the real estate mogul, who is leading in polls nationally and in early states. Jeb's Super PAC, Right to Rise, will follow with anti-Trump television spots worth more than $20 million in early states.

The Club's first ad focuses on what they say is Trump's "very liberal" record, warning voters that Trump is "just another politician" and that "he's really just playing us for chumps" by running for the Republican nomination. Its second ad also attacks Trump as "the worst kind of politician," but this time the spotlight is on his support of eminent domain, asserting that he holds a typically liberal stance on the issue.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/conservative-super-pac-declares-war-donald-trump/story?id=33772593

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Dayaamm!

Bill O'Reilly is the only one I know of who can pull the teeth out of Trump's counterslams.

Look at this:

Bill O'Reilly: Donald Trump's presidential campaign is 'good for America'

O'Reilly figured it out. The only way to fight Trump and win is to not fight him. Say he's a good guy who gets grumpy.

What's The Donald going to do now? Say it's a lie? Wanna bet he'll still be going on O'Reilly's show once in awhile?

I doubt others have figured this out, so there are probably some legs left in Trump's Twitter backlash against Fox. But the headline outrage show has died dead deceased and departed. No trading that one up the chain. So I have to take it back that Trump is going to punk O'Reilly. Maybe he'll do it somewhere else, but not here. Not from what I see.

It's fascinating to watch two masters facing off. Man, am I learning stuff about the media...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know it's getting more serious that appears to the naked eye when Trump is subjected to Jungian analysis.

Trump The Trickster And Our National Identity
America On A Tightrope, Unnerved By A Shadow
By Esther Goldberg
8.26.15
The American Spectator

Ms. Golberg starts with a Nietzschean parable of a tightrope walker who is pursued by a trickster and falls to his death, and ends like this:

Donald Trump is giving a voice to Americans who want to get back to basic American values, who want to make America great again. Like the tightrope walker in our allegory, we’re midway across the rope, and must choose our future. Do we have what it takes to make it all the way?

I don't agree with everything she said in this article. And anti-Trump people should like what Nietzsche calls the trickster--a buffoon.

But I think her analysis is far better than many of the boneheaded "real reasons Trump is winning" from the Chattering Class. It makes you think and that's always a plus to me.

Michael

[Selene]

Trump is on the Colbert show tonight...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

They taped it this afternoon and there are already some press reports.

It seems like both were very friendly to each other.

I wonder about something. Trump bashed the crap out of Fox one day before he taped Colbert.

Ya' think that helped with the overall favorable mood of the interview?

With other people, I would say it was a coincidence, but I've just seen too much media manipulation mastery by Trump to dismiss the idea.

And everybody knows Trump and Fox are going to kiss and make up soon.

Michael

[Selene]

Thanks Michael:

I have yet to see his new show since unless it is c-span, a live event or sports or a movie I need to see, I watch zero tv.

A...