Donald Trump

[Peter]

25 minutes ago, tmj said:

But he would have to get his people in the WH right away, oh wait..

I wonder what the Secret Service is going to do about this. And the armed services will follow the commander in chief's orders. 

aside. I’m watching Dick Cavett interview Sophia Loren. I had no clue she was so intelligent and incredibly “quick on the draw.” After some impertinent questions from him, she "put him in his place."    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some more cleanup of old garbage.

Trump wins Michael Cohen case… – CITIZEN FREE PRESS

CITIZENFREEPRESS.COM

---

  A New York State court in Manhattan held Friday that the Trump Organization does not need to pay millions of dollars in legal bills to Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen.   In March …

Michael

[william.scherk]

Former President Trump speaks with Hugh Hewitt, posted today (with transcription) at HughHewitt.com:

Hewitt and Trump:

-- brief excerpt from the transcript, in which Trump talks about Sidney Powell. 

Quote

HH: Let me ask you about Sidney Powell. The Washington Post yesterday reported that she raised more than $14 million on the election litigation. Did you know about that?

DJT: No, she was, she didn’t work for me. She was a lawyer that was representing General Flynn and some others, and she never officially, now she was on our side from the standpoint, I guess, you know, from the standpoint of what she was doing, but she didn’t work for me as per se. She worked for General Flynn and others. And I disagree with some of the things that she’s doing, and some of the statements that she made, as you know.

HH: Yes.

DJT: But I didn’t see the story, no.

 

[william.scherk]

Axios says Trump said "Fuck him" on the subject of Netanyahu. Plausible?

I like the idea of a regular "exclusive interview." I mean, Trump now does at least one interview a week. Is each "exclusive" more exclusive than the preceding interview? Maybe it means that he excludes enemies of the people. 

On the other hand,  Trump sat down with foe Jonathan Karl last March, knowing Karl was gathering material for a critical book about the last acts of the Trump administration. That book became the best-seller "Betrayal." 

If Trump is a man of principle and dignity, it could be that he really doesn't give a shit what Netanyahu says or thinks, especially given the mutually-rewarding relationship was over when Trump left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But that little "fuck him" toss-off will splatter Trump's name and opinion across the lamestream media. Why not? Cost/benefit, small/large.

"If you betray me, you will be savaged." 

Edited December 10, 2021 by william.scherk
Deleted "More likely is that it's shoe polish, a common PR gloss." Added Karl book cover

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

But that little "fuck him" toss-off will splatter Trump's name and opinion across the lamestream media. Why not? Cost/benefit, small/large.

"If you betray me, you will be savaged." 

William,

You haven't learned anything about Trump yet, have you?

Does anyone really believe Trump needs help in telling Netanyahu of his displeasure, if this story is even true and not spin?

Your premise is that Trump sees the press as some sort of moral authority he can use to award or punish his enemies--a moral authority he can use and might even abuse at times. Therefore, he doesn't have to let people know if he is pleased with them or not. He uses the press for this.

 

But nothing could be further from Trump's way of doing things. He just lets the press be the press, savagery and all, and gives them red dripping meat at times to chew on raw, which is their favorite form of eating.

And chew they do.
It don't matter who.
When they smell blood,
It could be you.

(Who knows, one day I may get there as a poet.  )

Here are some quotes from The Art of the Deal. During Trump's entire public life as a politician, I haven't seen him change one bit in his perception of what the press is and what makes it tick.

Quote

One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It’s in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. 

. . . 

The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business. 

. . . 

The other thing I do when I talk with reporters is to be straight. I try not to deceive them or to be defensive, because those are precisely the ways most people get themselves into trouble with the press. Instead, when a reporter asks me a tough question, I try to frame a positive answer, even if that means shifting the ground. For example, if someone asks me what negative effects the world’s tallest building might have on the West Side, I turn the tables and talk about how New Yorkers deserve the world’s tallest building, and what a boost it will give the city to have that honor again. When a reporter asks why I build only for the rich, I note that the rich aren’t the only ones who benefit from my buildings. I explain that I put thousands of people to work who might otherwise be collecting unemployment, and that I add to the city’s tax base every time I build a new project. 

. . . 

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. 

I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration— and a very effective form of promotion. 

. . . 

You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on. 

. . . 

If any press story about a celebrity helped promote Trump Tower, I suspect it was one about a sale that never actually occurred. Shortly after we began selling apartments, I got a call from a reporter asking whether or not it was true that Prince Charles had purchased an apartment in Trump Tower. It so happened that this was the week when Prince Charles and Lady Diana had gotten married, and they were, at that moment, the most celebrated couple in the world. Our policy was not to comment about sales, and that’s what I told this reporter, In other words, I refused to confirm or deny the rumor. Apparently, the reporter then decided to call Buckingham Palace. By this time, the royal couple had left for their honeymoon and they were out on the yacht Britannia, so the Buckingham Palace spokesman said just what I had: they couldn’t confirm or deny the rumor. 

That was all the media needed. In the absence of a denial, the story that the royal couple was considering buying an apartment in Trump Tower became front-page news all over the world. 

. . . 

Koch, however, decided to release his letter. Apparently, he figured that if he made fun of my offer publicly, I’d just quietly slink away. 

He totally underestimated the press reaction. First, the press thrives on confrontation. They also love stories about extremes, whether they’re great successes or terrible failures. This story had it all. Perhaps most important, many reporters tend to see themselves as consumer advocates. Almost nothing gets them as outraged as a boondoggle that victimizes average citizens. The city’s fiasco at the Wollman Rink was an absolute classic. 

Even I was surprised at how totally the press took my side. Obviously, that doesn’t always happen. But this time, within three days, there were dozens of articles and editorials attacking Koch for his reaction to my offer. 

. . . 

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from dealing with politicians over the years, it’s that the only thing guaranteed to force them into action is the press—or, more specifically, fear of the press. You can apply all kinds of pressure, make all sorts of pleas and threats, contribute large sums of money to their campaigns, and generally it gets you nothing. But raise the possibility of bad press, even in an obscure publication, and most politicians will jump. Bad press translates into potential lost votes, and if a politician loses enough votes, he won’t get reelected. If that happens, he might have to go out and take a 9 to 5 job. That’s the last thing most politicians want to do. 

My favorite quote from Trump about the press from The Art of the Deal is this one:

Quote

Contrary to what a lot of people think, I don’t enjoy doing press.

Let that sink in. Among Trump's personal values, the press is not pleasure. It's merely a problem to solve when needed.

 

Trump has been playing the press in the same manner since way before his political days: be different--even outrageous at times, be straight, use bravado, and aim for the extremes.

During his political times, I noticed that he added a technique. He likes to lead the press in the direction of their own savagery, then do a gotcha on them with words to show just how stupid they are. And they fall for it every time.

The first time I noticed this was when he said about Megyn Kelly that she had blood coming out of her eyes and out of her "wherever." Then later he got to imply the press had a nasty mind because he didn't say anything dirty at all.

There are gazillions of examples of Trump using this technique. 

Notice, in the quotes, he also knows how to push the "victimization story" button the press loves so much by knowing how that story works for the press. And there are plenty of other techniques. Look into them sometime. You might be surprised at how many there are, and how they are thought through and deployed on purpose.

 

The press, for Trump, is a publicity-generator and little else. The press is the last thing on Trump's mind when expressing his pleasure or displeasure of a person. Or of anything substantive, for that matter. By the time a feud gets to the press, for Trump it has become a show, not an administrative act. At that point, he gooses up the show, not the event itself. For example, Comey did not get more fired or even more punished after his firing became a public scandal. He got plenty fired and punished outside of the press arena, before the press arena. But look at the show that followed.  

Trump only thinks of the press in terms of whether the way an issue is framed will generate audience. And that's about it. He knows if people are talking about him, positive or negative, he can insert himself into any issue and be relevant. And with lots of people talking about him, he can get lots of stuff done.

Trump has other ways, far more effective ways, of dealing with substance and his evaluation of a person.

I have one caveat to Trump's moral indifference to the press, though. He has learned over time that the media lies without any scruples. The truth, the lie, it's all copy for the press. And worse, the mainstream media favors lies in politics. It uses surges and barrages of fake outrage and fake facts to "control the narrative" when they want to sell a political agenda. Trump disapproves of this and calls it out.

I don't recall him ever using this as a technique himself. He will soon have a top media and social media company, so let's see if he uses it there. Personally, I don't see it happening. That's just not his way of doing things.

He does use fantasy and exaggeration and some people call that "lies," etc., but he uses it to go in a "larger than life" direction of something real, a romantic direction to use a Randian mindset, not in the "destroy good people" or even "destroy the good for being the good" direction the fake news media does all the time.

Back to point. In case it's not clear, Trump isn't one to whisper behind a person's back and let others do his dirty work for him. Trump says things to people's faces, the good, the bad and the ugly. (Remember his former tagline? You're fired!  ) He's also great about telling a person his admiration for them, especially praising jobs well done.

And why does he do it face to face?

He likes to.

Michael

[Peter]

Old Hickory Clinton: "If I were a betting person right now, I'd say Trump is going to run again," she told Sunday Today host Willie Geist. "He seems to be setting himself up to do that, and if he's not held accountable, he gets to do it again." "I think that could be the end of our democracy," she said. "Not too be too pointed about it, but I want people to understand that this could be a make-or-break point. If he or someone of his ilk were once again to be elected president, especially if he had a Congress that would do his bidding, you will not recognize our country." end crap

Michael wrote, “Back to point. In case it's not clear, Trump isn't one to whisper behind a person's back and let others do his dirty work for him. Trump says things to people's faces, the good, the bad and the ugly.”

Well said. There, for all to see, is the real Donald Trump. He is for The Constitution while Clinton would work around the law to fill her pockets and turn America into something like a socialist republic, if that is possible. I think it is great that of the nine Supreme Court justices, six lean conservative and three lean leftist. We can thank President Trump for that. I just saw a flag pole in a neighbor’s yard with a beautiful, large American flag on top and below it was a same sized flag that read Trump 2024.

[Marc]

Trump is a chess player.

2024, we may as well be talking about him running in 3024,because neither will even exist unless he gets reinstated, or the military holds a real election or the current administration leaves however they do that.

2024 is totally moot.

The moment is now, and it is happening now.

Classic Trump! 

Long live The King! 

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Marc said:

2024, we may as well be talking about him running in 3024,because neither will even exist unless he gets reinstated, or the military holds a real election or the current administration leaves however they do that.

Sounds too much like a "banana republic." And that is not going to happen. There will be an election in 2024 and no coups before then. Anyone who tries to illegally overthrow the Biden term of office will be tried for treason . . . . unless that "supposed" fact comes to light, that there was widespread fraud. No proof . . . but an insurrection . . . equals treason. Say, why don't you fellow North Americans break off from Queen Elizabeth and G.B. like Harry? 

[william.scherk]

On 12/10/2021 at 12:59 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 12/9/2021 at 10:10 PM, william.scherk said:

But that little "fuck him" toss-off will splatter Trump's name and opinion across the lamestream media. Why not? Cost/benefit, small/large.

"If you betray me, you will be savaged." 

You haven't learned anything about Trump yet, have you?

Au contraire.

"if you betray me, you will be savaged." 

 

Trump’s Big Deal Part I: May Your House Be Destroyed

Quote

Axios Middle East correspondent Barak Ravid and national political correspondent Jonathan Swan tell how Donald Trump’s grand plan to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians was doomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to compromise and a series of bizarre choices that alienated the Palestinians. Through exclusive reporting and a new interview with Trump and others closely involved, Ravid also reveals that the supposed bromance between Trump and Netanyahu is a myth. When Ravid asked Trump, the former president said about Netanyahu, “F--k him.” 

[...]

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by william.scherk
Added link to Barak Ravid and Jonathan Swan's podcast containing the Trump interview

[tmj]

38 minutes ago, Peter said:

Sounds too much like a "banana republic." And that is not going to happen. There will be an election in 2024 and no coups before then. Anyone who tries to illegally overthrow the Biden term of office will be tried for treason . . . . unless that "supposed" fact comes to light, that there was widespread fraud. No proof . . . but an insurrection . . . equals treason. Say, why don't you fellow North Americans break off from Queen Elizabeth and G.B. like Harry? 

You say that like all insurrection is bad. Is there a a legal mechanism for 'overthrow'ing? Pretty sure immediately after an insurrection it isn't treason anymore.

Status Quo uber alles!

[ThatGuy]

Opposition to Stalin was considered "treason", too. Solzhenitsyn should have waited for the truth about the Gulags to have been revealed first. Bad Solzhenitsyn. Bad.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

42 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Au contraire.

"if you betray me, you will be savaged." 

William,

This tells me you not only still haven't learned, you have no interest in looking at what exists if it doesn't fit your story. At least re Trump.

Here is what exists. Trump spends his time building, not destroying.

He can dismiss, withdraw support, etc., and he's clear about his opinions, but go out and savage? Spend time on it? Destroy qua destroy?

Nah...

That's what your side does. You even have the entire fake media to help.

And they are ruthless, you racist, you.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Say, why don't you fellow North Americans break off from Queen Elizabeth and G.B. like Harry? 

Firstly, we are waiting for republican sentiment to reach a critical mass. Right now, only a small majority of Canadians show a preference for an elected head of state. 

For many Canadians, interest in remaining a constitutional monarchy will die with Queen Elizabeth - Angus Reid Institute

ANGUSREID.ORG

---

Most say they’ll be saddened by death of Queen, but don’t wish to continue with monarchy under Charles November 30, 2021 – The tiny island nation of Barbados is making

Secondly, the Canadian constitution is a helluva difficult thing to amend. Simply put, all the provinces must come to an agreement before any changes could be made -- and the debate over how the head of state would be selected has yet to become "officialized" -- meaning no party has yet laid out what would replace the Queen.

The trend toward support for a constitutional republic has moved seemingly quickly in the last fifteen years. 

If I had to guess, Australia will become a republic before Canada does. 

[william.scherk]

On 12/9/2021 at 10:10 PM, william.scherk said:

Axios says Trump said "Fuck him" on the subject of Netanyahu. Plausible?

 

[Peter]

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The trend toward support for a constitutional republic has moved seemingly quickly in the last fifteen years. 

If I had to guess, Australia will become a republic before Canada does. 

Thanks for the insight. Even though we had two wars with Great Britain, now we are very good friends. Come to think of it, everywhere English is the official language, we are friends and have each other's backs. Here's an odd thought. French is one of the two official, Canadian languages so how is Canada's relationship with France? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Who cares about Axios? Establishment authoritarians on the left, that's who. Maybe people with TDS.

I think you need a conceptual referent. Just repeating a mantra, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, Trump savage, will not make it true.

But with so much repetition among so much noise lacking signal, the actual link to reality gets destroyed in one's brain.

So let's put it back. Reality, I mean.

What does savaging look like in the political arena?

Here's a good example.

Watch: NBC’s ‘Saturday Night Live’ Jokes About Roger Stone’s Cancer-Stricken Wife Getting Gang-Raped

Watch: NBC's 'Saturday Night Live' Jokes About Roger Stone's Cancer-Stricken Wife Getting Gang-Raped

WWW.BREITBART.COM

---

NBC's "Saturday Night Live" aired a joke about members of Congress gang-raping Roger Stone's wife, who is battling cancer. The tasteless one-liner came from "Weekend Update" anchor Michael Che, who...

Dismissing a disloyal person with a "fuck him" is not savagery.

Gang raping a 75 year old lady with Stage 3 cancer is savagery. And so is wishing for it. 

Your side is loaded with creeps. Inhuman savages. And that's being charitable.

And it's worse. These are people who will turn you into a creep, an inhuman savage, if you stay around them long enough.

Anyway, time to get back to reading Alec Baldwin talk about gun control.

 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And it's worse. These are people who will turn you into a creep, an inhuman savage, if you stay around them long enough.

Anyway, time to get back to reading Alex Baldwin talk about gun control.

 

And they eat their own, as well: See the new flap between Sarah Silverman and Joy Reid. Just after Silverman (along with co-star Seth Rogan) called out critics of her movie SANTA, INC. as being racists, she gets savaged by THE VIEW's Joy Reid for...wait for it...being "racist". 
 

Antisemitic Trolls Are Flooding New 'Woke' Seth Rogen Christmas Movie With Nazi Comments

GOD.DAILYDOT.COM

---

This is horrifying.

Sarah Silverman Hit with Race Card for Criticizing Joy Reid - Louder With Crowder

WWW.LOUDERWITHCROWDER.COM

---

The comedian is confused as to why.

 

[william.scherk]

48 minutes ago, Peter said:

Here's an odd thought. French is one of the two official, Canadian languages so how is Canada's relationship with France? 

It's not that odd a thought. Generally, we are close, friendly allies -- in NATO and in la Francophonie (the French equivalent of the Commonwealth).  The nadir in Canadian-French relations  came when President DeGaulle spoke his famous "Vive le Quebec. Vive le Quebec libre" lines in Montreal in 1967.

I think most francophone Quebecers consider themselves unattached to France. It's been a long time since la France had any say in the affairs of Le Canada.

[Marc]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Sounds too much like a "banana republic." And that is not going to happen. There will be an election in 2024 and no coups before then. Anyone who tries to illegally overthrow the Biden term of office will be tried for treason . . . . unless that "supposed" fact comes to light, that there was widespread fraud. No proof . . . but an insurrection . . . equals treason. Say, why don't you fellow North Americans break off from Queen Elizabeth and G.B. like Harry? 

Now you are calling the Constitution a coup? 

I am talking about re instating the legally elected President.

[william.scherk]

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I think most francophone Quebecers consider themselves unattached to France. It's been a long time since la France had any say in the affairs of Le Canada.

That was a bit curt. I meant unattached to official France, subordinate in any way.

The English victory was total, France was expelled from North America, and it's those pesky remnants -- the descendants of French settlers, subject to allegiance or deportation (as with the Acadians) who forged the first Canadien identity.  The industrious beaver, the name of the land itself, the maple leaf, the anthem, all by the cannot-be-put-down French-speaking British subjects.

Their chez-nous is thus Lower Canada/Quebec, not metropolitan France, yet since having a literate French-speaking population from around the world, French culture penetrates in much the same way English-speaking culture from 'the old country' penetrates the anglosphere. They know the stars, the authors, the songs and products and treasures, the history, the Pantheon. 

Having one of the most beautiful old cities in North America to root the myths of 'homeland' ... 

When Elizabeth is in Canada, she is the Queen of Canada, and she can stay in one of two official residences reserved for our head of state -- in the active military base of La Citadelle. 

Which goes a little way to explain that once she dies, some of these creaky old Crown affectations and state trappings and possessions will stay, while the House of Windsor will not, not in the long run.

[Peter]

6 hours ago, Marc said:

Now you are calling the Constitution a coup? 

I am talking about re instating the legally elected President.

There are two aspects to your supposition, the moral and the legal. No one has gotten anywhere near the proof needed. It's not even "National Enquirer" newsworthy. If someone tries to overthrow the government . . . the police or the military will put a stop to it and the people involved will be up . . . what's the name of the show . . . Oh, yeah. Schitts Creek.     

[Peter]

5 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Which goes a little way to explain that once she dies, some of these creaky old Crown affectations and state trappings and possessions will stay, while the House of Windsor will not, not in the long run.

Well said. That mansion is beautiful. The loon, kiwi, and emu are interesting national birds of English-speaking countries . . . as is the bald eagle. I hope the Queen lives a long, long time.  

[Peter]

10 hours ago, tmj said:

You say that like all insurrection is bad.

Not really. If our rights are trampled on, then and only then, is impeachment or insurrection a necessity. If any "severe to overwhelming evidence" of voter fraud comes to light, then it could change the thinking of Americans, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. But remember, the President who is also the commander of the military, is still President. He was sworn in. He has not been impeached. I hear that President Biden's poll numbers are still dropping. I may just check RCP or Rasmussen to see. If China invades Taiwan they can kiss their Olympics good bye.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

48 minutes ago, Peter said:

No one has gotten anywhere near the proof needed.

Peter,

There's more than enough proof.

Nobody's been able to get the proof into a court.

The courts are refusing to look at the proof.

If it were one case or other, I'd say OK. Even if it were half a dozen or so. But, in almost ALL cases--countless cases--all over the country, the courts are refusing to look at evidence?

Come on...

Makes me think of Jeffrey Epstein and judges...

I know all judges are not perverts. But I also know all judges, especially the ones relevant to the 2020 election fraud, have families.

And which family doesn't have a pervert somewhere? Or an embezzler? Or someone with something they need to hide real bad?

Michael

[Peter]

47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And which family doesn't have a pervert somewhere? Or an embezzler? Or someone with something they need to hide real bad?

This sounds like a case for the FBI. I think the majority of them are honorable people. Are we talking about thousands or millions of people who . . . you know (as Jake Harper said on "Two and a Half Men") . . . who know the truth? If this "plenty of proof" was available what newspaper wouldn't be running with it like the current tornado damage in the southeast? It would be the next top story! It was a year ago this November. No. Realistically, Joe Biden will be President in 2024, and blather won't change that fact. Though a medical or age issue might be relevant. I saw another story about how Kamala-kamala ding dong is incompetent.