Donald Trump

[Jonathan]

So, Trump's position is that Bush was responsible for the economic collapse? Hmmm.

In what way? I can understand, and even agree, if Trump's view is that Bush was trying to clean up the mess of the whole GSE situation, but didn't act quickly or aggressively enough to shut them down. Is that Trump's position?

J

[turkeyfoot]

On 2/14/2016 at 1:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump's speech is a reflection of how people think.

I'm mentioning this more as a note to myself than anything else.

This was probably the most important insight I have had so far regarding Trump's persuasion techniques.

Now I think I can go through the Dilbert dude's "linguistic kill shot" stuff and position it correctly. (The Dilbert dude is Scott Adams see here for his blog.) I've been putting this off because I wanted to come to some of my own conclusions through my own observations before being told what to look for. That observation of mine above does it for me. 

_________________________________________________________

Nice find!

Scott Adams is a New Yorker from his earliest roots, as he said, he aligns himself with a NY state of mind. ) The beacon of free market values. The target of animosity.

"Where I grew up, in upstate New York, empathy looks exactly like Trump. Political correctness wasn’t a thing when I grew up, and probably isn’t a thing in my old hometown today. If you’re trying to “make America great” or anything productive at all, you’re 100% empathetic according to the way I was raised. Anything else is posture. Where I grew up, you have to be useful or go home. Trump is trying to be useful. That’s empathy, according to my people." 

Adams is perceptive I get that Trump is in nomination mode. My upbringing, as a military brat, keeps my (feet)boots on the ground and as such, Trumps manner, while attracting attention, is, imo, negatively leaned towards self adulation, and a personal turn off. Thats not to say, it lacks substance, slinging mud in a dirt fight is good, but it doesnt hold appeal for me. I dislike authoritative speech from politicians mouths. Trump does well in that regard with his non politician like rhetoric. My assumption is we are alike in that regard.

The New York state of mind thingy. A NY friend, of several decade, came over to our new house. Shes very opinionated. So much so as she walked through she mentioned everything she would have done differently. "Oh, the paint is atrocious." Shes not an interior decorator, nor does she own a swanky place. I tend to view ops as valuable, even when offered at the expense of friendship, views of the personal kind are best kept to ones self, especially since nobody asked her. )   

Trump tells us exactly what he thinks. There is a lot of value in his stance taken towards the nomination in exposing others but regaling with braggadocio is beneath most of us. You can say his powers of persuasion are tops and they are good, when appealing to low information but they've failed to persuade me or change my views on many issues. 

Gary Johnson for president! )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bare knuckles time.

If you screw with Trump, expect a fight. And he's prepared to go all the way down if that's what it takes.

Including suing Cruz over his eligibility because he was born in Canada. People say even Trump won't go there.

He's there.

He just posted this on Facebook:

Trump said:

 

RESPONSE TO THE LIES OF SENATOR CRUZ:

Ted Cruz is a totally unstable individual. He is the single biggest liar I’ve ever come across, in politics or otherwise, and I have seen some of the best of them. His statements are totally untrue and completely outrageous. It is hard to believe a person who proclaims to be a Christian could be so dishonest and lie so much.

Cruz said I would be appointing a liberal judge when in fact I will appoint a great conservative and I am the only candidate who has gone so far, at the debate, as to suggest two individuals I feel would best represent the conservative values we need to protect: William “Bill” Pryor Jr. and Diane Sykes.

Cruz says I am pro-choice, when in fact I am staunchly pro-life and have been for a long time. Like Ronald Reagan, on many issues, I have evolved.

Cruz says I am in favor of ObamaCare, when in fact I have spoken about repealing and replacing this disaster of a system at every speech throughout my campaign and since it’s inception. Meanwhile, Cruz was responsible for getting Bush to put in the judge that failed to vote against ObamaCare twice.

Cruz says I will try to take away your second amendment rights, when I am one of the strongest proponents of the right to bear arms and I say so in every speech that I have made for years. I am a proud member of the NRA and so are my sons.

Cruz has become unhinged and is lying with the hopes that his statements will go unchecked until after the election and he will save his failing campaign.

In Iowa, Cruz told thousands of Ben Carson voters that Dr. Carson had left the race and to instead vote for Ted Cruz. He apologized when the race was over. Likewise, his fraudulent voter violation form sent to Iowa voters. If Ted is going to continue to lie with such desperation, I have no choice but to fight back.

One of the ways I can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against him relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be President. If he doesn’t take down his false ads and retract his lies, I will do so immediately. Additionally, the RNC should intervene and if they don’t they are in default of their pledge to me.

I am the strongest on the borders and I will build a wall, and it will be a real wall. I am strongest on illegal immigration, strongest on ISIS, strongest on the military and I will take care of our Vets. I will end common core and preserve the second amendment. I will renegotiate our trade deals and bring our jobs back to our country. I am the only person who will Make America Great Again.

 

All I can say is:

Trump 2016.

 

Michael

[merjet]

Is Cruz eligible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump has a lot to say about Cruz in this presser:

 

In this particular video, the beginning is cut off where he says he did more for Bernie's campaign than Bernie did. That when Hillary hit him on women and he hit back, then she backed off, Bernie's numbers surged.

btw - Trump has put the RNC on notice again about fair treatment because of stacking the crowd during debates and some other things. He said the RNC is not living up to the pledge.

Let's see if the establishment wing of the RNC has the balls to call him on running third party.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

MK, do you think Trump is clever or is it you believe he has the best chance to win the nomination. Is he doing it cleanly or does that not matter?

Trump expressed his stance in the debate over entitlements and his comments in the moment consisted only of fraud and waste abuses. If he had a complete view to be considered in this debate maybe he should have stated what it is.

Cruz is permitted us his personal view of Trump when he considers what Trump might do. He made a cohesive argument that Trump take umbrage with. Cruz didn't lie.

I just watched Saturdays debate. What a petulant child like man child. Cruz reminded him of the interminable behavior of interruption.

I think Trump is showing signs of breaking despite his simple messages appealing to low information voters. He senses hes riding a current wave of popularity, it being unnecessary to clarify positions while hes opponents are doing damage, imo. Cruz continues his effective barrage and Trump does himself no favors. 

And talk about gaffes! Carson, in response to being asked as a non politician. "I don't want to be a politician." Is he lying too? ) 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Geoff,

I do think Trump is clever and I do believe he will not only win the nomination, he will be our next president. He is doing it cleanly and openly, not slickly and deceptively. This is a man who doesn't need the crap he is going through.

Cruz does lie. For example, he takes a comment Trump made 17 years ago and shouts to the four winds this is what Trump will do in the future. He says things like Trump is against the second amendment.

Gimme a break!

 

Let him fool the evangelicals. After the election, he can say, "Forgive me, Father. I have sinned." (He'll only say that if he wins. If he doesn't, I think he'll hedge his sin tank for awhile and let it build up so he can empty it all at once at the end should he have occasion.  And if he loses badly, he can always empty the sin tank in private.  )

Be very aware in your support of Cruz. He does stand for small government, etc., but I would wager oodles of money that where social conservative values are concerned like women's freedom to get abortions, gay marriages, sexual abstention of young people in school, etc., you can expect the government to get a lot bigger and lot more intrusive in a Cruz government.

And you can expect constant deadlock with Congress, even among the Republicans. I don't believe he has the political chops to reduce the size of government. I believe if elected he will try. But I also believe he will be more inept at governing real opposition than Obama.

Here's a difference to think about. Sarah Palin, who supports Trump 100%, is just as much an evangelical as Cruz is. When she was in the city government in Wasilla, there was an attempt by the state government to close down the bars in Wasilla after a certain time at night. I don't remember the exact time, but it was like 9:00 pm or something like that. Sarah embraced the cause and got the law revoked. She fought to keep the bars open even as she considers drinking a sin. She considers not allowing individual choice a bigger sin. That's when she won me over. 

I don't see Ted Cruz doing that. I don't think Sarah does, either. But I do think she sees in Trump a kindred spirit in her love of freedom.

I find Ted Cruz to have very serious character flaws, especially after what he did in Iowa--to a fellow evangelical at that.

I don't trust him. You can change style from campaign to taking power, which is what I think Trump will do. After all, he can't run a multi-billion dollar empire on temper tantrums. So as president, he will have a totally different demeanor than as a campaigner.

I believe it is harder to change your morality. So I believe Cruz would govern with the same compromised moral values he campaigns with--that is, a good deal of deception toward friends and supporters, all in the service of gaining more power.

You know that statement from Lord Acton? "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That to me is the future of Ted Cruz should he ever take executive power. He's not my kind of person.

(Granted, his Senate term has been scandal-free, but his Don Quixote solo charges into the face of glory, with ensuing press coverage, make me think the Senate is a mere stepping stone for him. He's even running for president in his first term. So he has to keep that part clean.)

Frankly, I haven't had the following opinion all along since I used to like Cruz a lot before I saw his dishonesty in action. But now, even though I don't care all that much for Rubio (but I love Marc who loves Rubio  ), I would support Rubio in a heartbeat over Cruz.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, Trump's position is that Bush was responsible for the economic collapse?

Jonathan,

Here is an analysis by Rush Limbaugh that is pretty spot on: My Take on the GOP Debate.

And an extra thought from me. In The Art of the Deal, Trump said he sometimes engages in creative hyperbole or something like that. It wasn't those exact words, but that was the concept. It's like the bombastic offer. Shock and awe with something outrageous, but have enough truth in it to back up to where you really want to be.

I think this is a perfect case. He wants to tank George Bush's reputation to neutralize his effectiveness. That, to Trump, is fair game since Bush entered into the contest where Trump is running. And the economy did collapse under Bush. Whether Bush caused it all is up for debate and I think Trump would graciously cede a point or two over time. But at the end of the debate, Super Hero Protector of Us All George W. Bush will no longer have that reputation. He will start taking on a slight public veneer of Sad Sack. 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Marc said:

The ironic part is that Scalia is the black swan that I spoke of numerous times .

Marc,

Scalia's death is not a black swan.

If Trump runs third party... now that's a black swan.

Don't expect a crow or a half-assed black swan with Trump should one appear. Expect the mother of all black birds... Something like the monster in Alien, only black and bird and worse.

 

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

Michael,

Trump does similarly, reaching back to Cruz's support of Roberts, as if to make Cruz seem contradictory on ACA and turned Reagan into a liberal. Oh the heady days of their youth.

The Limbaugh piece is persuasive. It seemed Trump knew the deck was stacked against him and was prepared to counter the audience drone with an appeal to Democrats. I wouldnt have realized it without reading some commentary here, his impatience with the crowd stood out hugely, leaving him appearing to me as being a cauldron of unexpressed emotion in polite terms.

Trump seemed calculated because democratic South Carolinians looking on for the first time would see someone largely in favor of and in agreement with his pronouncements. Bush, yada yada, WMD, true but Bush is not in contention. SS fraud and waste otherwise Im going to take care of people. He didnt give immigration thorough treatment other than to say hed build a wall. I thought, wow, hes separating himself from the pack in a way that seems disingenuous to his previous comments or at least understated. Hes standing out but to whom? Hes just a bit right of a left leaning democrat.

Hes as manipulative as most in crafting the right message at the right time. If his numbers drop he will be sorely missed but ultimately a big mouth who lacked the right audience.

Im not for Cruz. I was tallying salient talking points and am for fairness. Ive decided Im not going to cast my vote as much as stick to my conscience. I can no longer believe my vote will make a difference. If Governor Veto Gary Johnson is still on the Libertarian ticket Im going that route if I vote at all. I like that he built his house, is an accomplished athlete, had a sensible track record as governor of New Mexico and has a level headed approach to limited government. Last cycle the Libertarian Party received no electoral votes.

The Rep/Dem rotation of presidents makes the US inconsistent, imbecilic with no moral compass. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man, the gloves are off big time.

Here's Katrina Pierson saying the 9/11 hijackers trained in Florida when Jeb was governor.

I couldn't see the MSNBC dude, but it sounded like he had one of those stunned pauses.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Ive decided Im not going to cast my vote as much as stick to my conscience.

Geoff,

Using your own mind is always a wise decision. 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a pleasant surprise.

Here's a young man named Niskey who made his own documentary about Trump simply because he admire Trump. I've watched a bit of it and it's pretty good. I thought it was going to be lame, but it's not. I'm going to watch all of it later and actually enjoy it.

The only parts I don't like (so far) are when Niskey himself comes on and narrates. He doesn't produce himself very well and there are some production problems. Not a deal-killer, but the sudden difference in quality from his B Roll is telling. The guy edits well.

Be advised that this is a pro-Trump documentary, so don't expect an exposé. It's not fawning, but it is complimentary. 

Enjoy.

Michael

[Selene]

3 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

It seemed Trump knew the deck was stacked against him and was prepared to counter the audience drone with an appeal to Democrats. I wouldnt have realized it without reading some commentary here, his impatience with the crowd stood out hugely, leaving him appearing to me as being a cauldron of unexpressed emotion in polite terms.

Trump seemed calculated because democratic South Carolinians looking on for the first time would see someone largely in favor of and in agreement with his pronouncements. Bush, yada yada, WMD, true but Bush is not in contention. SS fraud and waste otherwise Im going to take care of people. He didnt give immigration thorough treatment other than to say hed build a wall. I thought, wow, hes separating himself from the pack in a way that seems disingenuous to his previous comments or at least understated. Hes standing out but to whom? Hes just a bit right of a left leaning democrat.

 

It is also important to realize that South Carolina is an open primary state and Democrats can vote in the Republican primary.

It is also an early voting state and one can vote starting last Wednesday, or, this Wednesday.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Before I started studying Trump's persuasion techniques, the following would have been mostly incomprehensible to me.

Now I can see what is happening as it unfolds. (That doesn't mean I always see it, but now I do see it sometimes.)

Omarosa was losing control of the discussion as the message that Trump is shallow and she (Omarosa) is a flip-flopper without credibility because she was a Democrat who worked for Hillary, all pointing to an unspoken meme that Trump is a secret Democrat and not even a good Democrat at that. He's just another self-serving rich guy. Tamara Holder was doing a good job of hammering that covert meme home by irrelevant tangents, that is Trump not talking about Black Lives Matter and so on.

Omarosa needed to swing the conversation around. The only way to do that in a pinch was to talk on an emotional level. So she took the fact that Maria Bartiromo mispronounced her name, corrected her, then after Maria took the correction and pronounced her name correctly, Omarosa started mispronouncing Tamara's name.

Man, now I can see this stuff coming a mile away. And Tamara took the bait, chomped down hard on the worm and the fishhook went right into her lip and she started getting reeled in.

When Tamara self-righteously corrected Omarosa, she responded with something so outrageous and off-topic, that the covert message (Trump is a wolf in sheep's clothing) went pop! like a balloon stuck with a sewing needle.

Omarosa said this: "It’s the same difference. You want to come on with big boobs, then you deal with the pronunciation of your name. Look. Donald Trump stands firm on what his position is about us going into Iraq..."

Suddenly the discussion frame shattered and everyone got talking about boobs, Tamara was totally shut down for the rest of the conversation, and if you look at the way she was smiling, I even think she was flattered.  

Talk about a linguistic kill shot. That was pattern interrupt on steroids--a linguistic grenade. This lady learned well from Trump.

I never want to sit across the negotiating table from Omarosa. Even seeing what I see, I think she would make mince-meat out of me.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

From the Hill's Ballot Box blog:  Poll: Nearly 4 in 10 Trump SC supporters wish South won Civil War

The poll also shows Trump's strong rhetoric on Islam resonating with his South Carolina supporters.

Eighty percent say they support his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country. Less than half -- 44 percent -- think that practicing Islam should even be allowed in the United States, while a third say it should be illegal.

Furthermore, 40 percent say they support shutting down all mosques in the country, compared to 36 percent who oppose the idea. Sixty-two percent want to create a national database of Muslim citizens.

More details from the poll via the pollsters at PPP: Trump, Clinton Still Have Big SC Leads

The race is still pretty fluid in South Carolina- 29% of voters say they might change their minds between now and Election Day. Trump benefits from having supporters who are pretty resolute though- 77% of them say they will definitely vote for him, compared to 76% for Cruz and 62% for Rubio. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up, Trump's support goes up to 40% to 20% for Cruz and 16% for Rubio.

There are some reasons within the numbers to think Rubio might put in an unexpectedly strong performance on Saturday night. If voters have to choose just among the top three candidates he finishes in a clear second place with 28% to Trump's 40% and Cruz's 22%. Among voters who are either undecided or support one of the also rans- Bush, Carson, Kasich- 37% say they would move to Rubio compared to 19% for Trump and 13% for Cruz if they had to choose one of the top three. So if strategic voting occurs, that's likely to be to Rubio's benefit.

One surprising finding from the poll is that Ted Cruz has the worst net favorability rating of the candidates, with 42% of voters seeing him positively to 48% who have a negative opinion of him. He and Jeb Bush (41/43) are the only candidates under water. Showing that popularity isn't everything Ben Carson is by far the most widely liked hopeful in the state with a 68/23 favorability rating, followed by Rubio at 58/32 and Kasich at 52/29. Trump is only the fourth most well liked at 50/43, but in contrast to the other candidates most of the voters who like him are also planning to vote for him.

[...]

Trump's support in South Carolina is built on a base of voters among whom religious and racial intolerance pervades. Among the beliefs of his supporters:

-70% think the Confederate flag should still be flying over the State Capital, to only 20% who agree with it being taken down. In fact 38% of Trump voters say they wish the South had won the Civil War to only 24% glad the North won and 38% who aren't sure. Overall just 36% of Republican primary voters in the state are glad the North emerged victorious to 30% for the South, but Trump's the only one whose supporters actually wish the South had won.

-By an 80/9 spread, Trump voters support his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. In fact 31% would support a ban on homosexuals entering the United States as well, something no more than 17% of anyone else's voters think is a good idea. There's also 62/23 support among Trump voters for creating a national database of Muslims and 40/36 support for shutting down all the mosques in the United States, something no one else's voters back. Only 44% of Trump voters think the practice of Islam should even be legal at all in the United States, to 33% who think it should be illegal. To put all the views toward Muslims in context though, 32% of Trump voters continue to believe the policy of Japanese internment during World War II was a good one, compared to only 33% who oppose it and 35% who have no opinion one way or another.

Nathaniel Cary of the Greenville News covers the details of the Trump/Cruz appeal to South Carolina's evangelicals -- a large part of the GOP voter pool: Here's why Trump resonates with South Carolina's evangelical voters

Yet Thomas, a former state senator, is a conservative Christian Sunday school teacher and the exact sort of person who many political pundits say should be turned off by the brash, rude and crude Trump style.

But that style – “gravitas,” as Thomas called it – is what sucked him in.

“I was not blown away by any of the candidates and when Trump came along I could see the advantages,” Thomas said. “He might be able to bring such a new sweep and a new vision that it will open channels that we don’t currently have.”

[...]

As candidates court the roughly 65% of GOP voters in the state who count themselves as evangelicals, many of those voters are looking beyond faith to choose their candidate.

Instead, evangelicals are split into two camps and the divide has grown in the 20 years that Michael Lindsay, a sociologist who wrote the Pulitzer-nominated book Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, has studied evangelicalism in politics.

Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz, have tapped into the “populist evangelicals,” those working-class folks who listen to conservative talk radio, are drawn to mass rallies and hold the idea that motivating great masses of people is the way to achieve political influence, Lindsay said.

At least one 'conservative talk radio personality has gone haywire on the subject of Donald Trump:  Mark Levin: Donald Trump Sounded Like "Radical Kook," Pretty Damn Close To Being 9/11 Truther

But the fact that he attacked George Bush as a commander-in-chief. Not because he disagreed with him. He attacked him as a liar who knew there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and said he was responsible for 9/11 and he was responsible for those towers coming down. Ladies and gentlemen, that's why I posted on my Facebook this guy sounds like Code Pink...

He sounds like a radical kook. All the rest aside. All of it aside. I know too many Gold Star families who lost sons over there to hear this 9/11 truther crap, which is pretty close to it. Pretty damn close to it. If George Bush went to war in Iraq and was lying about weapons of mass destruction there could not be a worse thing a president of the United States could do, or human being for that matter. And there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And he was not responsible for 9/11...

To have the leading Republican nominee for president of the United States to make these statements, and he's been praised by Code Pink. He should be praised by Code Pink and every kook organization out there and every left-wing kook organization that hates America. To have him praised for what he said? Terrible. Absolutely terrible. You and I've lived through this. You and I have lived through this. This isn't distant history.

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Here is an analysis by Rush Limbaugh that is pretty spot on: My Take on the GOP Debate.

And an extra thought from me. In The Art of the Deal, Trump said he sometimes engages in creative hyperbole or something like that. It wasn't those exact words, but that was the concept. It's like the bombastic offer. Shock and awe with something outrageous, but have enough truth in it to back up to where you really want to be.

I think this is a perfect case. He wants to tank George Bush's reputation to neutralize his effectiveness. That, to Trump, is fair game since Bush entered into the contest where Trump is running. And the economy did collapse under Bush. Whether Bush caused it all is up for debate and I think Trump would graciously cede a point or two over time. But at the end of the debate, Super Hero Protector of Us All George W. Bush will no longer have that reputation. He will start taking on a slight public veneer of Sad Sack. 

 

Michael

Okay, thanks.

Speaking of arguments about the cause of the financial crisis, have you seen Hillary barking like a dog about it?

I'm amazed when I hear people say that Trump is a clown and not a dignified or intelligent statesmanlike politician. As were Palin and Michelle Bachman, etc. But Hillary is not a clown. She's a class act and the smartest woman who ever lived.

Wallison's dissent.

Sic him, Hillary!

"Arf, arf, arf arf!"

What a deep, dignified, intelligent and statesmanlike analysis and rejoinder. Good girl, Hillary! Who's a good girl? Yes you are! Yes you are!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a video that Trump just posted on Facebook.

The fact that Trump posted this on Facebook comes with two underlying points I see, although there may be more.

1. These are two vets talking about Trump, one for and one against. The subtext of Trump posting it is, "I hear you, vets. I hear all of you. And I like it." And there is another subtext. It's OK to be a vet and support Trump--even as he trashes Bush. You will not lose your friends--as shown by the affection the two displayed for each other.

2. Probably the sneakiest point. The video is from The Kelly File, but without Megyn. I don't recall Trump ever posting a pro-Trump video from Megyn's show before. This, to me, signals a possible change in tone to warm up the debate in March where the two will meet again.

Michael

[Backlighting]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a video that Trump just posted on Facebook.

The fact that Trump posted this on Facebook comes with two underlying points I see, although there may be more.

1. These are two vets talking about Trump, one for and one against. The subtext of Trump posting it is, "I hear you, vets. I hear all of you. And I like it." And there is another subtext. It's OK to be a vet and support Trump--even as he trashes Bush. You will not lose your friends--as shown by the affection the two displayed for each other.

2. Probably the sneakiest point. The video is from The Kelly File, but without Megyn. I don't recall Trump ever posting a pro-Trump video from Megyn's show before. This, to me, signals a possible change in tone to warm up the debate in March where the two will meet again.

Michael

I saw this when it aired. Both bring up some valid points.                                                                                                                                                       

"Jeb Bush? he's a noodle" 03:16  lol.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

 

 

 

[KorbenDallas]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Before I started studying Trump's persuasion techniques, the following would have been mostly incomprehensible to me.

Now I can see what is happening as it unfolds. (That doesn't mean I always see it, but now I do see it sometimes.)

Omarosa was losing control of the discussion as the message that Trump is shallow and she (Omarosa) is a flip-flopper without credibility because she was a Democrat who worked for Hillary, all pointing to an unspoken meme that Trump is a secret Democrat and not even a good Democrat at that. He's just another self-serving rich guy. Tamara Holder was doing a good job of hammering that covert meme home by irrelevant tangents, that is Trump not talking about Black Lives Matter and so on.

Omarosa needed to swing the conversation around. The only way to do that in a pinch was to talk on an emotional level. So she took the fact that Maria Bartiromo mispronounced her name, corrected her, then after Maria took the correction and pronounced her name correctly, Omarosa started mispronouncing Tamara's name.

Man, now I can see this stuff coming a mile away. And Tamara took the bait, chomped down hard on the worm and the fishhook went right into her lip and she started getting reeled in.

When Tamara self-righteously corrected Omarosa, she responded with something so outrageous and off-topic, that the covert message (Trump is a wolf in sheep's clothing) went pop! like a balloon stuck with a sewing needle.

Omarosa said this: "It’s the same difference. You want to come on with big boobs, then you deal with the pronunciation of your name. Look. Donald Trump stands firm on what his position is about us going into Iraq..."

Suddenly the discussion frame shattered and everyone got talking about boobs, Tamara was totally shut down for the rest of the conversation, and if you look at the way she was smiling, I even think she was flattered.  

Talk about a linguistic kill shot. That was pattern interrupt on steroids--a linguistic grenade. This lady learned well from Trump.

I never want to sit across the negotiating table from Omarosa. Even seeing what I see, I think she would make mince-meat out of me.

 

Michael

Wow what a video, I happened to pause it at 1:59.5 and got a good laugh with the faces (Tamara's mouth wide open, Maria laughing).  Just before this timestamp, Omarosa said to Tamara, "I should have called you a boob."  (All boobs, no brain.)  My guess is Tamara will be watching this video to try to figure out what the hell happened

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought off the top of my head.

Trump is always using a new adjective in his attacks on Cruz right now: unstable.

Unstable?!!

Isn't that a weird adjective to level at a politician? 

But after I think about it, I have to conclude it's well-chosen. Whether it does its job or not in the end, we will see. But it does fit two solid criteria:

1. It is not common, but it is a familiar term. The odd placement makes it stand out when repeated, but there is nothing to memorize. People already use the term unstable. It's easy to brand, so to speak. (This reminds me of his term for Jeb Bush: low energy.)

2. Cruz is running on the image that his integrity is above question, that he is a rock-solid constitutional Christian conservative. He is unwavering in his values. Call that anything you want, but "unstable" is the opposite of it.

So I think that term is not to persuade. It is to plant the seed of doubt in the heads of Cruz believers, or those favoring him but still on the fence, so that persuasion can happen. And like all persuasion tools, it doesn't work in isolation. You have to stack it with other stuff, which Trump does lavishly.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Speaking of arguments about the cause of the financial crisis, have you seen Hillary barking like a dog about it?

 

But does it top the Dean Scream?  Here's a good adaptation:

 

[Selene]

How un-Presidential! 

                                                        

 

So is Evita now a total white bitch?

                                                                                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a thought off the top of my head.

Trump is always using a new adjective in his attacks on Cruz right now: unstable.

Unstable?!!

Isn't that a weird adjective to level at a politician? 

But after I think about it, I have to conclude it's well-chosen. Whether it does its job or not in the end, we will see. But it does fit two solid criteria:

1. It is not common, but it is a familiar term. The odd placement makes it stand out when repeated, but there is nothing to memorize. People already use the term unstable. It's easy to brand, so to speak. (This reminds me of his term for Jeb Bush: low energy.)

2. Cruz is running on the image that his integrity is above question, that he is a rock-solid constitutional Christian conservative. He is unwavering in his values. Call that anything you want, but "unstable" is the opposite of it.

So I think that term is not to persuade. It is to plant the seed of doubt in the heads of Cruz believers, or those favoring him but still on the fence, so that persuasion can happen. And like all persuasion tools, it doesn't work in isolation. You have to stack it with other stuff, which Trump does lavishly.

Michael

MSK,

Cruz attacked Trump earlier in the campaign about his temperament, I dug up this article about Cruz's accusations: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/18/463532705/cruz-questions-trumps-temperament-as-commander-in-chief  Cruz is essentially describes Trump as being unstable here, and now that Trump is calling Cruz unstable (after Cruz's actions), it seems to neutralize the original argument.

Smart move by Trump?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korben,

I had forgotten about that because lots of detractors call Trump unhinged, unstable and so on.

I'm not sure about any neutralizing value persuasion-wise.

People who don't like Trump will continue to think he as crazy as bull on crack cocaine.

And people who do like him will think that is exactly why they like him.

Michael