Peter Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I noticed an interesting optical affect. The largely written word soul in Michael's post looks like we are going up a hill. The General Election? Shock and Awe? I root for OUR side but Old Hickory is going to have some very gifted advisors (30 years her junior.) When is Trump going to shift gears? I hope it is soon. In a debate, will Trump bluster? Will he switch from Metamucil to Citracel? Will he say something that will leave her speechless? Will he really irk the audience? Will Old Hickory come up with more photo's of Melania or one of The Donald's up till now hidden, sex tapes like Hulk Hogan? Trump will be going up against a machine, I tell ya. I wish March 15th and the next primaries were over with. It will take me a while to shift mental gears and allegiance if Trump pulls a rabbit out of the hat. I wonder what Trump the magician has got up his sleeve? Is he cerebral? Philosophical? I won't accept a book co-written as proof of anything. I am watching the Nancy Reagan funeral and typing. I prefer a celebration of life scenario not a sad funeral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 btw - Here is the video the Drudge headline links to: There is the laying of hands on Ted, anointing him, and all that. But, to me, there is a part that is a lot worse. In Rafael Cruz's sermon (before Ted was elected to the Senate), when he says the kings need the blessings of the priests to win their battles, and the priests need the kings to go take wealth from the ungodly and bring the spoils of war back to them (cutely called "taking dominion"), I couldn't help thinking about Ayn Rand in "For The New Intellectual." Attila and Witch Doctor. It's right there out in the open with no apology or attempt to hide it. All this talk about "end of times transfer of wealth" in the video is one hell of an interesting concept. According to this concept, all the wealth of the ungodly is going to leave their hands and go to the hands of the godly. During this end of times transfer of wealth, those on the right side of God will no longer have any problems with their bank accounts. I couldn't believe the other preacher said that in those words. Using this logic, and the very words of Ted Cruz's father, God is right now anointing Ted Cruz as a king in America so he can fleece the ungodly and give that wealth to the preachers and the godly. This is out of the mouth of his father. I understand where this is coming from because I recently read the Bible. But there are many Christians out there who do not believe we are the Hebrews following Moses in the wilderness and on the cusp of descending into the Promised Land (Canaan) to take it from those who are already there. These other Christians believe that already happened and mankind is in a different phase. Non-Christians don't believe it at all. I can't think of many Jews who believe that, either. This is the same conquest mentality as the Islamists, except it is less primitive and called "taking dominion." I, as one of those who are not among the people who follow Rafael Cruz, have no wish to have what little I own taken from me in God's name by his son, Ted, so those folks can prosper. Who needs another IRS with the name God on it? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Thanks Michael but that video looked too spooky. How can Trump beat Hillary? Will he need outside help? From Reuters: The FBI went to the home of Hillary Clinton today with a search warrant. They also went to her next rally to arrest her for espionage, collusion to commit a felony, and general bitchiness but apparently she had been tipped off by someone in the Obama administration. She is reported to be in a white SUV heading down Route 66. In other news, Bernie Sanders has decided to drop out of the Presidential race after hearing the story of Hillary being on the run. “I knew she was always one step ahead of the law . . . but this?” Sanders is reported as saying. “I was only in it to stop her,” he said. And he closed his statement by emphatically saying, “Good riddance! I hope Trump wins.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Let me ask you a question, and I mean this sincerely. You have expressed a clear desire to persuade people you deem low information, and I have shown you how you are not only not doing that, but instead are doing the contrary, because you use the wrong tools. (And wrong approach, wrong sequence, all of it.) Since you are demonstrably low information in persuasion, the worst player in a trombone section so to speak, do you feel inspired and motivated to learn how to do this correctly? (I'm willing to share and this stuff is not hard to learn.) Or do you feel you inherently don't need to bother yourself with it because the low information yahoos you want to persuade should already recognize their inferiority? Answer those questions in the deepest part of your soul and you will get a good look at what you really want. This is such B.S., I'm tempted to use the whole word. Good god. FYI, Michael, during this campaign cycle I have frequently interacted with people who go off on one or the other candidate without knowing what the hell they're talking about, and my first and usually only advice to them is: go see what they say on their website. For instance, when people were scourging Trump for supposedly calling for a permanent ban on Muslim immigration, I knew better, and I also knew that I could "persuade" until I was blue in the face, but the only thing that would change their minds - if at all - was to have them to read Trump's own words from his campaign website. I gave them the URL, for Christ's sake, OK? Now, did it persuade them? Maybe, maybe not. But it did shut them up about that particular issue. That's close enough to "persuasion" for me. Any time I can get ignorant people to shut up by pointing them to information that conflicts with their emotional position on something, I call it "win-win." I don't have to tell them to "sit down and shut up." Reality does it for me. "Doing the contrary"? Using "the wrong tools" etc. etc. blah-blah-blah? Not needing "to bother [myself] with it"? "Answer those questions in the deepest part of [my] soul"? Let me share a related experience with you. Perhaps it will reinforce the point I am making... When I tell people we should have voluntary charity rather than welfare, they often try to "gotcha" me by asking "how much money have you given, Mr. Liberty?" And wise-ass crap like that. But after telling them of doing charity performances for entertainers needing operations and charity performances for patients in the Vanderbilt Children's Hospital, and of giving to Hurricane Katrina victims, I ask, "How many more examples do you need?" That invariably shuts them up. It may not change their minds about welfare. Probably they continue thinking that most people (though perhaps not Roger Mr. Liberty Bissell) are just "no damned good" and can't be counted on to voluntarily help those in need and, therefore, need to be forced to help others through tax-paid relief programs. But the point is that I try to persuade them in an intellectual and fact-based manner - for all the good it may or may not do. That is how I roll, Michael. I have been in the trenches for over 40 years, writing, speaking publicly, appearing on the radio, interacting with others online or in emails or in person, trying to persuade people for freedom and sanity. Not insult them. Maybe it has been worthwhile, maybe not. But there is your look at "what I really want." REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Here is an unusually perceptive article by John Hayward on Breitbart, with an audio interview of Pat Caddell by Stephen K. Bannon. The interview is not too long and bears listening to. All of it. Granted, this is more for political wonks than the public at large, but I believe Caddell is right. Especially since he illustrated it by talking about all the closed factories all over America. This issue, properly framed, has the potential to affect the public at large by swinging the Ohio election to Trump. Pat Caddell: ‘The American People Have Figured Out They’ve Been Screwed’ By Free Trade And that leads me to the curious hostility toward Trump by the official organs of Objectivism, all of which are not for-profit businesses, but instead supported by rich donor charity. Where do these rich donors make their money and why the hell was all this international market manipulation by the government called "free trade"? Where did that idea come from? Hmmmmm?... No wonder the official Objectivist organizations hate Trump. He's going to put a stop to the crony corporatist monkeyshines of their donors and make them stop screwing everybody and calling said screwing by an ideological name. I doubt all Objectivist organization donors are crony corporatists in bed with the government up to their eyeballs, but I bet a lot are. Man, do some things that used to cause me cognitive dissonance suddenly make sense through that lens. If I were an Objectivist organization donor of such ilk, I would take my chips, thank the gods that be for the windfall but realize the party's over and look for the next con. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 10 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Now, did it persuade them? Maybe, maybe not. But it did shut them up about that particular issue. That's close enough to "persuasion" for me. Roger, That's exactly what I have been saying. You don't want to persuade anybody. You want to shut up the people you denigrate: Sit down. Shut up. And don't vote. You've said that, clearly, too. So why on earth do you say elsewhere you want to persuade people? You have no interest in persuading. That may be BS, but that BS just came out of your own mouth. Word to the wise: Shutting up a person does not convince him of anything. When done often enough, though, it forms a pressure cooker that eventually explodes. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Jeff Darcy, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, March 11, 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here, let me help you with a really, really basic formula: AIDA. This stands for Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. Don't leave out ABC, Always Be Closing. Helps if you start with Coffee is for Closers Only. Gets their attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 For those who haven't seen Ben Carson's endorsement of Trump: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 35 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said: Don't leave out ABC, Always Be Closing. Helps if you start with Coffee is for Closers Only. Gets their attention. Dennis, That's a classic. I love David Mamet's stories. He's always writing about cons. Notice AIDA in the clip. The D = Decision instead of Desire. When you go through marketing educational materials, it's about half one way and half another. I don't know where that formula came from. But it's old. (Actually, I just looked it up for this post and it comes from one E. St. Elmo Lewis, see here: AIDA.) There's an oldie short template in fiction I like a lot for a reader emotion sequence. It is from around the same time as AIDA (within a decade or three), but from a different dude (Wilkie Collins, see here). Make 'em cry Make 'em laugh Make 'em wait In that order. A guy named Charles Reade apparently inverted the first two emotions later so the order became: Laugh, cry, wait. It doesn't matter. Both work well to keep readers turning pages. Rand uses these formulas (and others) all the time. I don't know if it is on purpose or by accident, but it's all there in her writing. My vote is on purpose because she was great at her craft, not just inspiration. I intend to write about this later. I love this stuff. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Phyllis Schlafly just formally endorsed Trump and introduced him at a rally: Drip... drip... drip... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Peter said: Just one more point and I will be quiet. Ben supported Trump. Juan Williams on Fox said that will have a big affect on black voters. Ben said that in person, with no mikes around, Donald is very cerebral. Who would'a thunk? Certainly not someone who would write a check to a telemarketer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Welcome to my hell. They just canceled a Trump rally here in Chicago because of the troublemakers. We all know where the leftwing Brownshirts are organized in the USA. Right next door to where I live. I can't wait to get out of this crappy region of the country. May it turn into Detroit... The good news is for a marketing genius, this is a godsend. Nonstop news coverage of nothing but Trump all the way to Tuesday. On substance, people open to Trump's message, whether they support him or not, are going to be really pissed at this attempt at a violent takeover of First Amendment rights. And Trump is going to turn the screws on this one hard. The friggin' toolbags who protested are probably feeling macho right now. They don't realize they walked right into a trap and gave Trump the gift of countless more supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that Trump scheduled the talk at the University of Illinois anticipating that this would happen. This university is about as leftwing as it gets. Public image-wise, the ills of the USA and violent hostility to the Silent Majority are being anchored in people's minds right to Obama's backyard. It's too much to believe this is a coincidence... Watch what follows. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Correct...and it is going to happen in Philly also...I just brought my thread up on that because of the Chicago deal. Remember the training that went on in the Occupy Wall Street "AstroTurf" mob? Well here we are. Notice the technique of encirclement that they used tonight. Very clever. Great visuals and reminiscent of the Greek/Roman/British phalanx structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MereMortal Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Damn, trying to re-create the '68 Democrat Convention environment. What a bunch of hippy wannabes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 23 hours ago, Marc said: Listen , I was wrong as wrong could be . He is done , I was wrong , serve me some crow. Marc, Ahhh, how sweet it is! It ain't over until it's over, but I'm thinking of going easy on these guys. They pardon turkeys, don't they? Why not crows? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 This is already old news, but I'm including it just for the record. The Scrum: Video Emerges to Suggest WaPo Reporter Ben Terris Misidentifies Lewandowski in Fields Incident Breitbart https://t.co/wJ51Mkj27e— Corey Lewandowski (@CLewandowski_) March 11, 2016 Here's what happened. Michelle Fields, a reporter from Breitbart (which is very Trump-friendly), approached Trump at a rally as he was leaving in the middle of the crowd. She got pulled back hard by someone and she thought it was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager. Ben Terris, a WaPo reporter, claimed to have witnessed it. The press went apeshit all day long. Fields showed a picture of bruises on her arm to the press and finally filed charges. The press went more apeshit. But no video was forthcoming. Then an audio appeared that seemed to corroborate the Fields story and even Rush Limbaugh started tut-tut-tutting. Now video has appeared that shows it was a security dude, not Lewandowski. And it was not hostile. Breitbart itself claims the injury Fields suffered was probably an accident. Ho hum... Back to the leftie Brownshirts in Chicago... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Their mayor covers up and protects police that murder teens so they... set out to destroy Trump's right to speech. Makes sense, it's not like they can do a damn thing about the Democratic, Obama-pal mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Here's what Trump said in an interview with Chris Matthews. He is already starting to milk this, even mentioning that Chicago has had a lot of bad rallies in the past. And here is his Facebook statement: STATEMENT REGARDING TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHICAGO RALLY POSTPONEMENTMr. Trump just arrived in Chicago and after meeting with...Posted by Donald J. Trump on Friday, March 11, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Trump is not wasting time and, modestly speaking, I am right. I think Trump knew exactly what he was doing. The first thing he did was call in to all the major TV shows during the rally dispersion. Here he is speaking to Greta. I'm only about seven and a half minutes into it and he is already showing his hand. Greta said it was a shame they shut down his rally and didn't allow him to speak. He replied that they didn't shut it down. The rally is now all over the news and generating a larger audience than it ever would had it gone as planned. He's also framing the anger of everyone--both sides--so they are all legitimized. On one side (blacks), he says people can't get jobs at all. On the other side (his supporters), he says they haven't had a raise in 12 years. So both sides are right to be angry and it's sad. The only ones he does not legitimize are the people who caused the economic mess in the country. They have to be replaced. There's a lot more to what he is saying. Watch the master at work. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 (edited) Andrew Klavan is voting for The Donald because he (Klavan) is angry! Please see I think it is rather funny. Edited March 12, 2016 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 It's being reported that the bulk of the protesters were organized by MoveOn.org. This is George Soros's thugs. MoveOn.org was initially set up as a propaganda gift by Soros to the Clintons. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said: It's being reported that the bulk of the protesters were organized by MoveOn.org. This is George Soros's thugs. MoveOn.org was initially set up as a propaganda gift by Soros to the Clintons. Michael Correct. FYI - the public origin of the "birther" question was Evita's 2008 campaign, not Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: btw - Here is the video the Drudge headline links to: ... There is the laying of hands on Ted, anointing him, and all that. But, to me, there is a part that is a lot worse. In Rafael Cruz's sermon (before Ted was elected to the Senate), when he says the kings need the blessings of the priests to win their battles, and the priests need the kings to go take wealth from the ungodly and bring the spoils of war back to them (cutely called "taking dominion"), I couldn't help thinking about Ayn Rand in "For The New Intellectual." Attila and Witch Doctor. It's right there out in the open with no apology or attempt to hide it. All this talk about "end of times transfer of wealth" in the video is one hell of an interesting concept. According to this concept, all the wealth of the ungodly is going to leave their hands and go to the hands of the godly. During this end of times transfer of wealth, those on the right side of God will no longer have any problems with their bank accounts. I couldn't believe the other preacher said that in those words. Using this logic, and the very words of Ted Cruz's father, God is right now anointing Ted Cruz as a king in America so he can fleece the ungodly and give that wealth to the preachers and the godly. This is out of the mouth of his father. I understand where this is coming from because I recently read the Bible. But there are many Christians out there who do not believe we are the Hebrews following Moses in the wilderness and on the cusp of descending into the Promised Land (Canaan) to take it from those who are already there. These other Christians believe that already happened and mankind is in a different phase. Non-Christians don't believe it at all. I can't think of many Jews who believe that, either. This is the same conquest mentality as the Islamists, except it is less primitive and called "taking dominion." I, as one of those who are not among the people who follow Rafael Cruz, have no wish to have what little I own taken from me in God's name by his son, Ted, so those folks can prosper. Who needs another IRS with the name God on it? Michael This one's a real bible thumper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Ted has an important role in the Senate. Ted can not win the White House. That's why shitbag Lindsey 'no one would mind if Ted was murdered on the Senate floor' Graham and the other establishment shitbags recommend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now