MAGA-Trump Movement 2021 And Beyond


Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2024 at 10:49 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Within a few minutes of posting that, Boone followed me on X.

To me it is a great honor to be followed by Boone Cutler.

(He's co-author with General Mike Flynn on his series of books on 5GW and other modern warfare techniques.)

 

It just got better.

Boone posted the following today:

I watched the video (which is several months old) soon after he put it on his X feed today and posted the following:

Shortly after that, Boone liked both of my posts.

Likes feel good, but they are like candy. So I don't pay them much mind except when I want to banter or something like that. But a like from Boone when I have such a low profile on X means a great deal to me.

 

Here are both videos if you are interested. I highly recommend both.

RUMBLE.COM

Vem Miller interviews Boone Cutler for Blood Money Episode 189. Boone Cutler describes the work that he and General Michael Flynn have been doing in terms of notifying the American Public about 5th Ge

 

And the one on AI that Boone said everyone should see since this is the real danger of AI...

 

If this is your cup of tea, your cup shall runneth over. Mine sure did.

 

I have a feeling that over time, Boone and I will become friends. He thinks like I do, but he comes at it from high-level military psyops chops. Granted, I am the furthest thing from military discipline as you can get. :) 

What's more, he even had a bout with drugs and got out of it similar to what I did. Different drugs, though, and his recovery was a hell of a lot faster than mine.

:) 

I'm not going to force anything, though. Over time we shall approximate or not base on merit. But man, do I resonate with this guy. Hell, I have a lot to learn from him and we don't need to be friends to do that...

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump is posting on X (Twitter) again.

When I posted that earlier, the post by Trump was under his name and account, but had yet to appear on Trump's account timeline.

Well, it is there now, as are several other posts by him (or his people posting under his name).

See for yourself:

Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump on X

 

Tonight, there will be a live Spaces interview between Elon Musk and Trump.

 

The European Union is not amused. They are demanding that Elon censor the interview so that Europeans cannot hear it.

Poor things...

Relevance is so heartbreaking when one loses it...

:) 

In other words, I don't predict a good outcome for that demand.

:) 

 

But I am really looking forward to that interview.

Do you want to see two real life heroes in the Ayn Rand mold talk and go about changing the world for the better?

Tune in.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to part of it last night, but I had to deal with something and left the interview.

(I had to leave just as they were bashing the hell out of Illinois, where I live, and Pritzker, the half-assed fearless leader in these parts. Dayamm! Drat! :) )

 

But this morning I am going through the whole thing.

I will soon post links to the recording, some comments, and some quirky-ass reactions from Loser-land.

For now, let's just say this caused a reaction in the mainstream news and culture all over the world as if a nuke had been set off.

And the bad guys are bitching up a storm.

 

But for us, you know us in hereon the right side of morality and history, have a taste of what the nuke really looks like.

And this is only just starting.

 

Here is the confirmation of that.

 

More coming.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I hear "mental institutions" and "prisons" again I'm going to lose it. 

Constant referrals to these "threats" is pushing my patience... he is trying too hard... how do I know? because I get the feeling he is trying too hard.. and I should never get that feeling from someone trying not to look like they are trying too hard... and it can only happen if they are trying too hard.

It's like one ugly dumbass fake looking tip (but still real) of an actual gigantic iceberg (with more than one tip showing) of an issue (illegal immigration) which is incredibly important and dangerous for many real reasons, including crime, housing, erosion of American values, voting, welfare, integration, multiculturalism overtaking the "melting pot" approach, rise of socialism and tribalism, the economy, cultural and religious clashes.. but the iceberg in all its glory is full of complexity and controversy, and he points at it, a cherry picked tip which he thinks will resonate with the public.    

The assumption is that the voting public cannot engage with the complexity or the controversy of the whole... but these "chosen" tips are ugly and fake looking because they themselves do not reflect reality of the complex and controversial whole... and stand in isolation as laughable "reasons" or bases for reaching wider conclusions or taking wider action.

 

So, pointing at these things repeatedly as if they were important, as if they were metaphysically and causally significant to the big picture.... smacks of dishonesty, smells like fear mongering, has a hint of misdirection even if he honestly believes that is the only way (or perhaps just the best way) to reach most people, and catch the least flak or spin from the mainstream media which likes to call anything anti-immigration rrrrrrrracist.

He's smart, he should try to reach his voters as best he can... but he needs to be a bit more honest and open ....

A child knows when a parent or teacher, even when being completely truthful, is being real with them because they can handle it, versus trying to push, coddle, or scare them, using isolated examples... in one case the whole truth is simplified but genuinely conveyed... in the other case some truths or anecdotes are emphasized to encourage the desired conclusions or behavior...

both are from a place of love and with the best interests of the other person... but one assumes more of the person and more importantly can and does call forth more in the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go out and later I will put up my comments and small report on the interview.

Lots of great news from that interview.

For now, this is kinda nice:

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

I can't tell if you are being serious or if this is parody.

For example, you know for sure because you get a feeling?

:) 

But then some of it appears serious.

So I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Nice rant, though...

:) 

Michael

Don't get defensive. It is not a rant.  I take it you disagree with at least something I have said.  I suggest that dismissing my honest thoughts as a rant might risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  I would be interested to know, on reflection, what you think about the issues I’ve raised and the implications of my raising them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said:

It is not a rant.

S,

Now I know.

:) 

Seriously, I couldn't tell from the way you wrote.

It certainly looked like a rant.

So I called it a rant.

 

Don't forget, when you write, if your words do not convey your intentions to people who are basically in your corner and understand you by default, it's not a good idea to blame them for your garbled messaging and start mind-reading what you think they think.

It costs nothing to see if everyone is on the same page before starting with the accusations. I don't dismiss honest thought. That is dishonest by definition.

(I like to banter, though. Lack of clarity is a great place to banter.)

:) 

I struggle with clarity of conveyed meaning in my own writing. It's a non-ending process. But I highly recommend the practice.

Self-vigilance in trying to get the words right is a virtue, not a weakness.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S,

Now onto the substance of what you wrote. I am going to treat it all as you being serious.

1. Your patience is blown by Trump's messaging about the unsavory people other countries are funding to come to America in massive numbers because Trump says they are coming from mental institutions and prisons.

Is that correct? 

If so, have you looked at the facts? Trump is correct fact-wise. Maybe you don't like the way he expresses it, but ask the families of the Americans being murdered and injured by the bad elements coming here illegally--sponsored by government money and NGOs. Ask those families if they are getting impatient over so little of if they should be ashamed and change their views because some people don't like Trump's messaging.

They don't think murdered family members is trivial. And there are oodles of these cases. Why do you think Trump keeps getting huge audiences with this message?

 

I'm not being trivial or argumentative. The murders and injuries are facts. The huge numbers of these cases are facts. And organized sponsorship of this invasion of illegal aliens is a fact (unless you only look at mainstream news--and in that case you will not find any information on any of this).

Also, did you listen to the interview or did you stop when you got irritated? If you listened to it, you will hear Elon Musk saying clearly that the majority of the illegal aliens are not bad people and you will hear Trump agree with him. 

You will also hear something different that I had not heard Trump say before. You will hear Trump say that, of the good people among the illegals flooding in, a huge number of them are not productive people. So America has to pay for them, their food, shelter, etc. And you will hear Elon agreeing with Trump on this, and agreeing about the the mental institutions and prisons.

 

2. You stated clearly that you "feel" Trump is trying too hard and, essentially being dishonest with the public to get votes. And you know this is true because you feel it. That's a premise I believe you should check. Starting with assuming your feelings are shared by others.

Or even the elephant in the room. Remember the grand old lady? You know, the one who wrote all that stuff about how reason works? :) 

But leaving that aside, Trump doesn't need to be dishonest to get votes, especially about the illegal aliens flooding in from mental institutions and prisons in countries all over the world. That message--in strict propaganda terms--is nothing but red meat for his MAGA base. And all of them are already voting for him. It does nothing to persuade people on the fence or anti-Trumpers. So why presume he does this to get votes. And trying too hard to be effective at that?

This makes no sense to me. I get it you are mad at Trump for his messaging style. But I don't see reality in what you are saying.

If you want to go into why he repeats this these points so much, I'm game. I'm pretty sure I have informed persuasion thoughts on this that are correct and go deeper into causes and effects than talking points. But I am not going to waste a lot of time so long as the frame is this is a form of Trump's dishonesty and insecurity. It isn't. It just isn't. And I don't see how to talk about this so long as that is the frame. If your mind is made up on this going in, well, your mind is made up. 

 

3. Re your advice on how Trump should reach voters, and how he is basically screwing the pooch with inauthenticity, I think ignoring an audience of one billion people for one interview is a lot of ignoring. I mean, where did the pooch go when that billion people showed up? :) 

You are certainly entitled to your dislike of Trump's messaging form, but that is not going to change facts. And neither will ignoring those facts change them.

Here is a fact for you to mull over, if you are interested. Elon Musk not only allowed Trump to expound the way he did, Elon jumped on board and agreed with Trump.

Is Elon being dishonest, too? Or trying to get votes or whatever?

It's a fact that he is on board. 

 

4. I really don't like charges of the other being defensive and so on when someone disagrees. That's not reason. That's bullshit. Scott Adams calls this mind-reading. 

If I start calling you names like asshole and mocking you and asking who the hell do you think you are and things like that, OK. I agree that is defensiveness in the way your words seem to indicate when you say "Don't be defensive."

I don't like that as normal rhetoric, though. Not because it is offensive. But because it is inaccurate--almost 100% of the time when leveled at me. Like I said, bullshit is another name I use for it. :) 

 

These are just thoughts and this is just a discussion. Nobody is throwing babies out with bathwater or trying to be dismissive or anything like that. 

You said you wanted my thoughts on your post. Those words above, without banter (well, mostly without banter :) ), are what I think.

 

More thoughts will be coming, though, when I present the items from the interview I liked a lot and wish to probe. Good thoughts. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1. Your patience is blown by Trump's messaging about the unsavory people other countries are funding to come to America in massive numbers because Trump says they are coming from mental institutions and prisons.

Is that correct? 

If so, have you looked at the facts? Trump is correct fact-wise. Maybe you don't like the way he expresses it, but ask the families of the Americans being murdered and injured by the bad elements coming here illegally--sponsored by government money and NGOs. Ask those families if they are getting impatient over so little of if they should be ashamed and change their views because some people don't like Trump's messaging.

They don't think murdered family members is trivial. And there are oodles of these cases. Why do you think Trump keeps getting huge audiences with this message?

 

I'm not being trivial or argumentative. The murders and injuries are facts. The huge numbers of these cases are facts. And organized sponsorship of this invasion of illegal aliens is a fact (unless you only look at mainstream news--and in that case you will not find any information on any of this).

Also, did you listen to the interview or did you stop when you got irritated? If you listened to it, you will hear Elon Musk saying clearly that the majority of the illegal aliens are not bad people and you will hear Trump agree with him. 

You will also hear something different that I had not heard Trump say before. You will hear Trump say that, of the good people among the illegals flooding in, a huge number of them are not productive people. So America has to pay for them, their food, shelter, etc. And you will hear Elon agreeing with Trump on this, and agreeing about the the mental institutions and prisons.

Yes

and Yes.

Yes I have.

I also do not think it is trivial, but I honestly think Trump knows the bigger issue which faces America and her citizens in addition to the issues of individual acts of crime and murder.  I think he is getting huge audiences because his message is resonating with the public who are afraid of falling victim to those incidents.

I never stopped the interview, I know Trump agrees with Elon about the majority of immigrants.

 

Of course I am interested in why you think he repeats these points so much.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

2. You stated clearly that you "feel" Trump is trying too hard and, essentially being dishonest with the public to get votes. And you know this is true because you feel it. That's a premise I believe you should check. Starting with assuming your feelings are shared by others.

Or even the elephant in the room. Remember the grand old lady? You know, the one who wrote all that stuff about how reason works? :) 

But leaving that aside, Trump doesn't need to be dishonest to get votes, especially about the illegal aliens flooding in from mental institutions and prisons in countries all over the world. That message--in strict propaganda terms--is nothing but red meat for his MAGA base. And all of them are already voting for him. It does nothing to persuade people on the fence or anti-Trumpers. So why presume he does this to get votes. And trying too hard to be effective at that?

This makes no sense to me. I get it you are mad at Trump for his messaging style. But I don't see reality in what you are saying.

If you want to go into why he repeats this these points so much, I'm game. I'm pretty sure I have informed persuasion thoughts on this that are correct and go deeper into causes and effects than talking points. But I am not going to waste a lot of time so long as the frame is this is a form of Trump's dishonesty and insecurity. It isn't. It just isn't. And I don't see how to talk about this so long as that is the frame. If your mind is made up on this going in, well, your mind is made up. 

Dishonest is stronger than how I put it.  I certainly said nothing about insecurity, if anything he may be giving the common person less credit than is due.

I think he knows the bigger problems are with respect to America in general and everyone's freedoms and well-being now and for future generations.  I'm sure he knows this is something which will be affected almost certainly (chance of 1 in 1 or 100%) if nothing is done about immigration.  I also think he knows he will get more traction by emphasizing the smaller possibility of absolute disaster for some person or family (1 in a 100,000? or 0.001%) because it is more relatable and concrete. 

It's not about messaging style but messaging focus.  Everytime I hear him I literally think ... this guy keeps talking about specific concrete small potatoes... when really he could talk about the big picture, the wider (slightly less concrete) problems which are actually more important to people who think long range about themselves and their families.

Mind made up?  You don't need to resort to that. Please.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

3. Re your advice on how Trump should reach voters, and how he is basically screwing the pooch with inauthenticity, I think ignoring an audience of one billion people for one interview is a lot of ignoring. I mean, where did the pooch go when that billion people showed up? :) 

You are certainly entitled to your dislike of Trump's messaging form, but that is not going to change facts. And neither will ignoring those facts change them.

Here is a fact for you to mull over, if you are interested. Elon Musk not only allowed Trump to expound the way he did, Elon jumped on board and agreed with Trump.

Is Elon being dishonest, too? Or trying to get votes or whatever?

It's a fact that he is on board. 

I never stated Trump was misstating facts.  Neither am I ignoring facts.  My analogy of the iceberg - tip and the whole... was specifically to illustrate that.

Again, I do not think Elon was dishonest, in fact he added wider factual context to the conversation because in addition to Trump's messaging he thought it important to provide more info.  I was more disappointed that Musk decided to mention that many illegal immigrants were not bad people, instead of talking about how it is true that: whether or not the majority are good or bad, the overwhelming numbers of immigration itself very likely will be incredibly problematic... even if NO terrorists, criminals, and mental patients are getting in.  IMHO the biggest threat from Illegal immigration is not criminals, or bad people, it's not about the fact that it is illegal, it's because the geopolitical, economic, and cultural issues posed because when there is an ineffective borner just too many are coming in.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4. I really don't like charges of the other being defensive and so on when someone disagrees. That's not reason. That's bullshit. Scott Adams calls this mind-reading. 

If I start calling you names like asshole and mocking you and asking who the hell do you think you are and things like that, OK. I agree that is defensiveness in the way your words seem to indicate when you say "Don't be defensive."

I don't like that as normal rhetoric, though. Not because it is offensive. But because it is inaccurate--almost 100% of the time when leveled at me. Like I said, bullshit is another name I use for it. :) 

 

These are just thoughts and this is just a discussion. Nobody is throwing babies out with bathwater or trying to be dismissive or anything like that. 

You said you wanted my thoughts on your post. Those words above, without banter (well, mostly without banter :) ), are what I think.

 

More thoughts will be coming, though, when I present the items from the interview I liked a lot and wish to probe. Good thoughts. 

Was calling my post a "Rant" no more than rational dispassionate disagreement?  In the moment you wrote that you felt no disdain, no anger, and no sense you should defend Trump?

If you are gonna say my use of the term "defensive" was bullshit because calling my post a "Rant" was completely objective and devoid of any actual emotional defence... Imma call bullshit back at ya.  Now if you are autistic and you had no idea that calling an honest carefully thought out post a "Rant" would look defensive ... well I should apologize for using the term "defensive"!

 

In any case, I am still curious about why you think Trump takes the approach he does with the content of his messaging, and perhaps more personally why you are comfortable with / like it?

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

If you are gonna say my use of the term "defensive" was bullshit because calling my post a "Rant" was completely objective and devoid of any actual emotional defence... Imma call bullshit back at ya.

S,

I am not competing. I'm just not going to do it. Been there done that way too many times.

If you think your post was completely objective, etc. etc. etc., I didn't get the message. I'm probably retarded. :) 

Here's an example, but I'm not doing this to compete. I'm doing it for simple accuracy. Identify correctly in order to be able to evaluate correctly.

10 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

If I hear "mental institutions" and "prisons" again I'm going to lose it. 

Constant referrals to these "threats" is pushing my patience... he is trying too hard... how do I know? because I get the feeling he is trying too hard.. and I should never get that feeling from someone trying not to look like they are trying too hard... and it can only happen if they are trying too hard.

That looks like emoting to me. I don't see anything objective there. If I wrote that and you came across it, what would you think? Impressive logic?

:) 

Nothing wrong with emoting. Rhetoric is part of communication.

But to deny Trump the use of rhetoric by using your own form of emoting rhetoric is not consistent.

 

And frankly, I want to talk about the interview, not about what you think I thought about your thinking of what I think you thought you said. We are boring the shit out of the reader.

:) 

 

As to the images Trump uses and used, mental institutions and prisons, they are visual images. Rapists, too. And they are emotionally loaded images. Visual rhetoric as a technique is the most powerful persuasion there is.

Trump repeats high-impact loaded images a lot because he does not have the press to repeat his arguments in a rational manner for him. Did you take a look at the headlines of ALL the mainstream news? Did you watch the pundits?

All of them (except MAGA-friendly ones).

See any lies to start with? Hmmmmm?...

:) 

Do you think a well-reasoned syllogism will cut through that level of noise? I assure you, it will not.

Biden himself ran on a blatant, easily debunked lie about Trump (the fine people hoax). Biden repeated this over and over and over. He even said--repeatedly--that the reason he ran for president was because of this.

No amount of saying Trump did not say Nazis were fine people, and proving it with audio recordings, video and transcripts, made a damn bit of difference.

So how do you counter that? Trump found a way. And it works.

 

Elon not only let Trump speak those images over and over in the conversation, then agreed with him on top of that, I believe he did so out of respect. He was observing Trump's competence in using rhetoric. It felt to me that Elon was learning from Trump because he sees the results (consistent massive audience size and manipulation of the hostile news organizations) and he is trying to figure out how Trump does it.

Don't forget, Elon is in the hot seat now. According to the mainstream news and tech giant social media companies, Elon, by allowing free speech on X, is now a despicable racist and liar. He never invented a goddam thing in life and all he does is spread hate speech. Not only that, he's too stupid to realize that speech is the same thing as physical violence and has to be controlled. Blah blah blah. And this is going on 24/7 all over the world in the mainstream media companies.

Hell, even the European Union sent him a demand to censor this interview because they don't trust him to communicate with Europeans without harming them.

Elon stands up to this barrage of bullshit with humor and his own forms of rhetoric, but he knows Trump stands up to it in a different way, one that gets massive crowds and massive support.

I sensed humility in Elon, the kind geniuses extend to each other. And ditto for Trump re Elon. We witnessed a conversation between two giants. It went well beneath the words, too. We witnessed a major historical event.

And I am in all due awe.

I believe Trump's conversation with Elon, along with Trump's return to X (make Tweets mean again), is a game changer no matter what any headline says.

The assholes no longer control the narrative in the way they did when they censored everything. The Predator Class is hurting. 

And the public got to see that with their own eyes. They tuned in to see it. Starting with a billion of 'em.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed yes.

 

I suppose... and this is perhaps a personal preference ... instead of hearing him deliver his talking points thrice during a long interview... I think it kinda woulda been cool for me... to hear him hit his messaging really strongly ... say twice... and that once in the middle, he just kinda lets loose and goes full hog on the big picture and a myriad other things he probably has thought about and which are all very good reasons for his policy. 

 

I'm not really going to lose it... but I am gonna sigh bigly... but not because I don't care or because I disagree with the man... quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If I define MAGA, or Trump defines MAGA, or anyone in between, liberals will not listen. The will proclaim their stereotypes.

So let RFK Jr define MAGA for liberals:

TEXT:

What "MAGA" really means

The phrase has troubled liberals who think it is a call for a return to an America before civil rights, gay rights, and women's rights. But I have a more generous interpretation, one that is truer to my experience of Donald Trump as he is today. "Make America Great Again" recalls a nation brimming with vitality, with a can-do spirit, with hope and a belief in itself. It was an America that was beginning to confront its darker shadows, could acknowledge the injustice in its past and present, yet at the same time could celebrate its successes. It was a nation of broad prosperity, the world's most vibrant middle class, and a idealistic belief (though not consistently applied) in freedom, justice, and democracy. It was a nation that led the world in innovation, productivity, and technology. And it was the healthiest country in the world. I have talked to many Trump supporters. I have talked with his inner circle. I have talked to the man himself. This is the America they want to restore.

END TEXT

 

Suck on that, you pea-brained authoritarian creeps.

:) 

And for the other liberals, it's a pleasure to meet you.

Michael 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

LOL...

This is happening a lot.

 

QUOTE

So my wife left me alone with my liberal In-laws for about 20 minutes and told me to behave. Which I did. Not really but they brought it up first.  "How do Democrats differ from Republicans?" My answer: Strong men follow other strong men. Weak men follow other weak men or females".  So now I'm not allowed to say anything else until we leave. Because they're pissed. Like really pissed 😅😂😭

END QUOTE

What's more, when this happens, it's entertaining.

:) :) :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The essence of MAGA as opposed to The Predator Class is becoming evident to the young and they are getting there by their own observation.

Elon Musk just posted this young lady talking about this.

It's inspiring when I think about the future of America and the world.

Not that her words are poetic and heart-moving. But because of her reasoning.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now