Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

[williatw]

Watched the debate; Trump obviously did much better than the first one & IMHO he won, here is another Scott Adams take:

Quick Debate Reactions from Switzerland

Posted October 10th, 2016 @ 12:43am in #Trump #Clinton

I just watched the debate on replay. Trump won bigly. This one wasn’t close. And keep in mind that I called Clinton the winner of the first debate, and I now endorse Gary Johnson, primarily to avoid being called an alleged enabler of alleged sex abusers and their alleged enablers. That basket of deplorables includes both Bill and Hillary Clinton (the alleged doer and the alleged cleaner-upper) plus Trump and his alleged misdeeds.

Some quick reactions…

1. When the Access Hollywood tape came up, Trump dismissed it as locker room banter that he regrets. You expected that part. The persuasion move was that he quickly contrasted that “small” issue with images of ISIS beheadings, and cage-drownings. It was a high ground maneuver, a powerful visual anchor (like the Rosie O’Donnell move from his first primary debate), and a contrast play. In this framing, Trump cares about saving your life while Clinton cares about your choice of words. I realize the issue is Trump’s alleged deeds, not his words. But in terms of debate persuasion, Trump nailed it hard.

2. Clinton’s body language was defensive. Trump is physically larger and prowled the stage. He won the optics. It only got worse when a fly landed on Clinton’s face mid-answer. Both candidates looked perfect in terms of wardrobe and hair, given what they have to work with.

3. Trump threw in enough random details about Syria to persuade viewers that he knows more than they thought he knew. And he did a great job selling the idea that he knows more than the generals (as ridiculous as that sounds), at least in terms of not announcing where we plan to attack. I agree with the moderator who said there might be good reasons for announcing attacks – such as giving time for civilians to leave – but it wasn’t quite a counter-argument. Trump succeeded in looking informed on Syria, and at the same time reinforced the “can’t keep a secret” theme for Clinton.


4. Trump’s pre-debate show with Bill’s alleged victims dismantled Clinton’s pro-woman high ground before the debate even started. I didn’t see the pre-debate show, but I assume it was impactful. It had to be. Clinton looked shaken from the start.

5. The best quotable moments from the debate are pro-Trump. His comment about putting Clinton in jail has that marvelous visual persuasion quality about it, and it was the laugh of the night, which means it will be repeated endlessly. He also looked like he meant it.

Clinton’s Abe Lincoln defense for two-faced politicking failed as hard as anything can fail. Mrs. Clinton, I knew Abe Lincoln, and you’re no Abe Lincoln. You know that was in your head. Or it will be.
6. Most of the rest was policy stuff that no one understands or cares about. We don’t know how to fix Obamacare or what to do with TPP. But by acting competent on these and other policy issues, Trump gains more than Clinton in persuasion.

7. Trump attacked Clinton on emails, and did a good job. His base needed that.

8. Clinton had to defend her “deplorables” comment. She said she regretted it. Regret isn’t what the public wanted to hear. That’s about her. They wanted to hear that she doesn’t think that way. She failed to address the emotional part of that topic, and that’s a persuasion fail.

9. Trump defended his “extreme” vetting fairly well, but he did miss a huge opportunity for reframing. Trump mentioned the need for Muslims to help the country by informing on known terrorists in their ranks. He could have gone a step farther and said that he takes responsibility for some Islamophobia by his tough talk, but the solution to Islamaphobia is not what Trump says or does going forward. The solution is for the community itself to self-police the bad elements in its ranks. You can think that is unfair – because it is – but it might be the only solution in the long run.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1515994215 ... witzerland

[williatw]

Trump’s pre-debate show with Bill’s alleged victims dismantled Clinton’s pro-woman high ground before the debate even started. I didn’t see the pre-debate show, but I assume it was impactful. It had to be. Clinton looked shaken from the start

Trump's pre-debate Facebook Live features Bill Clinton accusers

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /91836664/

Donald Trump Appears With Bill Clinton Accusers Before 2nd Debate Press Conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPBCnuBZKQ

[Diogenes]

Talk about optics.





I'm not superstitious, but this certainly struck me as an omen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub

[Diogenes]

Scott Adams certainly seems to be a very intelligent fellow. I've been following his commentary quite a lot lately.

[Tom Ligon]

Don't know what the fly has to do with it.

I will say, there is an old expression that you will catch more flies with sugar than you will with vinegar. I suppose that's true, but sugar is not so good an attractant as garbage, or other malodorous materials.

I thought Trump's best targeted point was asking H why she was not funding her run with some of her many millions. She didn't answer.

Both lied a lot, and both tended to pivot to answers they wanted to give. Very little of what Trump said was true.

He waited kind of late to bring up the "two faced" argument. Viewers may have been off doing something else by then. While Trump has usually relished sucking up all the media oxygen in the past, this time his Billy Bush tape managed to almost completely draw attention away from Hillary's little problem.

Hillary may have been trying to take the high road by not mentioning Trump's appearances with Howard Stern, which includes some horribly vulgar things, including Trump agreeing with Stern about Trump's daughter, on an assessment that would have prompted most men to pummel a shock jock to within an inch of their life.

"My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," says Trump.
"By the way, your daughter," says Stern.
"She's beautiful," responds Trump.
"Can I say this? A piece of ass," Stern responds.
"Yeah," says Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/ ... ard-stern/

Won't win him many undecided women, I think.

[Diogenes]

Bush negotiated the initial forces agreement, but Obama didn't want to continue it, so when the Iraqi's demanded more concessions, Obama pulled out because that's what he wanted to do anyway. But this is beyond just pulling our forces out of Iraq, (which was a colossally stupid blunder) the evidence so far appears to indicate that Obama and Hillary were running a "fast and furious" gun running scheme to the "Syrian Rebels" which were in fact the Core group we now know as "ISIS."

Somewhat related and touches on more valid points:


The DECLINE of American Empire

Black Pigeon Speaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOuLkfJjtgQ

That is an interesting perspective and one to which I am more receptive than I have been in the past. I have gotten the impression that a lot of things happen for reasons other than what we are led to believe, but the one unalterable factor is that huge amounts of money are always involved.

[Diogenes]

Don't know what the fly has to do with it.

I will say, there is an old expression that you will catch more flies with sugar than you will with vinegar. I suppose that's true, but sugar is not so good an attractant as garbage, or other malodorous materials.

I thought Trump's best targeted point was asking H why she was not funding her run with some of her many millions. She didn't answer.

Both lied a lot, and both tended to pivot to answers they wanted to give. Very little of what Trump said was true.

He waited kind of late to bring up the "two faced" argument. Viewers may have been off doing something else by then. While Trump has usually relished sucking up all the media oxygen in the past, this time his Billy Bush tape managed to almost completely draw attention away from Hillary's little problem.

Hillary may have been trying to take the high road by not mentioning Trump's appearances with Howard Stern, which includes some horribly vulgar things, including Trump agreeing with Stern about Trump's daughter, on an assessment that would have prompted most men to pummel a shock jock to within an inch of their life.

"My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," says Trump.
"By the way, your daughter," says Stern.
"She's beautiful," responds Trump.
"Can I say this? A piece of ass," Stern responds.
"Yeah," says Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/ ... ard-stern/

Won't win him many undecided women, I think.

Well it's not like he stuck a cigar in a woman's unmentionable or anything.

[Tom Ligon]

The hilarity continues. This move is baffling.

A few weeks back I reported finding myself at a gardening fundraising dinner, sitting beside Corey Stewart, a Virginia Republican who has been an ardent Trump supporter. A couple of days later he announced he is running for Governor of Virginia. He has also been billing himself as "Mini-Trump."

Today he organized a protest, which you may have caught on national news, with a bunch of women holding up Trump banners in front of the RNC headquarters. Apparently he blindsided the Trump campaign with it, and they spent some time tweeting and asking him to cease and desist. The result?

“Former Virginia State Chairman Corey Stewart is no longer affiliated with the Donald J. Trump for President campaign,” said Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie in a statement. “He is being replaced, effective immediately. Corey made this decision when he staged a stunt in front of the RNC without the knowledge or the approval of the Trump campaign.”

According to the Washington Post, Stewart said he did not respond to the message but knew that it meant that he would be fired if he went forward with his plans. He went ahead to make his point, that establishment Republicans — he referred to them at the event and on Facebook as “establishment pukes” — were trying to undermine Trump.

Evidently the Trump campaign is not quite so eager to burn these bridges, and told Stewart, "You're fired."

Maybe he figured this would be a good way to step away from Trump without saying he was stepping away from Trump, while at the same time getting some free publicity.

[Diogenes]

[paperburn1]

Notice how they avoid the word TAX like the plague. Because if it was a "Tax" or "penalty" it would be Illegal under the harris act

[Tom Ligon]

Notice how they avoid the word TAX like the plague. Because if it was a "Tax" or "penalty" it would be Illegal under the harris act

... for not buying an overpriced commercial insurance.

And they've set the system up so that's the only way my wife and I can get insurance any more, so we know how bad it is for how little we get better than most.

[hanelyp]

"Shared responsibility payment" ... how Communist, in the full theft under color of law sense.

[ladajo]

Affected taxpayers really need to band up and file a class action against the executive branch and congress for these blatant twistings of the laws of the nation.

[williatw]

Scott Adams certainly seems to be a very intelligent fellow. I've been following his commentary quite a lot lately.

Alas I think it is over for Trump.. Dam*%; would have to agree with this; hello President (Saint) Hillary Rodham Clinton 4 (or 8years ) long of an exercise in corruption and generally bad policy that will boggle the mind.

Scott Adams' Blog


The Era of Women

If the latest groping/kissing allegations against Trump hold up – and I assume they will, based on quantity if not credibility – it won’t matter what Wikileaks says about Clinton. She will win easily.

If Clinton wins, you’ll wonder if this invalidates the Master Persuader Hypothesis. The short answer is no, because the concept doesn’t account for unknowns of this magnitude. If a meteor had struck Trump a day before election day, it wouldn’t say much about his skill as a persuader. The Master Persuasion Hypothesis worked splendidly until the double-whammy of the Access Hollywood tape and the “octopus” meteor.

Trump could still win, but only if some new and unexpected meteor strikes Clinton. Here’s how I see it through the persuasion filter:

1. Facts and policies stopped mattering months ago. No one cares.

2. Wikileaks has no meteors to offer. The Wikileaks misdeeds involve people who are not Clinton, and they involve issues that are boring and a bit complicated. The public will not be much influenced by them.

3. The “octopus” line about Trump is engineered persuasion of the highest order. It makes the story deeply visual and extra-creepy. Godzilla, or someone similarly skilled, is probably behind that word. It’s too engineered for a civilian to concoct during an interview. That’s professional work. And it’s probably a golden stake through Trump’s political heart. (Well played.)

Agree with most everything he saying accept:

2. Everything that goes wrong with the country from this point forward is women’s fault.

No it won't be Scott...it will still be men's fault. Anything f%*K up will be because "those republican (men)" "under minded" everything saint Hillary tried to do. It will still be men's fault in women's eyes and they will reelect her. God I hope your boys manage to hold onto the Senate; if the Dems take it they will be to frightened/gutless of angering her women's vote to stand up to just about anything she wants. The media is thoroughly in her pocket too. Early voting is starting in Ohio...if it goes like 2012 (where Romney actually won votes cast on election day) Trump will have lost Ohio before Nov 8th even if he recovers support and wins the votes cast on election day.



http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1517376568 ... a-of-women

[williatw]

America’s Decadent Leadership Class

Putin doesn’t respect them, and they don’t like half the American people.



Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vladivostok, Sept. 2012

By
Peggy Noonan

Oct. 13, 2016 7:15 p.m. ET

It is quite dreadful and a showing of the gravest disrespect that, if U.S. intelligence agencies are correct, Russia’s Vladimir Putin has inserted himself into America’s presidential election. And it could not have deeper implications.

If Russia is indeed behind the leaks of the emails of Democratic Party operatives Mr. Putin may have many reasons, as he often does, but the most frightening would be that he views the current American political leadership class as utterly decadent and unworthy of traditional diplomatic norms and boundaries. And, thinks, therefore, it deserves what it gets.

Why would he find them decadent—morally hollowed out, unserious? That is the terrible part: because he knows them.

Think of how he’s experienced them the past few years. Readers of these pages know of the Uranium One deal in which a Canadian businessman got Bill Clinton to help him get control of uranium mining fields in Kazakhstan. The businessman soon gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation, with a pledge of $100 million more. Uranium One acquired significant holdings in the U.S. A Russian company moved to buy it. The deal needed U.S. approval, including from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While it was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received more money from Uranium One. Bill Clinton got a $500,000 speech fee. Mrs. Clinton approved the deal. The Russian company is now one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Significant amounts of U.S. uranium are, in effect, owned by Russia. This summer a WikiLeaks dump showed the State Department warning that Russia was moving to control the global supply of nuclear fuel. The deal went through anyway, and the foundation flourished.

Peter Schweizer, who broke the Uranium One story, reported in these pages how Mrs. Clinton also pushed for a U.S.-Russian technology initiative whose goals included “the development of ties between the Russian and American people.” Mrs Clinton looked for U.S. investors and found them. Of the 28 announced “key partners,” 60% had made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation. Even Russian investors ponied up.

But the research coming out of the initiative raised alarms: U.S. military experts warned of satellite, space and nuclear technology transfers. The FBI thought the Russian partners’ motive was to “gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology.” WikiLeaks later unearthed a State Department cable expressing concern about the project. Somehow, said Mr. Schweizer, the Clinton State Department “missed or ignored obvious red flags.”

What would Mr. Putin, knowing all this and inferring Mrs. Clinton’s real priorities, conclude about the American political system and its major practitioners? Would he feel contempt? Might he toy with them?

As for Donald Trump, we don’t know, because he has not released his tax returns, what ties if any he has with Russia. There are charges that Trump businesses are entangled with powerful Russian financiers. We know some of his top advisers had business ties to Russia or affiliated nations and leaders.

Again, what might Mr. Putin think of this? Might he amuse himself with mischief, even to the point of attempting to hack the election returns? We’ll see.

But nothing is more dangerous than this: that Mr. Putin and perhaps other world leaders have come to have diminished respect for the morality, patriotism and large-mindedness of our leaders. Nikita Khrushchev had a rough respect for JFK and his men and that respect, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, helped avert nuclear war. Mikhail Gorbachev was in the end half-awed by Ronald Reagan’s goodness and idealism; the world knew George H.W. Bush and respected his integrity, and so he was able to build coalitions that were real coalitions, not just names. Now, whoever wins, we are in a different place, a lesser and more dangerous one.
***

On the latest groping charges: We cannot know for certain what is true, but my experience in such matters is that when a woman makes such a charge she is telling the truth. In a lifetime of fairly wide acquaintance, I’ve not known a woman to lie about sexual misbehavior or assault. I believe Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, and I believe the women making the charges against Mr. Trump in the New York Times. The mainstream media of the United States is in the tank for the Democratic nominee, to its great and destructive shame: They add further ruin to the half-ruined reputation of a great American institution. That will make the country’s future harder and more torn up.


But this story, at least as to the testimony of its central figures, does not appear to be an example of that.

***

Here I would like to say a word for the spectacular illusions under which American voters once were able to operate. You used to be able to like your guy—to admire your candidate and imagine unknown virtues he no doubt possessed that would be revealed in time, in books. Those illusions were beautiful. They gave clean energy to the engine of our politics. You can’t have illusions anymore. That souring, which is based on knowledge and observation as opposed to mere cynicism, is painful to witness and bear. The other day a conservative intellectual declared to her fellow writers and thinkers: “I’m for the venal idiot who won’t mechanize government against all I hold dear.” That’s some bumper sticker, isn’t it? And who has illusions about Mrs. Clinton? No one.

***

The big fact of the week, however, has to do with these words: They don’t like us. The Democrats, progressives and left-liberals who have been embarrassed by the latest WikiLeaks dump really hate conservatives, or nonleftists. They don’t like half the people of the country they seek to control! They look at that half with disdain and disrespect. Their disdain is not new—“bitter clingers,” “basket of deplorables.” But here it’s so unashamed and eager to express itself.

A stupid man from a leftist think tank claimed the most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic. “They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations,” he wrote. Mrs. Clinton’s press aide Jennifer Palmieri responded: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelicals.”

When I read that I imagined a conversation with my grandmother, an immigrant who was a bathroom attendant at the Abraham & Straus department store in Brooklyn. Me: “Grandma, being Catholic is now a step up. It means you’re an aristocrat! A stupid one, but still.” Grandma, blinking: “America truly is a country of miracles.”

Here’s what you see in the emails: the writers are the worst kind of snobs, snobs with nothing to recommend them. In their expression and thoughts they are common, banal, dumb, uninformed, parochial.

I don’t know about you but when people look down on me I want them to be distinguished or outstanding in some way—towering minds, people of exquisite sensibility or learning. Not these grubbly poseurs, these people who’ve never had a thought but only a sensation: Christians are backward, I saw it in a movie!

It’s the big fact of American life now, isn’t it? That we are patronized by our inferiors.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-de ... 1476400544