If his mouth is open....

Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?

Red:
They absolutely should be held accountable.

The legendary Scheherazade of Arabian Nights fame kept herself from being beheaded by the promise of pleasure from her fascinating stories. She enraptured the king, who typically executed his virgin wives after one night of being with them, by telling him a story that made him eagerly anticipate her next exciting new story, night after night, for one thousand and one nights. The promise of pleasure is indeed powerful, and evokes in us the motivation to re-experience pleasurable feelings again and again.

Trump's political strategy is little other than that used by producers and sellers of high end consumer goods. Whether one takes inspiration from Sheherazade, finds it in in an MBA curriculum, or a scholarly business journal, the message is the same. The critical levers to successful luxury goods marketing are eight:
  • Performance
  • Pedigree
  • Paucity
  • Persona
  • Public figures
  • Placement
  • Public relations
  • Pricing
Luxury goods marketing is nothing new to Trump. It's what he's been doing for years and quite literally he's chosen to apply the maxims that work in that market segment to the political process. As a strategy, it's brilliant; emotional marketing approaches are by far the most compelling...quite simply because they carry the implication that by buying that good, one will in some small way be part of the "in crowd." However, the strategy, and the specific messages he's delivered as part of it, are entirely wrong for everyone except the people for whom the aspirational "feel good" BS that inundates the luxury goods market segment.

Luxury goods producers (sellers) recognize that even though most people can't buy their products with the same insouciance they have about grabbing a candy bar or gossip magazine at the grocery checkout aisle, they know equally well that if they can successfully convey the sense that buying and owning their wares will make the person feel like they "belong," aspirational consumers who can, over time and want to have a "fine" whatever will "buy into" the allure and "feel good" messaging. As a result, one sees folks (I have no idea of how many) who live paycheck to paycheck, albethey decent paychecks, nonetheless buying $10K baubles and/or pricey homes.

For example, remember the 2008 real estate crash? You don't think that happened because people bought homes priced, by any sane measures, within their means, do you? The home was "so nice" and it was what they aspired to; it's what they felt (not thought) they deserved as much as anyone else, perhaps even more than some folks whom they know. So why not?....Then some banker or broker told them they could afford it, and put "lipstick on the pig" that was their mortgage contract and they signed on the dotted line. That's the power of emotional marketing.

I'm a watch collector, so I am inundated by marketing from pricey watch companies. Look at what they subtly but not expressly, just like Trump, promise me:

Breguet --> My lady will be like a queen and that's how I'm treating her by buying her a Breguet.​

breguet-women-ad-campaign-queen2_0.jpg

Patek Philippe --> A legacy.​

enhanced-buzz-wide-22449-1347986825-21.jpg

Vacheron Constantin --> I'll be among the elite.​

392090_10150421892032770_98990172769_8231531_2930875_n.jpg


Emotional marketing isn't limited to expensive watches, however.

Volvo --> I'll feel free as if at the helm of my ship exploring the "oyster" that is my world.



Nevermind that folks who routinely buy products from those makers already have substantive personal and professional accomplishments that make them elite, give them a legacy, make them free and so on. A watch is never going to do that and buying one or not isn't going to serve as a proxy for the legitimate accomplishments that will. Neither is Donald Trump going to return American to the often overlooked working class citizens who form the base of his support. All the same, to aspirational consumers, that message is exactly what they want to hear -- that Trump's message is what they want to here is neither surprising nor unjustified -- and, as with those foreclosed upon homeowners who against all better judgment listened to the bankers and brokers, they're buying it.

You don't have to take my summarization as gospel....there's plenty of research on the matter as it applies to luxury consumer goods and services, which is what Trump has been selling all his life.

No one wears a Burberry trench coat merely to stay warm. No one buys Dom Perignon just because they’re thirsty. And no one forks over two hundred grand for a Bentley simply to get from point A to point B. No. Luxury products exist for a much less rational reason. Therefore, the marketing of them must be much more emotional. In short, mass marketing is the business of selling reality. Luxury marketing is the business of selling dreams. It's promoting the fantasy over the reality, emotion over reason, and yearning over satisfaction.

The concept of emotional marketing isn't new. What's new in the political area is the extent to which Trump applies the very same principles that made his hotels and casinos and golf courses successful to whatever extent they were/are. Namely, the approach of intimating or outright saying exactly what potential customers want to hear regardless of how untrue it is.
 
Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.

If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!

Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.

My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.

Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?

What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.

What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??



CK gets what I mean.


Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!! :scared1: I have no idea what the conceited con-man O'Reilly thinks. But it could be --- by accident --- that I agree with him. In fact --- I think the Trump minions are gonna HATE his "deals" and his "people" within MONTHS of seeing the government operated like a corporate sponsored reality show...



Yeah I called him "CK" deliberately ;) -- but I always spell C_K's name with the underscore.

What "will happen" down the road, after the electoral decision has been made, is irrelevant to this.

That clip, I just had it handy, brings up some salient points about the nature of rhetoric. Check out what they're discussing around that 3 minute mark (and the whole clip in general). To wit:

  • Do words have meaning, or do they not?
  • Can Rump (or anyone) simply say whatever gets an emotional reaction, with no regard to whether it's true --- and not be responsible for their untruth?
  • Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?
  • Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
If words do not have meaning, if "truth" and "facts" have no meaning, then --- of what use is language at all? If candidates cannot be responsible for what they say then ---- who IS?

You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK... :poke:

You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?

Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.


Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..

OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??

That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..


Trump makes a lot of great visionary points. I have no issue with many of them.

What Trump lacks is credibility. Time and time again he's shown that one cannot rely on him to hold true to his words.
  • Supported the Clintons, until he didn't.
  • Thought the KKK and David Duke were "a mess" (my term, not his), until he didn't.
  • Supported the use of torture, until he didn't.
  • Wanted to run as an independent, until he didn't.
The list is far longer than just four things. Just Google for Trump's inconsistencies and reversals.

That's fine for my kids, even now that they've all become young adults. I'm talking about remarks Trump has made over the past 20 years or so. Remember, the man is close to 70. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that by the time a person reaches about 50, they've at the very least learned to keep their mouth shut when they aren't sure about what they think about something. At the very least, if they must address such a matter, they'd say that they aren't certain, but "for the time being, I think, feel, etc. such and such..." Trump does not do that ever, and at 70 still hasn't shown one inkling that he's learned that lesson.

You may not be a billionaire real estate and media tycoon, but have you learned that lesson? When did you learn it? Have your kids learned it?
 
"O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected."

Which would render any candidate employing such a 'tactic' unacceptable as president – even if he 'doesn't mean it.'
 
I think it's quite telling, regarding what kind of man and candidate he is, that he essentially threatens riots in the streets if he is not the GOP pick. He is already encouraging his supports to 'riot' if he is not the GOP selected candidate for the national election. And at the same time he lies and says he doesn't encourage violence.
 
"O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected."

Which would render any candidate employing such a 'tactic' unacceptable as president – even if he 'doesn't mean it.'

Same reason that Hilliary can say the words I recently added to my footer and STILL be a front-runner. It's clueless hypocrisy,... Proximal cause is arrogance and being a career power whore.. One reason I support people of faith is that their religious discipline shows them what humility is all about. Folks without a bit of humility are dangerous..
 
What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??



CK gets what I mean.


Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!! :scared1: I have no idea what the conceited con-man O'Reilly thinks. But it could be --- by accident --- that I agree with him. In fact --- I think the Trump minions are gonna HATE his "deals" and his "people" within MONTHS of seeing the government operated like a corporate sponsored reality show...



Yeah I called him "CK" deliberately ;) -- but I always spell C_K's name with the underscore.

What "will happen" down the road, after the electoral decision has been made, is irrelevant to this.

That clip, I just had it handy, brings up some salient points about the nature of rhetoric. Check out what they're discussing around that 3 minute mark (and the whole clip in general). To wit:

  • Do words have meaning, or do they not?
  • Can Rump (or anyone) simply say whatever gets an emotional reaction, with no regard to whether it's true --- and not be responsible for their untruth?
  • Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?
  • Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
If words do not have meaning, if "truth" and "facts" have no meaning, then --- of what use is language at all? If candidates cannot be responsible for what they say then ---- who IS?

You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK... :poke:

You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?

Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.


Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..

OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??

That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..


Trump makes a lot of great visionary points. I have no issue with many of them.

What Trump lacks is credibility. Time and time again he's shown that one cannot rely on him to hold true to his words.
  • Supported the Clintons, until he didn't.
  • Thought the KKK and David Duke were "a mess" (my term, not his), until he didn't.
  • Supported the use of torture, until he didn't.
  • Wanted to run as an independent, until he didn't.
The list is far longer than just four things. Just Google for Trump's inconsistencies and reversals.

That's fine for my kids, even now that they've all become young adults. I'm talking about remarks Trump has made over the past 20 years or so. Remember, the man is close to 70. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that by the time a person reaches about 50, they've at the very least learned to keep their mouth shut when they aren't sure about what they think about something. At the very least, if they must address such a matter, they'd say that they aren't certain, but "for the time being, I think, feel, etc. such and such..." Trump does not do that ever, and at 70 still hasn't shown one inkling that he's learned that lesson.

You may not be a billionaire real estate and media tycoon, but have you learned that lesson? When did you learn it? Have your kids learned it?


At first -- the Trumpster had a fresh list of "hot-button" issues to fire up the frustrated. NOW -- it's a re-tred script because I don't think he's GOT anything new and original since this circus began..
 
I already don't. I just told you that.

And this may come as earth-shaking news but I don't exactly sit on the edge of my seat waiting and praying to Mazda for a glimpse of your next thread. Get over yourself already.
DODGE! Translation >> That OP blows everything you're saying so far out of the water, you DON'T DARE GO THERE, because you know it wrecks your whole Hillary for President farce. Same thing with all the other hot air liberals who spent the whole day yammering and blabbering, in the question for trump supporters thread, but never ventured to enter the Open Question for Hillary Supporters thread even for one single post.

FAGGOT Cowards.

What reason would I have to visit a thread "for Hillary Supporters"?

And where in the site rules does it say I'm obliged to?
You some kind of fascist? Or just a fuckin' egomaniac?
 
Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?

Red:
They absolutely should be held accountable.

The legendary Scheherazade of Arabian Nights fame kept herself from being beheaded by the promise of pleasure from her fascinating stories. She enraptured the king, who typically executed his virgin wives after one night of being with them, by telling him a story that made him eagerly anticipate her next exciting new story, night after night, for one thousand and one nights. The promise of pleasure is indeed powerful, and evokes in us the motivation to re-experience pleasurable feelings again and again.

Trump's political strategy is little other than that used by producers and sellers of high end consumer goods. Whether one takes inspiration from Sheherazade, finds it in in an MBA curriculum, or a scholarly business journal, the message is the same. The critical levers to successful luxury goods marketing are eight:
  • Performance
  • Pedigree
  • Paucity
  • Persona
  • Public figures
  • Placement
  • Public relations
  • Pricing
Luxury goods marketing is nothing new to Trump. It's what he's been doing for years and quite literally he's chosen to apply the maxims that work in that market segment to the political process. As a strategy, it's brilliant; emotional marketing approaches are by far the most compelling...quite simply because they carry the implication that by buying that good, one will in some small way be part of the "in crowd." However, the strategy, and the specific messages he's delivered as part of it, are entirely wrong for everyone except the people for whom the aspirational "feel good" BS that inundates the luxury goods market segment.

Luxury goods producers (sellers) recognize that even though most people can't buy their products with the same insouciance they have about grabbing a candy bar or gossip magazine at the grocery checkout aisle, they know equally well that if they can successfully convey the sense that buying and owning their wares will make the person feel like they "belong," aspirational consumers who can, over time and want to have a "fine" whatever will "buy into" the allure and "feel good" messaging. As a result, one sees folks (I have no idea of how many) who live paycheck to paycheck, albethey decent paychecks, nonetheless buying $10K baubles and/or pricey homes.

For example, remember the 2008 real estate crash? You don't think that happened because people bought homes priced, by any sane measures, within their means, do you? The home was "so nice" and it was what they aspired to; it's what they felt (not thought) they deserved as much as anyone else, perhaps even more than some folks whom they know. So why not?....Then some banker or broker told them they could afford it, and put "lipstick on the pig" that was their mortgage contract and they signed on the dotted line. That's the power of emotional marketing.

I'm a watch collector, so I am inundated by marketing from pricey watch companies. Look at what they subtly but not expressly, just like Trump, promise me:

Breguet --> My lady will be like a queen and that's how I'm treating her by buying her a Breguet.​

breguet-women-ad-campaign-queen2_0.jpg

Patek Philippe --> A legacy.​

enhanced-buzz-wide-22449-1347986825-21.jpg

Vacheron Constantin --> I'll be among the elite.​

392090_10150421892032770_98990172769_8231531_2930875_n.jpg


Emotional marketing isn't limited to expensive watches, however.

Volvo --> I'll feel free as if at the helm of my ship exploring the "oyster" that is my world.



Nevermind that folks who routinely buy products from those makers already have substantive personal and professional accomplishments that make them elite, give them a legacy, make them free and so on. A watch is never going to do that and buying one or not isn't going to serve as a proxy for the legitimate accomplishments that will. Neither is Donald Trump going to return American to the often overlooked working class citizens who form the base of his support. All the same, to aspirational consumers, that message is exactly what they want to hear -- that Trump's message is what they want to here is neither surprising nor unjustified -- and, as with those foreclosed upon homeowners who against all better judgment listened to the bankers and brokers, they're buying it.

You don't have to take my summarization as gospel....there's plenty of research on the matter as it applies to luxury consumer goods and services, which is what Trump has been selling all his life.

No one wears a Burberry trench coat merely to stay warm. No one buys Dom Perignon just because they’re thirsty. And no one forks over two hundred grand for a Bentley simply to get from point A to point B. No. Luxury products exist for a much less rational reason. Therefore, the marketing of them must be much more emotional. In short, mass marketing is the business of selling reality. Luxury marketing is the business of selling dreams. It's promoting the fantasy over the reality, emotion over reason, and yearning over satisfaction.

The concept of emotional marketing isn't new. What's new in the political area is the extent to which Trump applies the very same principles that made his hotels and casinos and golf courses successful to whatever extent they were/are. Namely, the approach of intimating or outright saying exactly what potential customers want to hear regardless of how untrue it is.


A very verbose post but spot-on in its description of what's going on. I think we all (those who think beyond the visceral emotion) know that. Even Bill O'Reilly in my video link knows that.

I cannot fully agree with this particular wording though:
As a strategy, it's brilliant; emotional marketing approaches are by far the most compelling...quite simply because they carry the implication that by buying that good, one will in some small way be part of the "in crowd." However, the strategy, and the specific messages he's delivered as part of it, are entirely wrong for everyone except the people for whom the aspirational "feel good" BS that inundates the luxury goods market segment.

All true in how it works, I just cannot agree with the word "brilliant". To my mind, when you abandon all ethical principles including even basic honesty, simply so that you can sell something, you've thereby given up all claim to "brilliant" or any other positive adjective. You become a hustler. It's impossible to admire a hustler simply because said hustler gets results.

There must be context to those results. If I were to rob a bank and thereby become rich, I would not deserve accolades for having made a fortune.
 
I already don't. I just told you that.

And this may come as earth-shaking news but I don't exactly sit on the edge of my seat waiting and praying to Mazda for a glimpse of your next thread. Get over yourself already.
DODGE! Translation >> That OP blows everything you're saying so far out of the water, you DON'T DARE GO THERE, because you know it wrecks your whole Hillary for President farce. Same thing with all the other hot air liberals who spent the whole day yammering and blabbering, in the question for trump supporters thread, but never ventured to enter the Open Question for Hillary Supporters thread even for one single post.

FAGGOT Cowards.

What reason would I have to visit a thread "for Hillary Supporters"?

And where in the site rules does it say I'm obliged to?
You some kind of fascist? Or just a fuckin' egomaniac?

Oh c'mon Pogo.. Be "fair and balanced".. Go read some stuff about Hilliary and realize that the 2 are not different in their motivations for obtaining power.. Otherwise those colorful fireworks are gonna get BIGGER and LOUDER..
 
What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.

That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..

Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..

So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??



CK gets what I mean.


Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!! :scared1: I have no idea what the conceited con-man O'Reilly thinks. But it could be --- by accident --- that I agree with him. In fact --- I think the Trump minions are gonna HATE his "deals" and his "people" within MONTHS of seeing the government operated like a corporate sponsored reality show...



Yeah I called him "CK" deliberately ;) -- but I always spell C_K's name with the underscore.

What "will happen" down the road, after the electoral decision has been made, is irrelevant to this.

That clip, I just had it handy, brings up some salient points about the nature of rhetoric. Check out what they're discussing around that 3 minute mark (and the whole clip in general). To wit:

  • Do words have meaning, or do they not?
  • Can Rump (or anyone) simply say whatever gets an emotional reaction, with no regard to whether it's true --- and not be responsible for their untruth?
  • Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?
  • Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
If words do not have meaning, if "truth" and "facts" have no meaning, then --- of what use is language at all? If candidates cannot be responsible for what they say then ---- who IS?

You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK... :poke:

You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?

Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.


Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..

OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??

That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..


Trump makes a lot of great visionary points. I have no issue with many of them.

What Trump lacks is credibility. Time and time again he's shown that one cannot rely on him to hold true to his words.
  • Supported the Clintons, until he didn't.
  • Thought the KKK and David Duke were "a mess" (my term, not his), until he didn't.
  • Supported the use of torture, until he didn't.
  • Wanted to run as an independent, until he didn't.
The list is far longer than just four things. Just Google for Trump's inconsistencies and reversals.

That's fine for my kids, even now that they've all become young adults. I'm talking about remarks Trump has made over the past 20 years or so. Remember, the man is close to 70. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that by the time a person reaches about 50, they've at the very least learned to keep their mouth shut when they aren't sure about what they think about something. At the very least, if they must address such a matter, they'd say that they aren't certain, but "for the time being, I think, feel, etc. such and such..." Trump does not do that ever, and at 70 still hasn't shown one inkling that he's learned that lesson.

You may not be a billionaire real estate and media tycoon, but have you learned that lesson? When did you learn it? Have your kids learned it?


Also quite true. I'm sure we all know those reversals that can change by the hour, leaving us all with no idea what he really plans to do, if he has any plans at all.

That spontaneity is more than just poor planning -- it's based on a lifelong fatal narcissism that has defined his entire 70 years, within politics and without. He's obsessed with his own persona energy, with the idea -- not the substance but simply the concept --- of the rich golden boy image. That has driven his political campaign as well as his entire life before it -- the endless edifice complex with his name in gold, the endless insistence that whatever he's associated with is "the best, the biggest" etc etc (even if that's demonstrably not true), and his abject inability to ever admit a mistake.... leading to the sophomoric Twitter whining any time Megyn Kelly or anyone else dares to suggest his reality falls short of his self-image.

He's a psychological nutcase.

Someone else on the site posted a link to his association with the philosophies of Norman Vincent Peale, who championed a "power of positive thinking" push especially in the 1950s. Positive thinking is basically a positive, but Peale, and certainly Rump, take it to the point of self-delusion. Thus it's "impossible" to be wrong, it's "impossible" that some of his businesses failed or went bankrupt, it's "impossible" that Megyn Kelly could ask pointed questions about women because "women love me", it's "impossible" to make statements that are provably untrue. It's all self-delusion, and what seems to he happening in the campaign is that his followers are buying into the same self-delusion about the same image.
 
I already don't. I just told you that.

And this may come as earth-shaking news but I don't exactly sit on the edge of my seat waiting and praying to Mazda for a glimpse of your next thread. Get over yourself already.
DODGE! Translation >> That OP blows everything you're saying so far out of the water, you DON'T DARE GO THERE, because you know it wrecks your whole Hillary for President farce. Same thing with all the other hot air liberals who spent the whole day yammering and blabbering, in the question for trump supporters thread, but never ventured to enter the Open Question for Hillary Supporters thread even for one single post.

FAGGOT Cowards.

What reason would I have to visit a thread "for Hillary Supporters"?

And where in the site rules does it say I'm obliged to?
You some kind of fascist? Or just a fuckin' egomaniac?

Oh c'mon Pogo.. Be "fair and balanced".. Go read some stuff about Hilliary and realize that the 2 are not different in their motivations for obtaining power.. Otherwise those colorful fireworks are gonna get BIGGER and LOUDER..

You're actually suggesting I DO have to go read a thread for a candidate I'm not interested in?
Is this thread not specifically about Donald Rump? Is the poster not therefore off topic in his deflection?

Directly to your point, absolutely NOT, I'm not about to be coerced into some wanker's self-infatuated thread out of his obnoxious fonts. That has the exact opposite effect he intends.

That's why I'm here in this thread. I respond to intellect, not obnoxiousity. He should get down on his knees and thank me if I ever read one of his posts again.
 
Last edited:
I think it's quite telling, regarding what kind of man and candidate he is, that he essentially threatens riots in the streets if he is not the GOP pick. He is already encouraging his supports to 'riot' if he is not the GOP selected candidate for the national election. And at the same time he lies and says he doesn't encourage violence.

Zackly. Goes right back to my point of egocentric self-delusion. Rump is and always has been all about Numero Uno, nothing else. That alone disqualifies him for the job.
 
Trump makes a lot of great visionary points. I have no issue with many of them.

What Trump lacks is credibility. Time and time again he's shown that one cannot rely on him to hold true to his words.
  • Supported the Clintons, until he didn't.
  • Thought the KKK and David Duke were "a mess" (my term, not his), until he didn't.
  • Supported the use of torture, until he didn't.
  • Wanted to run as an independent, until he didn't.
The list is far longer than just four things. Just Google for Trump's inconsistencies and reversals.

That's fine for my kids, even now that they've all become young adults. I'm talking about remarks Trump has made over the past 20 years or so. Remember, the man is close to 70. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that by the time a person reaches about 50, they've at the very least learned to keep their mouth shut when they aren't sure about what they think about something. At the very least, if they must address such a matter, they'd say that they aren't certain, but "for the time being, I think, feel, etc. such and such..." Trump does not do that ever, and at 70 still hasn't shown one inkling that he's learned that lesson.

You may not be a billionaire real estate and media tycoon, but have you learned that lesson? When did you learn it? Have your kids learned it?
As another almost 70 year old, I also have changed my thoughts on many things, over the years. For decades, I was Democrat, and then, Green Party member. I voted for Ralph Nader twice, John Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. Now I would not vote for any of them, and I voted for Trump in the Florida primary (I am now a registered Republican). I don't see changing as time goes by, as having anything whatsoever to do with credibility. I think some of those who say it does, are lying, just to push their agenda.
 
"O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected."

Which would render any candidate employing such a 'tactic' unacceptable as president – even if he 'doesn't mean it.'
Probably so - IF it were true. :laugh:
 
I think it's quite telling, regarding what kind of man and candidate he is, that he essentially threatens riots in the streets if he is not the GOP pick. He is already encouraging his supports to 'riot' if he is not the GOP selected candidate for the national election. And at the same time he lies and says he doesn't encourage violence.
He did not threaten riots, you idiot. He simply stated that he thought there could be riots, and he's right. And he's not encouraging anybody to do anything, you cheap, 2-bit, low-life LIAR.
 
At first -- the Trumpster had a fresh list of "hot-button" issues to fire up the frustrated. NOW -- it's a re-tred script because I don't think he's GOT anything new and original since this circus began..
Nor do the Democrats have any answers to the things Trump has been saying all along. Their entire platform is an empty shell, unresponsive to the serious issues Trump has raised, and continues to do so.
 
What reason would I have to visit a thread "for Hillary Supporters"?

And where in the site rules does it say I'm obliged to?
You some kind of fascist? Or just a fuckin' egomaniac?
Maybe the reason being that you're a Hillary supporter. Ans who said anything about being obliged to ? > I 'll answer that. YOU did,
 
All true in how it works, I just cannot agree with the word "brilliant". To my mind, when you abandon all ethical principles including even basic honesty, simply so that you can sell something, you've thereby given up all claim to "brilliant" or any other positive adjective. You become a hustler. It's impossible to admire a hustler simply because said hustler gets results.

There must be context to those results. If I were to rob a bank and thereby become rich, I would not deserve accolades for having made a fortune.
Right. And so, I'm not voting for Hillary either. :laugh:
 

Forum List

Back
Top