Post New

And they’re just as illuminating as we all knew they would be:

https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/202247748157644025...

INTERVIEWER: Should the US actually commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?

AOC: Um…

You know, I think that, uh…

This is such a, uh, you know, I think that this is a, um...

This is, of course, a very long standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation.

And for that question to even arise.

Genius, this.

Ladies and gentlemen: the intellectual beating heart of the democrat party.

And a future Presidential candidate that will be embraced by the liberals on this board.

On TMF - I used to say specifically that Republicans and Democrats, eager for "free trade", WTO, and PNTR with China, are sellouts to China and that China - will suck up American tech, knowhow, systems, and then use their huge labor pool to basically copy our homework. And I wrote - in the meantime our middle lass will suffer, while their middle lass grows, their arsenal grows, and their infrastructure improves ----all thanks to the USA.

Back then Republicans from Bush Supporters to Rush Limbaugh to Newt were shouting 'protetionist' and Liberals who can't stand American prosperity that isn't just theirs --- shouted "isolationist".

Now, here we are today.

Our Walmart-GigWorker- mullet-Middle Class is getting dumber, angrier, and desperate and squeezed DESPITE "links" showing more wealth and GDP than ever before. Anyone who doesn't believe me, I'll meet you in any of those businesses, you tell those people how they've never had it so good, I'll tell them opposite - let's see who gets a pat on the back and who gets slapped.

Anyway I also wrote that due to all of these trends, the day will come where China takes Taiwan. I said it won't be much force other than symbolic why? Because Taiwan's Club 401K: CEOs, academics----will be sort of "good" or at least passive with allowing China to do it and IF it truly is a military invasion?

I said --- decades ago - America's reply will be "passing a resolution condemning China's actions" - full stop.

Today? The Sole reason america defends twiann would be that the Ruling Class needs mass war to cull population, to reset governance and economic rules.

There's a reason why - even in a "polarized" country where "nothing gets done" - the CHIPS act got done.

China has TOLD us they're coming to Taiwan.

Club 401K - solely cares about supply chains and "the economy".

Taiwan is done.

I dont know if it's over breakfast tomorrow. or In 5 years or 10 -- but it's done.

And whichever party is NOT in the White House --- those people will be on this board - blaming the guy or girl in charge.

Why? Cause that's what tribal savages do.

And we are just that.

Americans - my ass.

use their huge labor pool to basically copy our homework.

Nice guess, but you are about 40-50+ years too late.

Apple does NOT know how to build its own devices. That is figured out in China.

This is, of course, a very long standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation.

And for that question to even arise.

Genius, this.

Yes, a very good tactical response by AOC. To be admired.

On TMF - I used to say specifically that Republicans and Democrats, eager for "free trade", WTO, and PNTR with China, are sellouts to China and that China - will suck up American tech, knowhow, systems, and then use their huge labor pool to basically copy our homework. And I wrote - in the meantime our middle lass will suffer, while their middle lass grows, their arsenal grows, and their infrastructure improves ----all thanks to the USA.

Supposedly, Lenin said words to the effect "when it comes time to hang all the capitalists, they will sell us the rope". Whether he said it or not, it certainly is true. "JCs" are so obsessed with sticking more cash in their pocket, NOW, they will sell out anyone. And now, we are living the consequences.

Steve

And a future Presidential candidate that will be embraced by the liberals on this board.

Regardless of any AOC quote you can dig up, she sounds infinitely more intelligent than the moron you voted for, 3 times.

Added bonus: AOC actually believes in the Constitution.

So please spare us your fake righteous indignation.



Trump claimed that the Biden administration had spent $8 million dollars to make “mice transgender”. [Seriously stupid.]

“They’re a BRICS nation, Spain. Do you know what a BRICS nation is? You’ll figure it out.” [Hint: the S is not Spain.]!

Trump claimed that Denmark doesn’t have the “right” to Greenland. [Greenland is a self-governing, autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and has been part of Denmark for 600 years.]

"These things don't work, I've had them many times, and on occasion, they break, they explode. If something's hot, they don't last very long, like a matter of minutes, sometimes a matter of seconds. It's a ridiculous situation," he said, speaking about paper straws, before immediately signing an executive order to bring plastic straws back.

Labelled himself the “father of IVF.”

And who can forget covfefe.

And, literally, thousands more.

Didn't know Bill Clinton and Al Gore will JC's --- but ok, yes, they were in on it along with Bush and Newt and Carter.

Didn't know Bill Clinton and Al Gore will JC's

Who repealed Glass-Steagall? Who ignored the warnings of Brooksley Born? Who would do that, but a servant of "JCs"?

Steve

What does “JC’s” stand for?

Yes, a very good tactical response by AOC. To be admired.

Riiiight. Don’t want to give away any plans for the region!

LOLOLOLOLOL.

AOC is an objectively stupid woman.

Meanwhile, here’s what someone who is a student of world affairs had to say:

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of the Western victory in the Cold War led to a “dangerous delusion that we had entered ‘the end of history,’ that every nation would now be a liberal democracy, that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood ... and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.”

Marco will make an *excellent* President one day.

I love the contrast in intellectual firepower between him and AOC.

AOC is an objectively stupid woman.

You can’t name one person in the Trump clown car, AKA the Trump cabinet, who has half the IQ of AOC.

You can’t name one person in the Trump clown car, AKA the Trump cabinet, who has half the IQ of AOC.

Add them all together and the total is still less than 1.

What does “JC’s” stand for?

"JC" = "Job Creator". Obama was their tool too. Remember him promoting "clean coal" as if it was actually a thing, and the "MyRA" or whatever it was. The concept of the "MyRA" was when people went to work for a company that did not have a 401k plan, the government would step in, skim money off the employee's paycheck, and hand it over to Wall St. Who but a tool of the "JCs" would do that?

And Biden, blathering about "the dignity of work", implying everyone should work til they drop. Who but a tool of the "JCs" would say that?

The only difference between the wings of the "JC" party is the GOP wing layers on bigotry and authoritarianism heavier.

Steve

Steve if you are saying Clinton/Gore were JC's....

I have no choice but to confirm my suspicion that you actually think for yourself and that's why I actually read what you say. YEs - I think many times you'll be too far Left for me but nevertheless I truly salute your being able to think beyond your goddamn blog or cable news station.

In either side - I think maaaaaaybe 5% of the flock are able to do that and I thank you truly.

I wish I'd have met you back when I truly gave a shit about things.

(Trust me, there was a time I did)

AOC is an objectively stupid woman.

She graduated cum luade from Boston University in 2011 with a bachelor's degree in international relations and economics,and MIT named an asteroid for her. Got anything like that Dope? No, a degree in cum loudly from Prager U doesn't cut it.

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of the Western victory in the Cold War led to a “dangerous delusion that we had entered ‘the end of history, that every nation would now be a liberal democracy’

sounds neocon

, that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood ... and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.”

Sounds like Marx.

On TMF - I used to say specifically that Republicans and Democrats, eager for "free trade", WTO, and PNTR with China, are sellouts to China and that China - will suck up American tech, knowhow, systems, and then use their huge labor pool to basically copy our homework.

I predicted that, too. I was too young to know about Nixon going to China. I do have a memory of us selling the Chinese 747s, and agreeing with the dissenters that we were just giving them advanced (for that time) avionics. I was dead-set against granting them MFN trading status, and I still think that should be revoked.

But I've been outvoted by the business interests who only could see cheap labor and lax pollution standards.

And now, within 10 years (probably less), they will be able to equal us militarily (especially their navy). Good job, you pro-MFN supporters.

Great post OnePoorGuy, truly great post.

I suspect we have differing philosophies in some ways and have obviously voted opposite....but back in that time you mention, I was a loud fan of ANY and ALL who challenged that mass sellout and for me --- Right Left did not matter when it came to that. Whether it was Pat Buchanan - or Ralph Nader. Ross Perot, or Jerry Brown (1-800-426-1112 was Brown's campaign number, 1-800-925-4000 was Perot's -lol tip of my tongue to show you how into it I was back then) Whether it was Jesse Jackson or Senator Inhofe or the great Democrat Marcy Kaptur -- I was with them on those issues.

Now, I feel that one side - *wants* poorer more controllable people - and wants to toss welfare or universal monthly checks to keep the masses quiet.

Then the other side wishes to wave the flag and say, 'we're now cutting health benefits. Here's a tax voucher which will solve all your troubles" and then while praising the working man, give tech titans full rein over much of america.

This is why I've predicted for decades: 20% of the people will have it better than they ever did (Club 401K up to the oligarchs). The other 80% ---will literally be in the Hunger Games, with varying visibility of such.

First world nation, with visible 3rd world traits.

I see nothing now ---to change my mind.

She graduated cum luade from Boston University in 2011 with a bachelor's degree in international relations and economics,and MIT named an asteroid for her. Got anything like that Dope? No, a degree in cum loudly from Prager U doesn't cut it.

Huh? She’s an idiot.
The degree in “international relations” just makes it worse.

The degree in “international relations” just makes it worse.

You will be stuck with an Apple made overseas--AGAIN.

And your microwave will ALWAYS be flashing "12:00".

MIT named am.asteroid for her...that's great a.convemient place to deport her to...I'm sure musk will provide the rocket

MIT named am.asteroid for her...that's great a.convemient place to deport her to...

You're going to deport a US citizen? We have a special suite in Chateau Cecot for you. :)

Huh? She’s an idiot.
The degree in “international relations” just makes it worse.

Sorry, a degree cum loudly from Prager U doesn't come close.

LOL. Sorry to break this to you, but you’re…just a bit off base.
But keep grasping at straws.

that's great a.convemient place to deport her to...I'm sure musk will provide the rocket

Using your rationale, deport Spankee to the sun--ASAP. Problem solved.

Dope1: Huh? She’s an idiot. The degree in “international relations” just makes it worse.

Mehdi Hasan easily dispensed with this grade school boy criticism of AOC:

All I see on my timeline is a bunch of Republicans and legacy media reporters parsing every quote and comment from AOC in Germany, trying to mock them for incoherence or inaccuracy, meanwhile a ranting demented old man who can't string sentences together, stay awake, or identify Germany on a map sits in the Oval Office, reelected, while the legacy media happily sanewashes his ridiculous garbled quotes on a daily basis while refusing to ever question his total ignorance on every issue. Remarkable.

All I see on my timeline is a bunch of Republicans and legacy media reporters parsing every quote and comment from AOC in Germany, trying to mock them for incoherence or inaccuracy, meanwhile a ranting demented old man who can't string sentences together, stay awake, or identify Germany on a map sits in the Oval Office, reelected, while the legacy media happily sanewashes his ridiculous garbled quotes on a daily basis while refusing to ever question his total ignorance on every issue. Remarkable.

Let’s remember that the same Failing New York Times that gave us AOC’s speech, with every “um” and “ah” recorded…… is the same Failing New York Times that often cleans up Trump’s words, and filters out the batshittery before publication.

Let’s remember that the same Failing New York Times that gave us AOC’s speech, with every “um” and “ah” recorded…… is the same Failing New York Times that often cleans up Trump’s words, and filters out the batshittery before publication.

Oh, please. Every malapropism uttered by every Republican is always magnified. Sarah Palin. Remember her? Literally everything she said was scrutinized.

Now it's AOC's turn. The woman is certifiably stupid and she put it on display in Munich.

Domestically in the coming decade, the country will go much more visibly in AOC's direction.

AOC is stupid in exactly the same kind of way as Mikie Sherill, Elizabeth Warren, Abigail Spanberger, and Kamala Harris.

It's uncanny how similarly stupid they all are.

Here's some more of AOC's genius on display:

Here's AOC giggling about how much she wants a wealth tax, only to be immediately schooled on the issue:
https://x.com/TudorDixon/status/202342031582159285...

Here's AOC flexing her geography muscles:
https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2023427795867...

No, AOC. Venezuela lies entirely above the equator.

Flexing here knowledge of American history, she seems totally unaware that cowboy culture began in Spain and the Spanish were the ones who introduced horses to the Americas. The guy that led the expedition even has the same last name as her, lol.


The fact that she had to go to the NYT for some Cleanup on Aisle 3 is hilarious and shows you how bad it was.

Domestically in the coming decade, the country will go much more visibly in AOC's direction.

Which direction? Stupid or Communist?

Or...both?

AOC is stupid in exactly the same kind of way as Mikie Sherill, Elizabeth Warren, Abigail Spanberger, and Kamala Harris.

Must be the vaginas.

Must be the vaginas.

No, they're just stupid.

Heard this on the radio this morning:

If AOC were a balding middle age dude, would she be anywhere near the level she is now?

I'll answer for you - NO.

Which should tell you something about your vajayjay comment.

AOC is stupid in exactly the same kind of way as Mikie Sherill, Elizabeth Warren, Abigail Spanberger, and Kamala Harris.

Look out, Dopey, your misogyny is showing.

I'll answer for you - NO.

Of course you’ll answer for me. In fact, you routinely ask and answer your own questions and attribute the nonsense to others.

That’s one of the things we love about you.

You do you, Dope.

If AOC were a balding middle age dude, would she be anywhere near the level she is now?

I'll answer for you - NO.

Why not? She's where she is because she has very adept skills at politics - an early mastery of social media, great in-person ability to appeal to the base, a "come from the people" biography of 'bartender to contender' that played very well in her political milieu, and a general amazing talent for campaigning. And her positions "met the moment" as the kids say - being an ardent progressive at a time when ardent progressive pushback against Democratic fixtures in safe districts was 'in the air' after Trump's win.

Granted, an actual middle age person is pretty unlikely to have the social media talents that AOC has. And in politics - as in many things - it's always better to be telegenic than not.

But no reason to think that an older male version of AOC wouldn't have done just fine. Heck, that's basically Graham Plantner, if he were running in a house district.

Of course you’ll answer for me. In fact, you routinely ask and answer your own questions and attribute the nonsense to others.

That’s one of the things we love about you.

You do you, Dope.

He says...while completely ducking the question.

So I'll ask again: If AOC were a balding fat guy who spouted off the same stupid proto-commie things that she does, would he occupy the same place in the democrat party?

And let's refresh ourselves as to AOC's place in the democrat party:

*Sitting rep in NY
*Widely rumored to be a lock for Schumer's senate seat when he retires
*Widely considered to be a Presidential candidate
*Considered one of the faces of the democrat party
*Considered one of the stars of the democrat party

AOC is stupid in exactly the same kind of way as Mikie Sherill, Elizabeth Warren, Abigail Spanberger, and Kamala Harris.

The chances of picking five people and having all five of those people be women, when you claim you aren’t picking them based on gender, is about 1 in 32……… about 3%

Why not? She's where she is because she has very adept skills at politics - an early mastery of social media, great in-person ability to appeal to the base, a "come from the people" biography of 'bartender to contender' that played very well in her political milieu, and a general amazing talent for campaigning.

Uh, huh.

Granted, an actual middle age person is pretty unlikely to have the social media talents that AOC has. And in politics - as in many things - it's always better to be telegenic than not.

But no reason to think that an older male version of AOC wouldn't have done just fine. Heck, that's basically Graham Plantner, if he were running in a house district.

Right. The guy with the SS tattoo. Great comparison.

If you guys want to believe that some dumpy-looking older dude who says the same objectively stupid things that AOC does would be considered one of the faces of the democrat party, I've got some oceanfront land in Oklahoma for you to consider.

If you guys want to believe that some dumpy-looking older dude who says the same objectively stupid things that AOC does would be considered one of the faces of the democrat party, I've got some oceanfront land in Oklahoma for you to consider.

She wasn't saying stupid things in 2018 and thereafter. Okay, she was saying things that you think are stupid, but that's because you're not a progressive and not part of the Democratic base. Not things that anyone in the Democratic base thinks are stupid. Which is why she's one of the faces of the Democratic party and you're not - she's excellent at being a progressive politician appealing to a youthful, online electorate living in a densely populated urban area.

Had she been a balding male, it would have likely been the same (assuming the same set of campaigning skills and general in-person charisma). She's intensely popular among the Democratic progressive base because she's got very good political skills and her issues line up with the base. She's one of the faces of the Democratic party because of that and because conservatives disdain her - typically to be the "face" of either party, you have to be someone that is liked by your side and disliked by the other, because that's what keeps you mentioned on Fox News/MSNBC all the time.

If you guys want to believe that some dumpy-looking older dude who says the same objectively stupid things that AOC does….

Visions of Donald Trump talking about magnets not working when wet are suddenly dancing through my head.

Granted, that is REALLY stupid, not simply “stupid because I disagree with it” stupid.

She wasn't saying stupid things in 2018 and thereafter. Okay, she was saying things that you think are stupid,

Here's AOC in 2019:
“Now I’ve seen the inside of these facilities. It’s not just the kids. It’s everyone. People drinking out of toilets, officers laughing in front of members of Congress.”

Or how about this gem
To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity.

Erm, okay.

Hey, if you guys want to annoint her your next JFK, I'm all for it!

Had she been a balding male, it would have likely been the same (assuming the same set of campaigning skills and general in-person charisma).

The balding middle aged guy would have judged to saying objectively stupid things much more than AOC has. For one, your party absolutely does not criticize minorities. It's such a massive Achilles' heel on their part because it ensures that whomever the Flavor of The Month is wholly unprepared for the job they're running for.

If you doubt that, I give you one Kamala Harris.

BTW, I'm looking to unload this tract of land I have in Enid. You'll love the view from there!

Visions of Donald Trump talking about magnets not working when wet are suddenly dancing through my head.

Granted, that is REALLY stupid, not simply “stupid because I disagree with it” stupid.

You still owe me an answer.

While you're pondering how to hide behind al and not answer, you can also ponder this bit of wisdom from her:

To me, capitalism is irredeemable.

Hey, if you guys want to anoint her your next JFK, I'm all for it!

It's almost never correct to judge politicians' intelligence - let alone their effectiveness as politicians - by looking at their malapropisms. Granted, politics involves more public speaking than most jobs. But many people, even very intelligent people, will say dumb things at some point if they do a lot of contemporaneous public speaking. Especially when their public speaking is reduced to writing.

You'll have to take this on faith, but I'm a pretty decent public speaker at the podium. And I like to think of myself as someone with a facility for language. But I cannot bring myself to read a transcript of any of my hearings. Because everyone looks bad in a transcript if they're not reading verbatim from prepared remarks.

You may not recall, but there was a period back on Old Fool where I found myself defending W's intelligence against his litany of misstatements and ungrammatical sentence fragments - for that same reason.

So, no - I don't think that if we postulate a similarly social-media-savvy telegenic charismatic campaigner who happens to also be a bald male running instead of AOC, that person wouldn't have achieved what she's achieved.

BTW, no one's appointing her JFK. She's more a young Bernie Sanders. Who you might have noticed is a not especially telegenic older male, but is revered by the base because he's good with the base and has the politics that match what (part of) the base wants.

It's almost never correct to judge politicians' intelligence - let alone their effectiveness as politicians - by looking at their malapropisms. Granted, politics involves more public speaking than most jobs. But many people, even very intelligent people, will say dumb things at some point if they do a lot of contemporaneous public speaking. Especially when their public speaking is reduced to writing.

Okay, sure. 99.999999999% of your party disagrees with that statement, btw. Let's ask this board's luminaries what they think of GWB's brainpower. Or Palin's. Or any Republican.

The difference is...AOC is really and truly an idiot.

BTW, no one's appointing her JFK. She's more a young Bernie Sanders. Who you might have noticed is a not especially telegenic older male, but is revered by the base because he's good with the base and has the politics that match what (part of) the base wants.

Bernie occupies a different swim lane than AOC. He's the Curmudgeonly Old Guy Who You Should Listen To Because He's Old And Curmudgeonly.

The difference is...AOC is really and truly an idiot.

Pretty bloody unlikely. It takes a high level of skill and capability to rise in politics. You might think her positions are idiotic, just as I think several of Donald Trump's positions are idiotic. But I don't for a second believe Trump is an idiot, and you shouldn't believe that of AOC.

Bernie occupies a different swim lane than AOC. He's the Curmudgeonly Old Guy Who You Should Listen To Because He's Old And Curmudgeonly.

And AOC occupied the "Young Outsider With a Fresh Perspective and Energy To Fight For Change" swim lane when she ran for office. No reason she couldn't have occupied that lane as a middle-aged telegenic bald male. Well, except for the young part. Exhibit "A":

https://i.insider.com/636b4abb113fe1001835292c?wid...

Dope 1,

you left out, "blabbermouth"

Tiedrich:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in Germany this week, attending the Munich Security Conference — and for some unknown reason, The New York Times decided it would be super-fun to mock AOC by quoting from a speech she gave, and leaving every verbal tic intact.

Rebecca Solnit: “I've transcribed dozens of interviews. With rare exceptions, everyone speaks with those um/uh tics, little restarts, hesitations, and most of us speak in sentence fragments with emphases, tones, pauses that create coherence not replicable in print. Spoken and written are distinct. Translate fairly.”

Tiedrich:

but, more importantly, have you ever seen one instance in the press where Donny Convict was quoted verbatim? no, you have not. the fuck-torrent of incoherence that seeps out of Dear Leader’s rancid anus-mouth gets sanewashed to the hundredth degree.

right now, Donny’s obvious cognitive impairment has reached the point where he can’t even manage to fart out a complete sentence. his speeches are full of false starts, fragments that drift off and go nowhere, incomprehensible slurring, stumbling and stammering, lost trains of thought, and pure batshit insanity.

and the press is only too happy to edit that shit out. anyone reading printed accounts of Donny’s pressers would have no idea that his brain has gone fuckity-bye.

if that kind of kid-glove treatment is acceptable when quoting Dear Leader, then it’s sure as shit doubly-acceptable when quoting AOC.

I’m racking my own brain trying to figure out why the Times would take such a cheap shot at AOC. ‘because fuck you, that’s why’ is the only rationale I can think of.

do better, New York Times.

And thus Dope thinks AOC is stupid and Trump is brilliant. When will the press stop showing this bias and stop sane-washing Trump?

do better, New York Times.

And thus Dope thinks AOC is stupid and Trump is brilliant. When will the press stop showing this bias and stop sane-washing Trump?

I mean, it's not like they haven't covered his "weave," as he likes to call it.

The former president says that his style is to “weave” from one subject to the next. Others see something more worrisome in his ramblings

https://archive.ph/LI8z9

I’m racking my own brain trying to figure out why the Times would take such a cheap shot at AOC. ‘because fuck you, that’s why’ is the only rationale I can think of.

Because she blew the question. Yes, presenting her answer with all the "er's" and "ummm's" in it makes her look worse, because that always makes you look bad - people speak differently than they write. But watching the video isn't much better. She clearly wasn't prepared to answer that question. Presenting her "umm's" and "uh's" is the way that authors talking about that lack of preparedness can communicate that to a reader, rather than a viewer. She stammered through her response. If she went to Munich to shore up her foreign policy chops (for whatever reason), she didn't meet the moment:

https://archive.ph/FHtyf

That's different than saying she's an idiot, of course - she just was unprepared to address the question. Even the smartest folks can get tripped up if they get asked a question they weren't expecting on a topic that they're not prepared to talk about. But it's still a problem that she wasn't prepared to talk about it. If you want to seriously engage on foreign policy, having a meaningful view on Taiwan's security situation and the U.S.' role in that should be something you prioritize.

Pretty bloody unlikely.

Great! I look forward to quoting her at length and you and this board can tell me the hidden genius behind it all! :)

But I don't for a second believe Trump is an idiot, and you shouldn't believe that of AOC.

Oh, I never underestimate my adversaries.

And AOC occupied the "Young Outsider With a Fresh Perspective and Energy To Fight For Change" swim lane when she ran for office. No reason she couldn't have occupied that lane as a middle-aged telegenic bald male.

But that was the point: put her same positions in a non-telegenic package. Would our theoretical lumpy, balding dude be in the same position?

But that was the point: put her same positions in a non-telegenic package. Would our theoretical lumpy, balding dude be in the same position?

It's always an advantage in politics to be telegenic, and an older balding dude can also be telegenic (hi, Dwayne Johnson!).

And that's why I gave you the example of John Fetterman - who occupied a similar "darling of the progressives and terminally online" lane in 2022, despite being middle aged and bald during his candidacy.

So, yeah. She's successful because she's very charismatic, incredibly adept at using modern communication tools like social media, has an issue set and a biography (again, "bartender to contender") that was perfectly aligned with what the base of the party wanted in a candidate at that time. And her rise to prominence within the party has been the result of forging connections, alliances, and relationships within the House and among party folks around the country. A bald male with the same set of skills, issues, positions, and background would have done just fine and would have been plenty successful.

But it's still a problem that she wasn't prepared to talk about it. If you want to seriously engage on foreign policy, having a meaningful view on Taiwan's security situation and the U.S.' role in that should be something you prioritize.

And this is the rub, isn't it? You fancy yourself the next Senator of the State of New York, the voice of the democrat party and you think you're Presidential material.

However, most of the time nobody cares what a sitting member of the House of Representatives thinks on national security matters unless you've been in the forefront of those issues a long time...somebody like a Norm Dicks (longtime chair and/or ranking member of the Appropriations Committee), a Dick Cheney (former White House Chief of Staff), Les Aspin (Chair of the Armed Services Committee) or more recently somebody like Ryan Zinke (who was Secretary of the Interior under Trump45 and is a former member of Seal Team 6).

In other words, unless you have a lot of foreign policy chops nobody would really bother with a relatively junior House member at an event like this.

So you head to THE security conference in the Western World and get yourself on multiple panels to discuss foreign policy. Then proceed to bomb a rather obvious question on one of the THE biggest security topics on the radar today.

It's always an advantage in politics to be telegenic, and an older balding dude can also be telegenic (hi, Dwayne Johnson!).

Wow, you guys are really trying hard to not say 'no', aren't you? :)

And that's why I gave you the example of John Fetterman - who occupied a similar "darling of the progressives and terminally online" lane in 2022, despite being middle aged and bald during his candidacy.

Fetterman isn't the right example. For one, his positions are Classical Democrat, not what the party is now.

And her rise to prominence within the party has been the result of forging connections, alliances, and relationships within the House and among party folks around the country. A bald male with the same set of skills, issues, positions, and background would have done just fine and would have been plenty successful.

She had none of this when she started, I'll remind you.

So you head to THE security conference in the Western World and get yourself on multiple panels to discuss foreign policy. Then proceed to bomb a rather obvious question on one of the THE biggest security topics on the radar today.

Yes, she clearly failed to be adequately prepared. If the goal was to show that she has foreign policy chops, that was a blunder.

But part of becoming a Les Aspin or a Sam Nunn or whomever is starting off green. Everyone starts off new to foreign policy at some point. Everyone who aspires to a job that involves going to national security conferences will have their first non-trivial role in a national security conference. Everyone has to learn how to do the job(s) they want to eventually do. She's just turned 36. If she one day wants to have a role in a field that involves having more national security expertise, she's got tons of time to do it - and she'll have to start off new and raw, and she's going to make flubs.

So, again - this doesn't mean she's dumb. It doesn't mean she's an idiot. It just means she tried to do something without being completely prepared to do it well.

Wow, you guys are really trying hard to not say 'no', aren't you? :)

Because the answer isn't "no." She won her race, and has had her subsequent success, due to a ton of things that would easily translate to a bald man, if that bald man had all of her other attributes. A charismatic, deeply progressive "bartender to contender" change agent with a mastery of social media and a deep skill for organization and crowdsourced funding would have similarly fared very well in that race in that district at that time, and would have similarly been well positioned to rise to prominence in the subsequent years, even if that person had been bald and male.

Fetterman isn't the right example. For one, his positions are Classical Democrat, not what the party is now.

He ran as a progressive darling in 2022. He was a longtime supporter of Bernie, endorsed by AOC, and was beloved by the progressive left. It's been after he took office that he's taken positions that estranged him from the base. But he was able to successfully and overwhelmingly captivate the progressive base in 2022 despite being a middle aged bald dude.

She had none of this when she started, I'll remind you.

Right. I note it because shows that she has formidable political skills and talents, which skills and talents can be possessed by a bald man just as easily as a woman with hair.

Yes, she clearly failed to be adequately prepared. If the goal was to show that she has foreign policy chops, that was a blunder.

She also proceeded to lay waste to any notion that she's well versed in geography, history or economic, her chosen field.

Talk about going 4 for 4.

But part of becoming a Les Aspin or a Sam Nunn or whomever is starting off green. Everyone starts off new to foreign policy at some point. Everyone who aspires to a job that involves going to national security conferences will have their first non-trivial role in a national security conference. Everyone has to learn how to do the job(s) they want to eventually do. She's just turned 36. If she one day wants to have a role in a field that involves having more national security expertise, she's got tons of time to do it - and she'll have to start off new and raw, and she's going to make flubs.

Sure. Every one of the people I mentioned did something foreign policy related or at least was in the room prior to joining the House Of Representatives. AOC never had anything like that. She's never been on any significant piece of legislation, never served on any of the foreign-policy facing committees in the House and has never served in a leadership position.

In fact, this just makes the whole episode worse. If she was going there to establish some credibility and lay down a marker to show that she can hang in that environment, she pretty much face planted.

So, again - this doesn't mean she's dumb. It doesn't mean she's an idiot. It just means she tried to do something without being completely prepared to do it well.

If by "without being completely prepared" you mean "coming off as completely ignorant on multiple fronts", then I agree.

Right. I note it because shows that she has formidable political skills and talents, which skills and talents can be possessed by a bald man just as easily as a woman with hair.

She worked for Bernie's campaign and did the sh1t jobs you'd expect a junior person just starting out to do. Then she was specifically recruited to run as a part of the effort to find young progressives who could appeal to other Millennials.

A lumpy, bald older dude wouldn't.

In fact, this just makes the whole episode worse. If she was going there to establish some credibility and lay down a marker to show that she can hang in that environment, she pretty much face planted.

I agree. She absolutely did not succeed in establishing any strong credibility in foreign policy.

Blowing a geography point is far from ideal, but understandable - anyone can make those kinds of mistakes even if they actually do know which countries are north and south of the equator. If I had a nickel for every time I called one of my kids by the dog's name, I'd be a wealthy man. Even though I genuinely do know my kids' names.

However, the Taiwan response was bad. As you point out, that's a big important topic. Even if you want to be cagey about your response (and you should! It's a delicate topic with a lot of diplomatic nuances and complications if you say something that differs from the Administration!), you should at least have formulated your thoughts enough to be able to give a cagey response.

She worked for Bernie's campaign and did the sh1t jobs you'd expect a junior person just starting out to do. Then she was specifically recruited to run as a part of the effort to find young progressives who could appeal to other Millennials.

A lumpy, bald older dude wouldn't.

Why not? A lumpy bald dude who worked for Bernie's campaign and did the sh!t jobs a junior person just starting out would do could also recruited to run as part of the candidate recruiting team, and also been enormously successful. If that person was charismatic and engaging and had mastered social media and organization and showed an aptitude for crowdfunding campaign contributions.

Again, Fetterman is instructive. He ran in the progressive lane in the PA primary against the conventional mainstream Conor Lamb. He was the darling of the left wing, despite being the lumpy bald older dude.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. AOC won her race because she's incredibly good at the politics one needs to do to appeal to the progressive base. She has the right issues, the right skill sets, a great deal of personal charisma, good interpersonal skills, solid management capabilities, an aptitude for social media, and an ability to navigate the intersection between the far left and the center left in a way that kept her from being marginalized from leadership. There's absolutely no reason a bald lumpy guy that had all those political gifts and talents wouldn't have done very well also.

Donald Trump talking about magnets not working when wet

So he needs to pee on himself FAR more frequently--so the magnets won't work on him.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here.

I'm trying to see who among the left wing crowd will admit that AOC being a young, good looking woman had at least something to do with her rise to her current position in the democrat party.

So far no takers, which means you all believe that she has tons 'o skillz. That's great.

I'm looking to unload this tract of land I have in Enid. You'll love the view from there!

Excellent !! There is a fat orange loser in FL looking to move !!!

Major issue: Does the property have a straight delivery to the local septic processing system? Going to need at least 1000 gallons/day capacity TO the system. He may likely drink far more OUT of the system than he inputs.

Oh, I never underestimate my adversaries.

ROFLMAO !!!

In fact, this just makes the whole episode worse. If she was going there to establish some credibility and lay down a marker to show that she can hang in that environment, she pretty much face planted.

LOL. Trump face plants every damned time he opens his mouth. You sure have a double standard. And his stupidity is real and seriously damaging to our nation and its status in relation to other nations of the world.

I'm trying to see who among the left wing crowd will admit that AOC being a young, good looking woman had at least something to do with her rise to her current position in the democrat party.

Unfortunately, looks played a role and her good looks did have something to do with her rise. Can’t deny it. However, it’s not her good looks that are keeping her where she is.

But given the refrain from the right over the past couple of decades about ugly liberal women, it must be hard to acknowledge that not all liberal women look like Bella Abzug.

We’ve got folks who run the spectrum in the looks department. So do you.

So what?

But I don't for a second believe Trump is an idiot,...

I do. Absolutely. I'd match my brainpan against his any day of the week. He's a mental midget.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have some skills/talents. You have enumerated them elsewhere. But from an intellectual standpoint, he's an idiot. And from a wisdom standpoint, too. He possesses neither.

Apparently, he has been a bully his entire life. Numerous folks from his past say so (including classmates at the military school he attended). I think that fits. He's the bully who couldn't hack it, so he bullied his way through. He would beat up the smart kids because he wasn't a smart kid. He was a loser who inherited daddy's money, and then cast everyone else as the losers.

If he hadn't inherited money, he'd be nowhere. Just another bum looking to make the next "big score" that never happens.

So, again - this doesn't mean she's dumb. It doesn't mean she's an idiot. It just means she tried to do something without being completely prepared to do it well.

I would add, the true sign of intelligence is learning from any mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. The smart ones learn from them.

Unfortunately, looks played a role and her good looks did have something to do with her rise. Can’t deny it. However, it’s not her good looks that are keeping her where she is.

Inertia of being overhyped at the start is keeping her where she is. Legislatively, she's a nobody. Her signature piece of legislation -which was nothing more than a resolution - was implemented in the "Inflation reduction act" and failed.

So what?

It's simple. A lumpy-looking middle aged dude with her resume and on-record statements would very likely not have been recruited and slotted into the role that AOC occupies today.

I'm trying to see who among the left wing crowd will admit that AOC being a young, good looking woman had at least something to do with her rise to her current position in the democrat party.

In politics, it is always better to be good looking than not. Being good looking is always somewhat an advantage. As is being tall.

So just like the fact that DJT is tall had at least something to do with his rise to his current position in the Republican Party, AOC being good looking had something to do with her rise in the Democratic Party.

So far no takers, which means you all believe that she has tons 'o skillz.

She clearly has tons 'o skillz. You don't knock off a well-funded veteran incumbent Congressman (and Chairman of your party's Caucus to boot) without having some mad skillz. She ran an incredible ground game, some of the best canvassing and organizing the district had ever seen, had the best social media and online presence of any candidate of that time, worked her (limited!) endorsements perfectly, and controlled the issue salience in the primary entirely to her benefit.

The fact that she's been able to maintain and even increase her prominence even after that race - despite unseating a powerful and popular incumbent and facing the inevitable tension between a progressive base and more centrist leadership - speaks to even more political savvy.

So, yeah. She's got tons 'o skillz.

...which means you all believe that she has tons 'o skillz. That's great.

Speaking only for myself, she clearly has the skill of politics because she keeps winning.

Beyond that, I know very little about her other than she's a progressive, and I've seen some smart quotes from her. But she's not in my state. I don't really track every congressperson who isn't in my state. If she ever enters the running for higher office, I'll learn more because I will need to.

However, to your other point, being good looking in life is pretty much always a "plus". From the cradle (where babies will stare at pretty people longer than ugly people), to old age, being attractive -especially for a public-facing job- is always beneficial.**


**Though, sometimes good looking people have difficulty being taken seriously. I don't know if that worked against her or not. Maybe "always beneficial" was overstating it a bit.

I do. Absolutely. I'd match my brainpan against his any day of the week. He's a mental midget.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have some skills/talents. You have enumerated them elsewhere. But from an intellectual standpoint, he's an idiot.

If you think he's a mental midget, then I think you're seriously misjudging him. What you're referring to as "an intellectual standpoint" is only a specific slice of mental capacity, one that us college kids value very highly but is not the only aspect of mental acuity.

I'm sure that you (or I) could trounce him in writing a graded essay on a piece of literature, or in a formal Lincoln-Douglas debate, or in a basic math competition (I once knew how to do math too, back in the day!). But I wouldn't sit down at a poker game against Trump with anyone else's money, or want to compete against him in Survivor or a game of Mafia or any other endeavor where reading people and sussing out their weak points is essential. If you ever watched Game of Thrones, I'd put my money on him doing well in that game of wits over any of the more intellectually accomplished folks I've known over the years.

If you match your brainpan against his on a field that favors you, I'm sure you'd win. In a contest that depends on reading your opponent, deception and guile, bluffing, operating with incomplete information, or a match of wills? I'd put my money on Trump over most of the folks I know from my college days, and those are some quite smart cookies.

He is an ignorant, incurious, anti-intellectual, self-absorbed, inattentive and easily distractible, inarticulate and generally uninformed man who seems to lack any capacity for self-reflection or contemplation. None of that makes him a mental midget.

So just like the fact that DJT is tall had at least something to do with his rise to his current position in the Republican Party, AOC being good looking had something to do with her rise in the Democratic Party.

Trump is where he is because of a) he's rich b) he has universal name recognition c) he excels at marketing. All that pre-dated his involvement in politics.

None of that applied to AOC when she was installed in her House seat *and* simultaneously as The Voice Of The Social Media Generation by the party.

You don't knock off a well-funded veteran incumbent Congressman (and Chairman of your party's Caucus to boot) without having some mad skillz.

AOC took advantage of an intense anti-Trump sentiment in 2018 to unseat an uncharismatic, lumpy middle aged dude. She rode the #woke wave to her credit.

Hey, good for her.

despite unseating a powerful and popular incumbent and facing the inevitable tension between a progressive base and more centrist leadership - speaks to even more political savvy.

Erm, okay. The pendulum of the democrat party has been to swing to the hard left since 2003. The "centrist" leadership you mention isn't really that.

Speaking only for myself, she clearly has the skill of politics because she keeps winning.

Winning a d+(a lot) district as the incumbent? Okay, sure.

The smart ones learn from them.

And she’s been learning.

Pelosi saw that quality about her.

Another couple of years and she will be quite formidable.

It's simple. A lumpy-looking middle aged dude with her resume and on-record statements would very likely not have been recruited and slotted into the role that AOC occupies today.

She’s part of the “future of the party”. You don’t pick middle aged neophytes and slot them as “future of the party”.

She’s part of the “future of the party”. You don’t pick middle aged neophytes and slot them as “future of the party”.

Indeed, she is!

Indeed, she is!

part of, not the whole enchilada.

Please Dope1.

AOC isn't "good looking."

Take a good long look at her face, she looks like an Easter Island statue.

Ugh.

part of, not the whole enchilada.

The democrats - top and bottom - are in the Let's Flirt With Socialism phase. When Mamdani craters New York and makes it a living example of what not to do policy-wise, they'll suddenly tack back to the center. But right now? Socialism is all the rage, baby!

The d's are looking for enduring ways to appeal to people, pure and simple. They tried Identity Politics writ large, thinking that would give them an enduring majority. They've succeeded in turning Latinos into a swing block and are now losing a lot of support from blacks. They're making their last stand with women...but at the same time turning off other women.

They've aligned themselves with fringe positions across the board (open borders, voter ID is bad, the police are bad, boys in girls' sports, where NGO funding goes, wealth taxes, etc. etc.). If they didn't dominate both the cultural zeitgeist and the media plus have their ability to peer-pressure people into supporting them, they'd have gone the way of the Whigs by now.

He is an ignorant, incurious, anti-intellectual, self-absorbed, inattentive and easily distractible, inarticulate and generally uninformed man who seems to lack any capacity for self-reflection or contemplation. None of that makes him a mental midget.

One of the most incisive assessments I’ve read of Trump in quite some time.

I'm trying to see who among the left wing crowd will admit that AOC being a young, good looking woman had at least something to do with her rise to her current position in the democrat party.

So far no takers, which means you all believe that she has tons 'o skillz.

Yes, Dope, I read you in Albabys' response over here. Of course good looks helped, but she's an articulate smart woman, and you ignore her degree in economics. Albaby talks about her ground game, but I admire her skills in getting positive recognition, and making good retorts. These are skills I don't have. It looks like there are a ton of good looking women in Trump's admin that don't have the skills she has either. What's not to admire?

Of course good looks helped, but she's an articulate smart woman, and you ignore her degree in economics

For an economics major, she doesn't know much about economics. Or foreign affairs.

For an economics major, she doesn't know much about economics. Or foreign affairs.

These are just statements on your part.


I think she does. She has a lot of critics and makes mistakes, just like Krugman. I allow knowledgeable people to make mistakes. Trump makes more mistakes than most, doncha think?

It's been after he took office that he's taken positions that estranged him from the base.

Let’s not ignore the elephant. It was after his brain injury that he lurched right. Brain injuries change people. I have a family member who lost her very keen sense of humor after hers.

BOTH

We are heading into pure Socialism.

I only hope it's not an America Hater like AOC.

But - regardless who it is---yes, Progressives eventually - -will see the nation keep moving their way.

It's already happening.

You may not recall, but there was a period back on Old Fool where I found myself defending W's intelligence against his litany of misstatements and ungrammatical sentence fragments - for that same reason.

Well OK, but I think you picked the wrong example. He had malapropisms galore, true, but he was also not smart. Maybe not as dumb as Dan Quayle, but that’s a really low bar. He rode in on Daddy’s coattails (name recognition is a valuable tool) and the electorate fatigue of Democratic scandal (the oval office hummer), not because he was some shining light of intellect.

He’s the guy who sat frozen in front of a kindergarten class because he didn[t want to disturb them when told “the US is under attack.” He’s the guy who thought it would be peachy to invade Iraq, whichn everyone in the administration knew had nothing to do with 9/11. He’s the one who approved disbanding the Iraq army, sending 250,000 angry young muslim men home, unemployed, and with guns.

He’s the one who oversaw the collapse of the housing market, and while I don’t attribute that to him, it surely was a result of the policies he and his buddies encouraged. And then, at the critical moment, he did … nothing. We all remember John McCain rushing back to the White House for the emergency meeting, who had the same response to the crisis, best summed up as “Anybody got any ideas?”

I won't even get into “Heck of a job Brownie” or “ignoring the ‘flashing red’ signs which culminated in jet aircraft flying into American buildings. So yes, there’s the “going to war over false pretenses”, there’s “mission accomplished”, there’s the failure of post-war planning for Iraq (and no, it wasn’t even a plan gone bad, it was no plan at all. Even a light reading of history - heck, his own father’s history - would have told him that some kind of plan would be a good idea.)

There’s the Valerie Plame affair, which he could have snuffed out in a minute, the Abu Ghraib scandal and so much more.

And listen, I’m not blaming him for every single thing some underling did which made headlines. Every presidency has at least a couple of those. I’m saying an intelligent guy would try to get ahead of those, would have a formed response, would try to improve things instead of just sitting there reading “My Pet Goat” (euphemism for the reactions to almost everything, including all of the above, which happened on his watch.) OF COURSE Dick Cheney stepped into the vacuum, the vacuum was enormous and too big to be ignored. A more competent CEO wouldn’t have taken 7 years out of an 8 year term to sideline him, for instance.

Domestically in the coming decade, the country will go much more visibly in AOC's direction.

We've gone so far right it's only natural the pendulum will swing back a bit.

Which direction? Stupid or Communist?

Are ya stuck in the past? There is no communism, it existed for a brief time in the old Soviet Union when they had no personal property ownership. It's all socialism, like social security.

Well OK, but I think you picked the wrong example. He had malapropisms galore, true, but he was also not smart. Maybe not as dumb as Dan Quayle, but that’s a really low bar. He rode in on Daddy’s coattails (name recognition is a valuable tool) and the electorate fatigue of Democratic scandal (the oval office hummer), not because he was some shining light of intellect.

I didn't say he was a shining light of intellect - especially since when people talk about "intellect," they usually refer to a very specific aspect of human mental acuity. But he wasn't (isn't) dumb, because genuinely dumb people aren't going to do well in politics.

Granted, I have my own perspective on this. When I was in college, I ended up (by accident) spending a fair amount of time with Howard Gardner. I wasn't a psych major, but by happenstance he was an especially close friend of the family of another Miami kid who was a student with me (and who was my friend, and so invited me to a bunch of stuff). So I ended up hanging out at his house a bit to get some homecooked meals and such, and babysit his kid. Anyway, his theory of multiple forms of intelligence really stuck with me, and I see it all the time in politics and real estate development. There are people who are really good at "conventional" intellectual tasks - book smart, math smart, logic smart. But there are also people who are very good at other types of mental activities that Gardner argued were also part of "intelligence" but which don't fall into that conventional basket, including people smart. People smart is the core skill of politics, and it does not always map onto conventional intellectual skills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_i...

He is an ignorant, incurious, anti-intellectual, self-absorbed, inattentive and easily distractible, inarticulate and generally uninformed man who seems to lack any capacity for self-reflection or contemplation. None of that makes him a mental midget.

He's anti-intellectual because he's disinterested in intellectually demanding topics. He's consumed by shallow/prurient values. He's dangerous because he's amoral and immoral.

BUT... he's not as smart as he thinks he is. Few crooks are. He's fortunate that he's had the wherewithal to bully/litigate his way through life and there have been plenty of "ethically challenged" attorneys willing to put up with him ...for a price.

He is an ignorant, incurious, anti-intellectual, self-absorbed, inattentive and easily distractible, inarticulate and generally uninformed man who seems to lack any capacity for self-reflection or contemplation. None of that makes him a mental midget.

Maybe not, but of course most of your first sentence descriptors above include indicators of such incapacity. I agree, though, that he is not a mental midget as to ability to sway an audience and capture a sentiment in the culture. And then again, after his series of bankruptcies in the 1980s and 1990s, it was only Mark Burnett who resurrected trump with the Apprentice (likely without which we would never have had president trump) so we would never have gotten to see those talents in the way we have for a decade now.

If you ever watched Game of Thrones, I'd put my money on him doing well in that game of wits over any of the more intellectually accomplished folks I've known over the years.

Again, I think that is right for many of the "intellectually accomplished" since so many of them also have a moral compass of some kind. But to take it back to Game of Thrones, there are a lot of "folks" that would make mincemeat, figuratively and probably literally, of him, all of which I'd put money on above trump. I would include Tyrion, Cersei, Littlefinger, Varys, the all grown up Sansa (at the end of the series), and my favorite, Olenna (played by the wonderful Diana Rigg).

Pete

There are people who are really good at "conventional" intellectual tasks - book smart, math smart, logic smart. But there are also people who are very good at other types of mental activities that Gardner argued were also part of "intelligence" but which don't fall into that conventional basket, including people smart. People smart is the core skill of politics, and it does not always map onto conventional intellectual skills.

I'd like to read you incorporate 'maliciousness' into the conversation; the evil genius quality that taints so many people.

How do we rate a person who isn't smart enough to succeed without being a malicious bully? Me, I'd call Trump stupid for that. Smart enough to be a criminal; dangerous/harmful to others.

Again, I think that is right for many of the "intellectually accomplished" since so many of them also have a moral compass of some kind. But to take it back to Game of Thrones, there are a lot of "folks" that would make mincemeat, figuratively and probably literally, of him, all of which I'd put money on above trump. I would include Tyrion, Cersei, Littlefinger, Varys, the all grown up Sansa (at the end of the series), and my favorite, Olenna (played by the wonderful Diana Rigg).

I disagree. I think that Trump would do wonderfully in a position of power in Westeros. He's incredibly adept at sizing up his opponent's weaknesses and failures, engineering situations where he has dominance and the upper hand in his relationships, sussing out whether people can be subordinated to the point of true loyalty or whether they need to be kept at a distance, and making sure that he doesn't expose himself to reprisals or counter measures. Those folks all know how to use power, especially over other people, in a battle of wits - and that's something that Trump is amazing at. A huge part of Trump's second term is him recognizing that the power of the Presidency is actually very different than how past Presidents have normally used it, something very reminiscent of Varys' "power is where people think it resides" speech to Tyrion.

It's the very specific sort of intellectual exercise that someone like Trump is made for.

I agree, though, that he is not a mental midget as to ability to sway an audience and capture a sentiment in the culture.

Trump learned that 'ability' from the McMahons (Vince and his wife, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon).

It's the 'kayfabe' used for WWE shows.

Trump kayfabe casts everybody as a 'babyface' or a 'heel.' Patriots vs antifa. Americans vs Communists. Stable genius vs lunatics.

It's unfortunate that the dumbing down of the nation has resulted in so many people buying into his kayfabe. Criminal and billionaire classes have recognized the opportunity to capitalize on his kayfabe act to further plunder the nations wealth from a mesmerized cult.

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

A huge part of Trump's second term is him recognizing that the power of the Presidency is actually very different than how past Presidents have normally used it,

Not true.

Remove the current Supreme Court and replace it with a historic one and he would be losing all over the place.

Once Dems get control of the House, and maybe the Senate, Spankee will get spanked so often he will need the Emperor's pants (invisible, of course).

I think that Trump would do wonderfully in a position of power in Westeros.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think he would end up, end up.

Perhaps Cersei is the closest analogue in GOT since she exemplifies rules based on loyalty to self/family, not institutions and has zero filter as outspoken, brash, and reactive to slights. She also uses spectacle and fear to enhance her power and has few, if any, limits, ignoring advisors and established laws. What she is NOT is lazy and generally ignorant. Cersei is also far more willing to plan meticulously than trump does and her strategies are longer-term, though equally ruthless.

trump does have Joffrey's intense narcissism, though.

Pete

Not true.

Remove the current Supreme Court and replace it with a historic one and he would be losing all over the place.

Probably not true, and certainly not relevant. Trump recognizes that it doesn't matter if you eventually lose in the SCOTUS. The President has actual power that exceeds his actual authority. I have a stock speech that I give to clients all the time about the difference between power and authority when talking about what the zoning rules say, and what local governments can actually do. Trump's been losing a lot of these cases in lower courts, but by the time he's lost the case he's achieved most of his goals.

That's part of why I thought Trump would do so well in Game of Thrones. One of the themes that show explored was the difference between nominal authority and who actually held power. Trump has been very good at recognizing that there is a difference between what the nominal allocation of authority is and what the real allocation of power is.

For example, nominally the President has authority over everyone who works in the Executive branch. In reality, though, there's lots of real power centers and influence that pull on all those folks. Their decisions are shaped by the desires of Congressional budget chairmen, oversight committees, outside stakeholders, their own personal interests, etc. Which means that even though a President like Obama or W had authority over every single person that worked for them, their actual power over the bureaucracy was more diffuse. The way you wield actual power is by making sure that everyone in a decision-making role is loyal to you, and no one else - and that since you have the power to choose who occupies every decision-making role, you (as the President) actually have a lot more power over the Executive than past Presidents have chosen to use.

Again, the Westeros example - Tyrion Lannister essentially banishes Janos Slynt (the head of the government's security forces). Lannister is the Hand of the King, nominally in charge of the entire government. He has technical authority over Slynt, since he's the nominal chief administer - but he knows Slynt is loyal to another rival. So he purges Slynt and replaces him with a personal lackey. Because Lannister is smart enough to recognize that it doesn't matter what the org chart says - the person who has power over a subordinate is the person that subordinate is loyal to. A very Trumpian move indeed....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0VXYz7cjGE&t=1s

I didn't say he was a shining light of intellect - especially since when people talk about "intellect," they usually refer to a very specific aspect of human mental acuity. But he wasn't (isn't) dumb, because genuinely dumb people aren't going to do well in politics.

You need to spend more time with politicians. They may have certain gifts: Trump has the ability to distract and keep himself the center of attention. George Bush had the ability to be relatable (you remember, the guy you’d have a beer with?). Reagan was affable and telegenic; he was a decent actor if you gave him a script that wasn’t too taxing.

But that is a far cry from “smart” or “intellectually curious” or anything on that side of the street. George Bush was a dummy. His brother, by contrast, had some smarts, but the roulette wheel only has one slot and Jr. got it. I’ve told the story before, but with Westinghouse we used to trek to Washington every year to “meet” our local Reps, Senators, and some regulators. (It was “soft power” lobbying, reminding them that Westinghouse had some of the most powerful media outlets in their home territories.) I met everyone representing Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, and more. I never er did meet Dan Quayle, but the people who did - all of them, every single one came back and said “That’s the dumbest guy I ever talked to.” And he was, if I’m not mistaken, “in politics”. There were others, plenty of them, who were dumb. Many were average. Occasionally you’d have an hour with someone who you could tell was wicked smart. But not most of them.

Sarah Palin?

Or for that matter, Donald Trump? He has certain talents, but geopolitics isn’t one of them, economics isn’t, military isn’t, and so on. He’s a seriously dumb guy, who happens to have been in the right place and time when the roulette ball fell into the slot.

Our system doesn’t guarantee that the very best will wind up in the important chairs, only that there’s a reasonable chance they will, given the history of passing power down by heredity or by billy club. There are also times when the system produces simply terrible people. Bush Jr. and Trump are among that select group. (So were Democrats like Andrew Johnson, Strom Thurmond and Richard Byrd. It isn’t one party or the other, it’s harder than just that.)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think he would end up, end up.

Nearly all the characters on GoT end up "end up," even the smart ones - so that's a safe bet. But I think that's wrong.

GoT early seasons are (among other things) an exploration of how the reality of power differs from the nominal designation of power. How what actually happens is very, very different from what the "rules" say is the case. "You really think a crown gives you power?"

One of the iconic scenes in the early part of the series is when Tywin reacts to a slight from Joffrey by declaring that the King is tired, prompting Tyrion to marvel (ironically) that he has just sent the most powerful man in Westeros to bed without supper. To which Tywin replies, "You're a fool if you believe he's the most powerful man in Westeros."

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=babc3dbce671...

That's Trump's approach to governance in a nutshell. He's figured out that while Congress on paper has enormous authority (just like a King), they only have that power if you want or need something from them. So he ignores Congress, and fills the Executive with people who are indifferent as to what Congress wants.

"You really think a Committee Chairmanship gives you power?"

You need to spend more time with politicians.

Oh, dear god no. I spend far too much time with politicians. A ton of time with politicians, for my sins.

Certainly enough time to know that you absolutely cannot judge whether a politician is smart or not from watching them speak in public, or what they do on TV. There's no way you can assess that. I've known politicians that were as smart as a whip (in the conventional sense) in the conference room, but sounded like a box of rocks when giving a speech or declaiming from the Commission dais. I've been with politicians that appeared dull as dust in public, but were scintillating with charisma one-on-one (Michael Dukakis was the prime example, but Al Gore was similar).

Nearly all successful politicians have enormous people skills. Many people tend not to regard that as an aspect of intelligence. I happen to think it is very much an aspect of intelligence - it's a purely mental set of abilities that require insight, intuition, and reactive capabilities. There are plenty of folks with high logic/reading intelligence that tend to minimize those skills - and our general conception of what being "smart" is follows that shape. We'll take a completely asocial math nerd and label them a genius, but take the guy who can walk into a room and win everyone over in the space of 20 minutes as just "the ability to be relatable" or "affable," even though that's an extraordinary thing to be able to do that just uses your mental talents.

If you end up spending a lot of time with politicians, you'll realize that most of them that are at all successful have immense talents that don't map onto Mensa exams but are signs of incredible mental acuity.

BOTH

We are heading into pure Socialism.

I think that strains credulity to say we are heading into pure socialism. We are living in a mixture of socialism and capitalism, but we are more capitalistic than the Euros. And remember, you don't get to redefine socialism into whatever you want it to be,

making sure that everyone in a decision-making role is loyal to you

The govt is essentially a monarchy, not three branches.

THAT problem can be shortened very quickly.

The govt is essentially a monarchy, not three branches.

It's not. The Administration's had its wings clipped by the other branches more than a few times. Just not in public. That's why the Administration had to cave on nearly all their efforts to strip funding. Congress back-channeled back to them that violating that Anti-Impoundment Act was a bridge too far, and they ended up pushing all the money out the door that had been appropriated. The few times they tried to not do that they got slapped by the judiciary - and they followed those orders, most recently with all that Gateway funding getting out the door as well. This Administration has lost a lot in the lower courts, and for the most part they've declined to appeal a lot of those losses and just complied. There are several very well-publicized examples to the contrary, of course - but in the majority of the cases, they've been forced to color within the lines and they've stuck to that.

The Administration has fostered the public perception that they are a whirlwind of revolutionary/lawbreaking activity (depending on your perspective) that's completely Changing Everything We Thought About Government. Both the Administration and their Democratic opponents benefit from that perception. But the reality is more prosaic. Government is still doing and spending pretty much exactly what it would have done and spent anyway, with some very visible but tiny (relative to the government) contrary examples (RIP USAID).

If he's so good at reading people, why hasn't he done better with his inheritance? "Making deals" is his forte, allegedly. The deals he has made have netted him less than if he put his inheritance in the S&P and let it sit for however-many years since his dad died. You would expect better performance from a "deal-maker" who is skilled at reading people.

I reiterate, I think he has made his way by being a bully because that's all he can do.

If you ever watched Game of Thrones, I'd put my money on him doing well in that game of wits over any of the more intellectually accomplished folks I've known over the years.

Wow. I think he'd get slaughtered. He would have been no match for either Tywin or Tyrion Lannister. They had brains, and cunning. He (IMO) has neither.

He is an ignorant, incurious, anti-intellectual, self-absorbed, inattentive and easily distractible, inarticulate and generally uninformed man who seems to lack any capacity for self-reflection or contemplation.

Totally agree.

And she’s been learning.

Pelosi saw that quality about her.

Another couple of years and she will be quite formidable.

Cool. It will be nice to have someone young and formidable. While I know very little about her, I do have a general feel for her positions just based on discussions like this one, and news headlines. If she's also practical, she could win my vote (should she ever enter a national race).

Very tired of old white guys teetering on the edge senility. We've had three in a row like that.

Nearly all successful politicians have enormous people skills. Many people tend not to regard that as an aspect of intelligence. I happen to think it is very much an aspect of intelligence -

Well we have to agree to disagree then. “People skills” is surely a talent, but that is a different thing than intelligence. They are both personal characteristics, but only one of them will tell yjou whether the person can solve an international crisis or plot a course for political nirvana or whatever. The other one is merely “likeable”.

Dan Quayle seemed “likeable.” Sarah Palin was “hot”. Reagan “looked the part.” Reagan, at least, had competent advisors and an instinct that played well with the American people. Yes, we are all influenced by good looks, height, and other features, but none of those add up to the kind of intelligence I want to see in our country’s leaders.

We are heading into pure Socialism.

I think that strains credulity to say we are heading into pure socialism. We are living in a mixture of socialism and capitalism, but we are more capitalistic than the Euros. And remember, you don't get to redefine socialism into whatever you want it to be,
****

You're welcome to your opinion. As a believer in Democracy and exchange of ideas, I won't be authoritarian and tell you what definition you may use or not.

Anyway.....

Bad culture, plus global trade run amok, plus growth industries that benefit the 401K'ers and higher, plus immigration done poorly - is all coming together to make america, a poorer, trashier, country and people.

And they will be desperate for - housing. Bread. A doctor.

I dont mean today---your truly is well beyond today's latest Bro-Blog thing :)

I mean, trends.

It's not like AOC will ever knock off an incumbent Democrat.

It's not like she'll actually rise a bit within her party after that win.

It's not like an openly proud Socialist will be Mayor of that little New York Shitty.

It's not like, the generation coming up - more and more feel capitalism is the problem and socialism is the answer.

It's not like a few generations - maaaaaaaybe want relief on things like rent or housing or college expenses.

As these forces-----compound.......the march towards Socialism - will be so even the Sheeple on this board look around and say ' yep'.

SOME targeted socialism - we have today. Auto insurance. Health Insurance.

We will be less capitalist in 10 years than we are today.

Just like Club 401K and Coastal Talibanis and global trade and immigration and bad culture helped MAGA go form fringe into power.....

Some of that same stuff, plus the factors I've spoken about on this post, PLUS things like the GOP screwing with ACA, and wanting to screw with Medicare/Medicaid..... will indeed help bring Socialism to more prominence than it is now.


Now, if --and I dont know the answer -- IF AI/Robotics out out some industries..... that will only add fuel to the fire. Literally and figuratively.

If he's so good at reading people, why hasn't he done better with his inheritance? "Making deals" is his forte, allegedly. The deals he has made have netted him less than if he put his inheritance in the S&P and let it sit for however-many years since his dad died. You would expect better performance from a "deal-maker" who is skilled at reading people.

Per Forbes, he had outperformed the S&P 500 up until the beginning of the COVID pandemic (which was, of course, brutal on folks with large holdings in urban real estate):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/...

At the time the article was written, COVID had flattened his net worth for a while - but obviously it's vastly higher now as well.

Wow. I think he'd get slaughtered. He would have been no match for either Tywin or Tyrion Lannister. They had brains, and cunning. He (IMO) has neither.

I still don't know why people keep saying this. Tyrion's main approach to being Hand was basically to purge all the people who he felt were loyal to Cersie instead of to him (Slynt, Pycelle) and replace them with hand-picked lackeys that were on his own payroll. Because he realized that it was critically important to fill positions of power with people whose personal loyalties were to you. Which is the quintessential Trump MO.

If you end up spending a lot of time with politicians, you'll realize that most of them that are at all successful have immense talents that don't map onto Mensa exams but are signs of incredible mental acuity.

I don't disagree at all. You're right on the money.

But I do have to question if people who aren't "book smart" but are "people smart" make the best people to be making decisions about public policy.

Being in an elected office requires one to actually do the job of the office. And those jobs aren't easy. You need to identify issues, then understand why things may or may not be working well regarding that issue, and figure out what to change - and not change - to achieve your desired outcome.

To bring the emotions down, consider a city or county commissioner (aka city council or some other similar name for the group of people running a city or county). Issues that come up are things like budgeting, taxation, land use, law enforcement, provision of utilities, local celebrations, and emergency preparedness. And I'm probably leaving out a few other important issues. These are all complex issues with many interdependencies both within and outside of that particular topic. (eg. land use affects property taxes and law enforcement and utilities and emergency planning) These issues require a certain level of that "book" intelligence. Someone who is incurious or hates to read will probably not do a good job as a city council member. Sure, maybe they can rally people behind an idea, but will they be rallying behind a good idea? Will this people-smart-but-book-dumb person be able to accomplish the idea at all, let alone on a reasonable time frame and budget?

I suppose one weakness of our current political system in the US is that we reward these outgoing and people-smart folks with jobs they can't do very well. And that's not a problem of the moment, it's a very old and ongoing problem in both political parties.

--Peter

...because genuinely dumb people aren't going to do well in politics.

Really??!! I could list just a few off the top of my head. Like Gohmert. You mentioned Quayle. There was a Dem who was mentioned every time someone mentioned Gohmert...also a dim bulb. Maybe not Forrest Gump dumb (IQ of 86, IIRC from the movie), but still genuinely dumb.

Politics is mostly a popularity contest. You say what people want to hear, you win. The Felon is President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho without the charisma (or physique).

The moderately intelligent ones in this administration wouldn't be doing well in politics if not for the Felon/Moron (e.g. Miller).

Tyrion's main approach to being Hand was basically to purge all the people who he felt were loyal to Cersie instead of to him (Slynt, Pycelle) and replace them with hand-picked lackeys that were on his own payroll. Because he realized that it was critically important to fill positions of power with people whose personal loyalties were to you. Which is the quintessential Trump MO.

That's a method. It's been a long time, but as I recall he installed people of competence who were also loyal. He led the defense of Westeros, resulting in that stunning visual (in movie terms) of a harbor of burning ships. He outmaneuvered opponents. He made smart deals. He was smart and cunning (like his father).

I maintain the Felon is neither. He wants people loyal to him near him, and preferably those who won't argue with him. It may be smart to have loyal people around you, but it's also rather obvious. It's not an indication of intelligence.

On the topic of wealth, I very distinctly remember in his 2016 run that an article came out which indicated he would have have something like 2x the wealth if he had just parked his inheritance in an index fund. All his deal-making did result in more than he started with, but not as much as passively parking it in the S&P. This is 10 years later, so I have no expectation I can find that article again. I do remember it was discussed at length on TMF. After his 10 years of grift, I don't know if that is still true.

Well we have to agree to disagree then. “People skills” is surely a talent, but that is a different thing than intelligence. They are both personal characteristics, but only one of them will tell you whether the person can solve an international crisis or plot a course for political nirvana or whatever.

I hear you, but "intelligence" means a lot of things and covers a lot of skills. Ken Jennings and Magnus Carlsen and Martin Scorcese and Toni Morrison and Neill DeGrasse Tyson and Phil Ivey are all intelligent people - but none of them would be able to "solve an international crisis or plot a course for political nirvana." Or even necessarily be particularly good or effective politicians.

Political leaders need skills that require significant mental acuity that don't necessarily map onto "book learnin'" kinds of intelligence. They need to be able to bargain and cajole and wheedle and find weak points and bluff and make effective threats and a host of other things that we lionize when those skills are being used to ends we support (hi, LBJ!) but tend to minimize when used by people we disdain. Those are brain skills. Being able to walk into a room, size up another person, and then by using nothing but words to dominate them and cow them into doing what you want them to do in that meeting? That's a mental skill.

And sure, it doesn't correspond to the ability to digest a complicated briefing book to formulate a series of policy proposals - but neither does the ability to understand astrophysics necessarily correspond to the ability to write a screenplay.

I do not think DJT has the complete toolset of the Platonic ideal of an effective political leader. Quite the opposite - I think he's pretty f'ing far from that. But that does not mean he's an idiot, because the stuff he is good at is stuff that requires mental acuity and a fair amount of sharp thinking.

But I do have to question if people who aren't "book smart" but are "people smart" make the best people to be making decisions about public policy.

Best people? Absolutely not. One of the important traits of an effective politician - especially the President - is the capacity to absorb an awful lot of information about things in a very efficient way. Most Presidents want to get information about the situation that they have to make a decision about, so they can match their decision to the state of the world/situation that it applies to.

Trump doesn't do that. He probably can't do that. He doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't necessarily view the job of President the way that most of his predecessors has. I'll quote Yuval Levin on this.

Well, I agree with that, but I think it feeds into a fundamental difference about the understanding of the president’s role. Where, again, a lot of recent White Houses have thought of the president’s role as making difficult decisions, the Trump White House sees it as advancing tough change. And those are different ways of thinking.

https://archive.ph/XrD95#selection-1753.0-1753.334

IOW, DJT's approach to the Presidency is that of a CEO. He views the job as trying to effectuate a change in the government, in the country, in the world to match those things to what he was elected to do. If that's your view of the job, information really only needs to flow one way - from the President to the people carrying out his policies. He knows what he wants to do, and he views the role of his Presidency as making those things happen. He's not in the business of making new choices, but implementing choices that have already been made.

Again, I don't think that's a good approach to governance. But that's very different from him necessarily being an idiot.

I could list just a few off the top of my head. Like Gohmert.

Really? I think as poorly of Louis Gohmert as the next guy - he's a genuine doofus - but he's a college graduate, admitted to and received a degree from Baylor Law School (which is a fairly well-regarded school), etc. Even otherwise smart people can believe genuinely dumb things (hi, Sidney Powell! Or James Watson, for that matter!), or be phenomenally off-base in some regards. But a true dumb person is rarely going to do well in politics.

Politics is mostly a popularity contest. You say what people want to hear, you win.

How do you know what people want to hear? How do you say it in a way that works? How do you navigate the fact that "the people" is a plural, and many of them want to hear different things - sometimes mutually exclusive things? How do you shape what people want to hear, or which of things they want to hear about they will decide are important? Etc.?

A con man will tell people exactly what they want to hear as well - and you'll notice that popular depictions of con men usually portray them as smart. Because it takes a certain amount of intelligence to be able to read a mark, figure out what will work on them, and tell them what they want to hear. It's not easy, and it's usually not something a dumb person can do.

It may be smart to have loyal people around you, but it's also rather obvious. It's not an indication of intelligence.

Really? It may seem obvious...but Trump appears to be the first person to have figured out that controlling the federal bureaucracy doesn't have to be like turning a battleship. This major obstacle that's hindered so many other President's from deftly implementing their agenda, running across the inertia of the federal government - and Trump found the way around it. Just make sure you pick people who are 100% committed to your agenda and no one else's.

In Game of Thrones, smart people often died because they failed to prioritize loyalty. Tyrion was also smart in ways other than that - he formulated a good battle plan - but Trump is smart nearly all of the ways that would matter in that setting. He's suspicious and distrustful and able to identify his enemies and understands the importance of dominance and strength and most importantly understands the difference between the appearance of power and actual power. Trump is the guy who wouldn't make the mistakes that Ned Stark made.

On the topic of wealth, I very distinctly remember in his 2016 run that an article came out which indicated he would have have something like 2x the wealth if he had just parked his inheritance in an index fund.

Yeah, the Forbes article I linked to mentioned it. The 2016-era article got it wrong - they underestimated his then-net worth by about a billion dollars. Plus, nearly all of those articles fail to recognize that Trump has also funded a lavish lifestyle of conspicuous consumption during the several decades between his inheritance and whatever date of his then-current net worth. If you inherit money in the 1970's, and in 2016 you have the same amount of money that you would have had if you had invested it in the S&P 500, but in the intervening decades you've lived like Donald Trump has lived? Then you have truly crushed the market in your investments....

And remember, you don't get to redefine socialism into whatever you want it to be,

He wouldn’t know what pure socialism was if it came up and took his Social Security check from the mailbox on his government built road while shepherding his kids off to public school so he can take subsidized mass transit to city hall to protest the minimum wage, while drinking a cup of coffee made with water monitored at the treatment plant to insure safety.

...but Trump is smart nearly all of the ways that would matter in that setting.

It occurs to me...how are you defining "intelligence"? We may be talking about two completely different things.

To me, "intelligence" is the ability to take in, process, and assimilate new information, and then adapt. The Felon is incapable of these things. He doesn't appear to figure out anything. He is as he is, and he just happens to be in the right place with the right attitudes to appeal to the rabble.

I still think that Tywin or Tyrion, or even Khaleesi would have made mincemeat out of him. He would have impulsively blundered out (probably because of some perceived slight), and been annihilated. If he had done well in that world, it would have been because he was already a round peg for a round hole. He was/is already a bully, already deceitful, already an authoritarian...if he could, he would order "off with their heads" (e.g. Mark Kelly), which would work well in Game of Thrones. But none of that is him adapting to new information; it is not intelligence. Someone like Tyrion would have strategized and torn him apart because Tyrion actually was intelligent (by the above definition). Or Tywin...Tywin won wars without actually fighting. The Felon would have been completely out of his depth.

It occurs to me...how are you defining "intelligence"? We may be talking about two completely different things.

To me, "intelligence" is the ability to take in, process, and assimilate new information, and then adapt. The Felon is incapable of these things. He doesn't appear to figure out anything.

Oh, I disagree. He's very good at taking in new information - just not the categories of information that you (and I) would want to see a President interested in. He's very good at reading people, finding their weaknesses, and using that to his advantage. Like any good salesman/con man, he's very good at seeing how his "pitches" are landing with his target audience and modulating them based on that feedback. That was the essence of his campaign rallies, where he would continuously be trying out various messages and speech lines and seeing which ones were received favorably and which ones weren't. He voraciously consumes TV coverage of his administration and responds to it, which is the essence of "taking in, processing, assimilating new information and then adapting to it."

That's certainly not how you or I would run a Presidency, and it's not the classic way. The President is in charge of the greatest information-gathering apparatus in the world. "Normal" information flows involve those agencies presenting the President with important information in the form of reports or personal briefings, and the President acting on that information to make decisions.

Trump doesn't trust anyone in the building. He doesn't think they'll give him straight answers, and he doesn't think they have information he needs to make his decisions. He's running based on information about the world he gets from other sources.

I think that's foolhardy bordering on terrible....but that's very different from Trump being an idiot.

Someone like Tyrion would have strategized and torn him apart because Tyrion actually was intelligent (by the above definition). Or Tywin...Tywin won wars without actually fighting. The Felon would have been completely out of his depth.

Again, I think that's completely wrong. Tyrion and Tywin were successful in that environment because they did the sorts of things that Trump is good at doing. Tyrion's success lay in using his enormous wealth as a cudgel/bribe, buying unscrupulous people that would stay bought by him, valuing personal loyalty over niceties like honor, using his personal power as the Hand to break the rules and wrongfully expel people he deemed were insufficiently loyal, and the like. All of Trump's business deals and current grifts are exactly that model - put your counterparties in a "offer they can't refuse" position based on your position of strength and squeeze them to your advantage. Tyrion and Tywin are more eloquent than Trump - not surprising considering they are portrayed by accomplished actors and have professional writers penning their speeches - but they're mostly playing the game using the same moves that Trump uses routinely. Specifically, unfairly bullying everyone who's weaker or poorer than they are to force them to do things to their own personal (or "House Lannister") advantage.

That's the message of GoT. People who believe in "the rules" rather than the gross exercise of power, physical strength, or subordinating the weak will end up being punished no matter how smart they are, while people who see the world as it is (a kill-or-be-killed contest where honor and justice are irrelevant and dominating everyone in your environment is the only thing that matters) are the ones who succeed. Now then - who does that description sound like?

I worked a year in the Bush WH, two in Obama. There's a lot of bright people, a fair amount of fools. But they're all loyal, all appointed, very little in the sense of a merit/skills hard qualifier. That said, you generally don't get (minus this current regime) a lot of completely incapable, boot-licking toadies, across the board. Like, Bush and Obama had glaring policy differentials, but I didn't feel either was as foul as this current lot.

So, what's your take on Obama's mocking of Mitt Romney's characterization of Russia as America's greatest geopolitical threat in the 2012 debates, followed shortly thereafter by Putin's unopposed takeover of Crimea, under Obama's watch?

Seems pretty feckless and bootlicking to me.

Oh, I disagree. He's very good at taking in new information - just not the categories of information that you (and I) would want to see a President interested in. He's very good at reading people, finding their weaknesses, and using that to his advantage.

How so? Can you give an example? Seems to me he's been saying basically the same things for over a decade now (which are as often as not lies). Can you cite a few examples where he has tailored himself -read people- and changed his stance?

I think in GoT, people like Tyrion could adjust. So, if he was a square peg, and there was a round hole, he could make himself round. I see no evidence of that in the Felon. He just happened to fit in the hole of today's politics. I would wager 30 years ago he couldn't have won, even as a younger (and more popular) man. Because the political "hole" wasn't Felon-shaped. Today, it -alas- is.

Can you cite a few examples where he has tailored himself -read people- and changed his stance?

Oh, sure. What's happened in Minnesota is the biggest, most recent example. He went into that situation believing that the very visible, "made for TV" show of force would be a political win for him. But once the TV coverage turned bad, and the politics flipped, he pulled Noem off the job and put Homan in, wound down the operation and cut his losses.

That's one of his main MO's. He'll do almost anything as a starting position - massive ICE surge, 50% tariffs on every product, talk about invading Greenland - and then see how people react. If they're okay with it, he keeps going; if he gets a lot of blowback, he pivots. A "typical" politician that does that gets tagged with flip-flopping (or TACO), and so they will spend a lot more energy trying to get their initial position exactly calibrated. That's not Trump's style - he just goes directionally as far as he can, and then dials back. It's actually quite challenging to do that, because you have to be able to have a very good sense if you're too far out over your skis and need to regroup.

A "typical" politician that does that gets tagged with flip-flopping (or TACO), and so they will spend a lot more energy trying to get their initial position exactly calibrated. That's not Trump's style...

And one of the main reasons his poll numbers keep dropping. Dropping in fact ever since his election. Why? TACO. The very term came about because of trump. Whether it was the ill-conceived and ill-executed DOGE in the first months, or the Epstein mess that continues to show that he and his coterie are now labeled the "Epstein Class" he is seen as a flip-flopper (and on and on) and is losing much popularity.

Pete

Oh, sure. What's happened in Minnesota is the biggest, most recent example. He went into that situation believing that the very visible, "made for TV" show of force would be a political win for him. But once the TV coverage turned bad, and the politics flipped, he pulled Noem off the job and put Homan in, wound down the operation and cut his losses.

That wasn't intelligence. That was obvious. He didn't pull out when there were indications things were going badly. If he had done that, I might see your argument. No. He waited until it was really bad. The horses were already gone by the time he closed that barn door. That doesn't necessarily prove my case that he's a moron, but I don't think it proves yours that he is a "read people" genius, either. That's pulling your hand out of boiling water because you already have 2nd degree burns.

Forrest Gump would have realized Minneapolis was a disaster by the time the Felon took any action.

And, if I have my timelines correct, he was simultaneously saying ICE would be sent to other cities, even after the excrement show in MN, raising more statements of condemnation and resistance. Not very bright, IMO.

He's not a people-reader. He's a bully. And like all bullies, when you give them a bloody nose, they back off. MN was a bloody nose. He backed off.

He’s not a people reader. He’s a bully

He’s both, though his people reading skills are limited to sniffing out fear, weakness and vulnerability.

But in that respect, his sense of smell is highly developed.

He’s both, though his people reading skills are limited to sniffing out fear, weakness and vulnerability.

But in that respect, his sense of smell is highly developed.

And there’s a corollary to the above:

When he no longer smells fear, weakness and vulnerability…… when these are replaced by courage, strength and resoluteness, he TACOs.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.