Re: Trump to Win?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to Win?

he's a real double-edge'r he is...

Micheal Moore is a populist pheromone trap whose redolence its getting ever more off odor.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to Win?

Micheal Moore is a populist pheromone trap whose redolence its getting ever more off odor.

Who funds him? The bankers?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to Win?

Who funds him? The bankers?

His first movie about 9/11 grossed $120MM. This film, Trumpland, was just him and a few cameras in a theater. I don't think funding was an issue.

I found gw's use of the term redolence interesting. It suggests he was more of a fan early on when Moore was delving into 9/11 conspiracy theory.

This film is straight up, MM telling average white folks to not be idiots and vote against their own self interest.

The only reason I posted again on this thread is because shiny! said, "MM gets it". Yes he does but not in the way everyone here 'gets it'.

Now I'll go away again and let the iTulip HRC hate, it's the system hate, move forward. Sorry to interrupt.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to Win?

Conformity results collapse dramatically when the participant has the opportunity to make anonymous, non-public decisions.

When your choices/decisions are public and you are overwhelmingly(particularly unanimously) opposed then conformity is consistently much, much higher.

Conformity degrades when the experiment participant has a decision "partner". If the "partner" is removed, conformity again increases.

I have also used the Milgrim Experiment as part of the same training package. While it's a highly unethical experiment(due to psychological risk to people participating under experimental observation) unlikely to be conducted again in the west, the results are quite troubling.

I would agree with Woodsman that the experiments are not designed to accurately determine independent/outlier/persistant "devil's advocate" type non conformity.

We know such behaviour exists(both good and bad) and I'd like to see more(I'm sure some already exists) data sets on it.

Another tool I used for my training package were clips from original film "12 Angry Men", mainly for strategies influencing from a position of weakness.

Henry Fonda was brilliantly perfect in that role, and the perfectly executed ambush the character conducted shifting from minority "fence sitting" subtle influencer to switchblade armed pre-planned ambushed is a great experiential learning tool.

The only other actor I could imagine in that role is Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda's personal friend and personal ideological opposition(Ford was a "raging dirty communist" and Stewart was a USAF hero pilot right winger).

Power Distance Index, which relates to low level conformity to authoritarian power structures I was told directly by Baba Shiv, Stanford GSB Professor that it is actually New Zealand closely followed by Australia that possess the least conformity to authoritarianism although it sounds like some other western countries(US included) that follow behind them.

I take him at his word(great guy) but haven't found any national/cultural rankings for PWI.

Make note: I'm no psychologist.

So like a "barracks room lawyer" everything I write, take it with a kilogram of salt.

I've just been taught some interesting concepts and have been following up with my own off the shelf open source R&D of a prototype innovation/problem solving framework training package that includes a fair bit on bias/recognition/mitigation and influencing from a position of weakness.

I'm a big fan of the book "Steal Like an Artist"(former NYT bestseller) as well as Stanford Professor Tina Sellig's books(all of them easily digestible and are all brilliant).

Application of a existing concept from one country/culture/company/climate to another is 90%+ of what it's all really about.

Anecdotally, I just witnessed what I believed to be a lot of public conformity to Hillary Clinton and a lot of quiet/conflicted body language.

So so to reiterate, as per Woodsman I'd also like to see more psychological experiment data on outliers/freaks/non conformity.

As well as conformity bias with advent of social media(and narrowly owned mass media).

Conformity risk still exists with anonymity(albeit much lower %).

Let's say it's only 10%(for argument's sake).

Now look at the recent issues raised briefly about Facebook's allegedly biased process for injecting news stories and op-eds into people's newsfeeds.

Facebook is a private company and nothing is really "free". Maybe we are paying with increased risk of being influenced not just to buy stuff, but to vote a certain way.

What impact could highly biased news feed injections, and worse...an algorithm that hammers users with friend's opinions that support Facebook's preferred narrative, have on user conformity?

Maybe that 10% drops to only 5%, or 3%, or 2%.

But what's 2% of mass user votes worth(which could be 0.5-1% of total US voters)?

The numbers and percentages could be way off, but the concept may be valid.

If valid, is that appropriate?

Should that be legal or regulated?

I wonder if Angela Merkel reads iTulip?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ess-algorithms

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to Win?

Who funds him? The bankers?

Michael Moore is a modern day muckraker. You can google his divorce and find out that he is in the 1 percent and owns ten houses. But I don't think he's in anyone's pocket. I don't think he gives a shit about how it all washes out with respect to his reputation.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to Win?

His first movie about 9/11 grossed $120MM. This film, Trumpland, was just him and a few cameras in a theater. I don't think funding was an issue.

I found gw's use of the term redolence interesting. It suggests he was more of a fan early on when Moore was delving into 9/11 conspiracy theory.

This film is straight up, MM telling average white folks to not be idiots and vote against their own self interest.

The only reason I posted again on this thread is because shiny! said, "MM gets it". Yes he does but not in the way everyone here 'gets it'.

Now I'll go away again and let the iTulip HRC hate, it's the system hate, move forward. Sorry to interrupt.

Had he remained a liberal skeptic to GWB war mongering, I could respect that. Unfortunately he is a political partisan. If Trump gets in then at least for 4 years I can count on antiwar sentiment due to partisanship on the left. That combined with the anti-neocon revolt of Trump will finally ratchet down the war footing. If HRC gets in the neocons have already filled her ranks and it will be unopposed by the partisans of the left. HRC will be all out war. There is no effective opposition henceforth ..

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

_

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to Win?

Hi, Woodsman! Glad to read you.

I'm curious if you think we're headed to the "destruction of the Parties" or the destruction of the Country.


The guy gave a good speech. Some dark imagery, but I can't argue with many of the stated goals in it.

OTOH, I think it's all talk and he doesn't give a crap about the country or the people unless it affects him & his.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Hi, Woodsman! Glad to read you.

I'm curious if you think we're headed to the "destruction of the Parties" or the destruction of the Country.


The guy gave a good speech. Some dark imagery, but I can't argue with many of the stated goals in it.

OTOH, I think it's all talk and he doesn't give a crap about the country or the people unless it affects him & his.

Just finished a man's sized portion of jambalaya made from the leftover of my cousin Rock's L.A. (Lower Alabama) gumbo. Hoo-wee. I'm so full of good seafood at the moment, forgive me Lazy, if I pass on your bait.

Trump has about 18 months to show those people in the states he flipped and the rest of his voters actual, material benefits. To the degree he succeeds in that, he will be successful generally. Time will tell.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to Win?

No bait intended! (I don't even see why you consider it bait. But whatever.)

I liked your goal of "destruction of the parties". But I was not convinced that electing him would cause that and wondered if you still do.

Interesting times, though!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

No bait intended! (I don't even see why you consider it bait. But whatever.)

I liked your goal of "destruction of the parties". But I was not convinced that electing him would cause that and wondered if you still do.

Interesting times, though!

It smelled fishy to me, but then again so does the entire cabin after all that cooking. Breaking out the Q1 cigar ration will help.

Okay, Lazy. Serves me right for posting after so many adult beverages. You keep on making America great now, you hear!

[vt]

Re: Trump to Win?

A dream come true for some. The nightmare to come for others.

As far as war I agree with Woody that Hillary is more dangerous. The Ukraine happened under Obama and Kerry, though Hillary left shortly before the revolution and may have known CIA involvement. Hillary is likely behind Gaddifi's overthrow and subsequent decline to become a failed state and ISIS haven. Hillary and Obama wanted to get involved in Syria. I doubt Trump wants any of this.

You might recall EJ first bringing up Fortress America. Trump may use this and work with Putin to achieve Fortress Russia to feed Europe's fuel needs. The U.S. and Russia should need much less imports of oil. Could they leave the middle east to solve it's own problems? Except for guaranteeing Israel's security, why would we need to be there?

One note is the energy business has become a technology business too. According to one of the pioneers in fracking, the cost to find energy will drop 20% this year. The move to more energy efficiency in autos and homes plus more solar and wind will help Fortress America, and Trump can help U.S. companies sell technology to Europe and Russia to help them become Fortresses to oil imports.

Here's a poster Trump's supporters should love:

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to Win?



That is the the most ridiculous image I've ever seen.
The antique bayonet mounted on the modern M134 minigun is a hoot, as is the money raining down from heaven.

[vt]

Re: Trump to Win?

Very true. I would have rather seen him surrounded by working class men and women from every ethnic group and color smiling broadly. The hope is he can raise the lower and middle classes to a much higher standard of living and loosen the grip of bureaucratic elites.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to Win?

I do sincerely share that hope with you, vt.
All the best to you and yours in this new year.