Trump to win?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Yogi Bhajan (founder of the quasi-Sikh kundalini yoga cult, 3HO) was a master hypnotist. He was highly trained in NLP among other things. He gave long, rambling speeches, used odd sentence structures, repeated words and phrases, went off on tangents, took his listeners on emotional rollercoasters using shame and praise. None of his verbal quirks were accidental or random. He used them very precisely to put his audiences into a trance state at which point he implanted suggestions.

Trump's speech patterns strongly resemble Yogi Bhajan's. Bhajan was also a psychopath with a hypomanic temperament. Again, I see hypomanic similarities with Trump, only I don't think Trump is a psychopath. Ruthless businessman, yes. Psychopath, no. I agree with Adams that Trump could depose a world leader with just words.

Another post by Scott Adams (thanks, jk, for pointing him out).

Watch the persuasion skills of Sanders too. The man has gone from 3% name recognition to serious contender in only a couple of months. He has been adept at 'thinking past the sale' as Adams calls it, inviting voters to imagine saving $5,000 per year on their health insurance bills or no longer having to scrimp and save and take out loans to send their children to college. He rarely uses the first person singular, preferring the first person plural, just like Trump. With Trump, 'we' is ambiguous, one can imagine it as tribally as they want, but it's generally 'real Americans' vs. 'outsiders' of one kind or another. With Sanders, 'we' is every American except the 400 or so who are billionaires.

In fact, look closely at how he has constructed his narrative and his messaging. Go to his website. Scroll down. It's always about us and Not The Billionaires! This narrative is tailor made for a confrontation with Trump. Sanders repeatedly says the candidate he wants to face most is Donald Trump. He disparages the man whilst simultaneously trying to appeal to his voter base. Any step Trump takes to support his own class, like his comments that 'wages are too high' immediately are pounced on as evidence that he's an outsider, forcing Trump to recant and deny. I'll add that this is the only candidate who has forced Trump to recant and deny. When Jeb! tried it, he got shoved in a locker with an atomic wedgie.

In the end of the day, the Sanders campaign is tailor made to defeat Trump. The 'us vs. the billionaires' message works best against a billionaire, obviously. And there's only one in the race. But there's talk that Michael Bloomberg might jump in as an independent, especially if it were a Sanders/Trump race, to defend 'the establishment.' If you ask me, there's nothing Sanders would like more, than if that in fact came to pass. Standing on stage in a general election between a billionaire financier and a billionaire real estate mogul with a pile of momentum built upon the 'us against the billionaires' premise would be simply perfect for him. David vs. Goliath. The Rebels vs. the Empire. The Battle of Thermopylae. Take your historical pick. The narrative has already been built. "Look, he has them so frightened, they sent the two richest men in New York City after him! They didn't even send the hired help to take him out! They're desperate. He's got them on the ropes!" "What do these guys do but charge us interest and rent?" "They don't even make anything!" "All they want is more for themselves and less for everyone else."

Don't forget, Sanders may seem nebbishy, but the good guys in the underdog position have to. Nevertheless, he remains the single most popular Senator in the United States with his constituents bar none, and by a wide margin. And Sanders is the only candidate in the race in either party with a positive approval rating across the electorate. In fact, he and Joe Biden are the only politicians in America who have had a positive approval rating in the past 12 months, with Sanders the only politician to consistently hold onto it. His TV ads top the ACE Matrix. He successfully dings, not really attacks, both Clinton and Obama without mentioning names. Watch him do it in this social security ad. Or watch it in this two visions ad.

Each time, he's creating and re-enforcing the 'Americans vs. billionaires' narrative, while reminding viewers in a not-so-subtle way that Republicans and other Democrats are simply bought-and-paid-for tools of the billionaires that are, according to the narrative, the road block standing between 320,000,000 Americans and a better life. Pitting him up 1v1 or 1v2 against actual billionaires is exactly what he wants. It makes the narrative super clear. Notice how he doesn't really attack Clinton. He keeps kind of defending her and placing the blame on billionaires. Even when he hit her for taking $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs last night, he reminded us the head of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire. Everything in the narrative is geared up for a Sanders v. Trump or a Sanders v. Trump v. Bloomberg matchup. Before they even get to the general election Trump and Bloomberg will already obviously have the roles of the Emperor and Darth Vader in the tale he's weaving. He's the only one that can claim higher purity. Trump can claim he's unbought, because he does the buying. Sanders can claim he's unbought because he doesn't take filthy billionaire money--in his case "WE are not for sale!" will be the line. There's not another candidate in the field in either party who can stand up to that with moral clarity.

If I'm even half right here, and it's the narrative that's important, keep watching. Because Adams will have to be off as things transition. He focuses on the wisdom of youth, and concludes they are the least wise and don't know anything, so that's why they follow Sanders. But Adams misses the point in his blog post about Sanders and the youth. Sanders doesn't necessarily need the youth at all for their wisdom or knowledge, save for working the computers and whatnot. He needs them for their purity. That's where the narrative breaks his way. The older and wiser and more jaded may know more, but many of them ate of the apple to get there. The game becomes good vs. evil, weak vs. strong, underdog vs. bully. And in any country saturated with the culture of Abrahamic religions, we know who the bulk of people will pull for in that scenario, much to Nietzsche's chagrin.

[jpatter666]

Re: Trump to win?

Very interesting link, thanks.

I think there is another even simpler explanation for Trump's success and oratory.

Decades of lobbyist driven globalization and open borders has had its effect on the average Joe. And the average Joe isn't happy to lose his well paying manufacturing job so long as he gets to see a Christmas Tree in front of the local municipal building.

What's wrong with today's politicians?

They have all been bought and paid for. When a politician wins, who does he really remember first - those that voted for him, or those that donated?

No one owns Trump. When he speaks, his mind is unencumbered by donor monetary obligations and political party side deals. That's why he speaks the way he does. His mind doesn't function the same way as a traditional politician's mind does. There's no internal mental juggling act going on in his head. That's why to the intellectuals, he seems unpolished. He is unpolished because his world is more right and wrong, good deal, bad deal... there is no balancing of interests to force him to speak in terms of those beloved nuances intellectuals love to argue about.

Call me crazy, but he could be the next TR. I'm watching and keeping an open mind.

He has shown he can work the bully pulpit, he is waving the big stick, and he's not afraid of corporate interests. Last I saw that was in '92 with Ross Perot. I guess Perot was too ahead of his time.

(Trump just needs to be taught how the global monetary system really works though, or he could inadvertently do some damage.)

Why does the media mischaracterize and overemphasize his muslim comment yet essentially ignore his unique views on Super Pacs and lobbyists?

I'm calling you crazy. :-)

TR had significant experience as a politician before ascending to the Presidency. While you could make the argument that he "turned on his class" -- as would be said of his distant cousin FDR, this was not uncommon of the WASP-political class for those days.

Trump I see as a political gadfly who initially entered the race to push an agenda, unexpectedly became the frontrunner and is beginning to drink his own kool-aid.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Watch the persuasion skills of Sanders too. The man has gone from 3% name recognition to serious contender in only a couple of months. He has been adept at 'thinking past the sale' as Adams calls it, inviting voters to imagine saving $5,000 per year on their health insurance bills or no longer having to scrimp and save and take out loans to send their children to college. He rarely uses the first person singular, preferring the first person plural, just like Trump. With Trump, 'we' is ambiguous, one can imagine it as tribally as they want, but it's generally 'real Americans' vs. 'outsiders' of one kind or another. With Sanders, 'we' is every American except the 400 or so who are billionaires.

In fact, look closely at how he has constructed his narrative and his messaging. Go to his website. Scroll down. It's always about us and Not The Billionaires! This narrative is tailor made for a confrontation with Trump. Sanders repeatedly says the candidate he wants to face most is Donald Trump. He disparages the man whilst simultaneously trying to appeal to his voter base. Any step Trump takes to support his own class, like his comments that 'wages are too high' immediately are pounced on as evidence that he's an outsider, forcing Trump to recant and deny. I'll add that this is the only candidate who has forced Trump to recant and deny. When Jeb! tried it, he got shoved in a locker with an atomic wedgie.

In the end of the day, the Sanders campaign is tailor made to defeat Trump. The 'us vs. the billionaires' message works best against a billionaire, obviously. And there's only one in the race. But there's talk that Michael Bloomberg might jump in as an independent, especially if it were a Sanders/Trump race, to defend 'the establishment.' If you ask me, there's nothing Sanders would like more, than if that in fact came to pass. Standing on stage in a general election between a billionaire financier and a billionaire real estate mogul with a pile of momentum built upon the 'us against the billionaires' premise would be simply perfect for him. David vs. Goliath. The Rebels vs. the Empire. The Battle of Thermopylae. Take your historical pick. The narrative has already been built. "Look, he has them so frightened, they sent the two richest men in New York City after him! They didn't even send the hired help to take him out! They're desperate. He's got them on the ropes!" "What do these guys do but charge us interest and rent?" "They don't even make anything!" "All they want is more for themselves and less for everyone else."

Don't forget, Sanders may seem nebbishy, but the good guys in the underdog position have to. Nevertheless, he remains the single most popular Senator in the United States with his constituents bar none, and by a wide margin. And Sanders is the only candidate in the race in either party with a positive approval rating across the electorate. In fact, he and Joe Biden are the only politicians in America who have had a positive approval rating in the past 12 months, with Sanders the only politician to consistently hold onto it. His TV ads top the ACE Matrix. He successfully dings, not really attacks, both Clinton and Obama without mentioning names. Watch him do it in this social security ad. Or watch it in this two visions ad.

Each time, he's creating and re-enforcing the 'Americans vs. billionaires' narrative, while reminding viewers in a not-so-subtle way that Republicans and other Democrats are simply bought-and-paid-for tools of the billionaires that are, according to the narrative, the road block standing between 320,000,000 Americans and a better life. Pitting him up 1v1 or 1v2 against actual billionaires is exactly what he wants. It makes the narrative super clear. Notice how he doesn't really attack Clinton. He keeps kind of defending her and placing the blame on billionaires. Even when he hit her for taking $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs last night, he reminded us the head of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire. Everything in the narrative is geared up for a Sanders v. Trump or a Sanders v. Trump v. Bloomberg matchup. Before they even get to the general election Trump and Bloomberg will already obviously have the roles of the Emperor and Darth Vader in the tale he's weaving. He's the only one that can claim higher purity. Trump can claim he's unbought, because he does the buying. Sanders can claim he's unbought because he doesn't take filthy billionaire money--in his case "WE are not for sale!" will be the line. There's not another candidate in the field in either party who can stand up to that with moral clarity.

If I'm even half right here, and it's the narrative that's important, keep watching. Because Adams will have to be off as things transition. He focuses on the wisdom of youth, and concludes they are the least wise and don't know anything, so that's why they follow Sanders. But Adams misses the point in his blog post about Sanders and the youth. Sanders doesn't necessarily need the youth at all for their wisdom or knowledge, save for working the computers and whatnot. He needs them for their purity. That's where the narrative breaks his way. The older and wiser and more jaded may know more, but many of them ate of the apple to get there. The game becomes good vs. evil, weak vs. strong, underdog vs. bully. And in any country saturated with the culture of Abrahamic religions, we know who the bulk of people will pull for in that scenario, much to Nietzsche's chagrin.

Beware the power of charlatans like Robert Kiyosaki("Rich Dad, Poor Dad") and "Christian wealth ministers" like Joel Osteen.

Isn't Trump doing the same on a national platform. High polling rhetoric with no tangible articulated substance.

Have you ever spoken to those falling under the early stage spell of people like Kiyosaki and Osteen?

Deprogramming them(Choosing hard work over a lottery ticket) could take longer than a campaign cycle.

How'd Ralph Nader go?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Beware the power of charlatans like Robert Kiyosaki("Rich Dad, Poor Dad") and "Christian wealth ministers" like Joel Osteen.

Isn't Trump doing the same on a national platform. High polling rhetoric with no tangible articulated substance.

Have you ever spoken to those falling under the early stage spell of people like Kiyosaki and Osteen?

Deprogramming them(Choosing hard work over a lottery ticket) could take longer than a campaign cycle.

How'd Ralph Nader go?

i can't believe you're lumping nader with osteen et al. nader is like a black hole of charisma.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Bernie just pushing punish success and redistribute wealth. He's not into creating real jobs or growing the economy.

We need to make the pie more equitable but also make the pie much larger.

I'm not for entrenching the billionaires; I'm for creating hundreds of thousands of millionaires over time of many ordinary Americans. And these new millionaires can create millions of new jobs.

Socialism can't do this; it's division of what exists not multiplication of opportunity and real assets for the middle class.

There is already free education such as Khan University others:

https://www.edx.org/

http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses

https://www.coursera.org/

We need to teach students how to go to google and ask the right questions.

Unfortunately we've built an entrenched academic-government bureaucracy that has priced out the working and middle classes. Plus their graduates are not getting marketable degrees.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Bernie just pushing punish success and redistribute wealth. He's not into creating real jobs or growing the economy.

Sanders is most certainly pretty far left of center but if Sanders is elected president, he will not get his way on everything or, I suspect, even most things. But Sanders could do a lot to prevent more of the worst abuses we've seen in the past few decades that have really hollowed out the economy of the U.S. Perhaps one of the ways the U.S. gets a more centrist government is with a fairly far-of-left president.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

i can't believe you're lumping nader with osteen et al. nader is like a black hole of charisma.

Whoops!

Thought I was more clear:

Trump(cult of the American Dream as Manifest Destiny)= Kiyosaki/Osteen

Sanders(calling last call at the bar, time to sober up and get to work) = Nader

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Sanders is most certainly pretty far left of center but if Sanders is elected president, he will not get his way on everything or, I suspect, even most things. But Sanders could do a lot to prevent more of the worst abuses we've seen in the past few decades that have really hollowed out the economy of the U.S. Perhaps one of the ways the U.S. gets a more centrist government is with a fairly far-of-left president.

Agreed.

I'm guessing a Sanders Administration would be more compromising and less likely to actively use partisan politics and race baiting to work with GOP.

I think he'd also call out his own party too, which is possibly why I don't think he'll get the nomination.

I average to the middle over a range of right and left beliefs on issues.

I don't support Sanders as much as I'd support a Sanders as part of a functional system that averages to the middle.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

-del-

duplicate

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Sanders is most certainly pretty far left of center but if Sanders is elected president, he will not get his way on everything or, I suspect, even most things.

I suspect that's exactly right. The insurance companies and doctors (AMA) long ago in the 1940s decided they didn't care how many Americans died of preventable diseases, they'd rather be rich. And so they lobbied up, and then came pharma, and it's nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which Congress passes universal healthcare, no matter how good it would be for the economy or the American people to do so. It's simply too profitable to leave ~10% of Americans out in the cold or in the lines at bankruptcy court. That way there you can charge everyone else 300% more for the same services everyone gets in every other country and scare the shit out of them that, if they don't pay, they'll end up dead, bankrupt, or homeless like the bottom 10%.

I think Sanders' college plan is actually chump change. The Iraq War alone (not Afghan or other defense) was enough to pay for it for 30 years, to put the scale in perspective. It's way, way, way cheaper than Obamacare or universal healthcare. $70B per year really is nothing. It's 10% of the normal (non-war) annual defense budget. It's like $200 per capita. Marginal chump change. They might, might give him a win on that if he's in the White House. Business might actually think it would be good for workforce training and back it. I don't think they'll let him pay for it with a financial transaction tax, though. Too many Wall Street lobbyists in Congress. In fact, the wealthy are too powerful to allow him to raise taxes on them in any way whatsoever. But adding $0.07 trillion to a $3.90 trillion budget isn't so much to do. And it doesn't cost businesses or the wealthy anything (just add it to the deficit). So this one, political capital might buy. But who knows?

Other than that, I think most of his other stuff is dead on arrival. They're not going to authorize a $1T infrastructure spending boost or any new jobs programs. No way in hell. He could send the 5th fleet to invade the Cayman Islands, come back with $15T in his teeth, and Congress still wouldn't let him spend that. If election day became a national holiday, voter turnout would increase, plus businesses don't want to give a single more paid holiday off, so I doubt that will get through Congress. Same with paid family leave. Costs businesses money. Probably won't happen. It's a drop in the bucket. And I think Clinton would get this one through instead (she doesn't care about the college thing). But they probably wouldn't give Sanders 2 things. Obama got 2. But he had a much more stacked deck in Congress. I think maybe Sanders gets 1. And it's probably a cheap one. So the college deal is my guess. It's very cheap to make college tuition free, compared to doing lots of things like building highways or paying medical bills...

But what would be fun to watch is whether his Justice/Treasury departments would turn into a trust-busting machine. That's where I think a Sanders presidency might truly be interesting. More Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin Roosevelt (even if he sounds more like Franklin campaigning). That probably terrifies everyone from K street to Wall Street. Because it doesn't matter how deep Congress is in their pockets, he can still charge at them from that angle. I suspect, many Supreme and Circuit Court Judge's spouses will start receiving multi-million-dollar speaking fees and jobs with stock options in the event Sanders takes the White House. That will be their last line of defense.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Some interesting reading. Thank you gentlemen!

Agree, thank you both.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

But what would be fun to watch is whether his Justice/Treasury departments would turn into a trust-busting machine. That's where I think a Sanders presidency might truly be interesting. More Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin Roosevelt (even if he sounds more like Franklin campaigning). That probably terrifies everyone from K street to Wall Street. Because it doesn't matter how deep Congress is in their pockets, he can still charge at them from that angle. I suspect, many Supreme and Circuit Court Judge's spouses will start receiving multi-million-dollar speaking fees and jobs with stock options in the event Sanders takes the White House. That will be their last line of defense.

If Sanders articulated an emphasis on deconstructing political and economic power silos, particularly with SEC/DOJ and Supreme Court suggestions, I can't see that as a bad thing.

Conversely, I'm genuinely frightened about Hillary or GOP special interest owned equivalent's corrupting the Supreme Court.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Conversely, I'm genuinely frightened about Hillary or GOP special interest owned equivalent's corrupting the Supreme Court.

too late by at least 15 years.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I think maybe Sanders gets 1. And it's probably a cheap one. So the college deal is my guess. It's very cheap to make college tuition free, compared to doing lots of things like building highways or paying medical bills...

But what would be fun to watch is whether his Justice/Treasury departments would turn into a trust-busting machine. That's where I think a Sanders presidency might truly be interesting. More Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin Roosevelt (even if he sounds more like Franklin campaigning). That probably terrifies everyone from K street to Wall Street. Because it doesn't matter how deep Congress is in their pockets, he can still charge at them from that angle. I suspect, many Supreme and Circuit Court Judge's spouses will start receiving multi-million-dollar speaking fees and jobs with stock options in the event Sanders takes the White House. That will be their last line of defense.

Dc, from your lips to god's ears but Sanders will never be elected. And there isn't the interest at Justice or Treasury for that kind of work. The right has seeded it too much with graduates of fourth and fifth tier law schools, never mind the elite grads with an entrepreneurial bent dreaming of doing good while doing well, or however they rationalize it. Anyone who might have a predilection to trust busting does their best to keep their heads down for that sort of action. Too dangerous for the career.

Bernie will end his days as the esteemed Senator from Vermont, the conscience of the Senate blah blah yakety yak. And if by some twist of fate he is elected President, then he'll do an Obama/Clinton neolib sellout. Either that or get suckered like Jimmy Carter into historical irrelevance. It's not to say I'm not fond of the dude. I really am. I know Bernie is the real deal and has "kept it real", as the divine Mesdames "Diamond and Silk" might say, since pretty much back in his first day in the House (longer, still).

My lame claim to fame, I once rode in a car with Bernie on the Capital subway coming out of the Rayburn building and stood in his outer office a couple of times back when he was a Congressman. He was just as shlubby and unkempt as you see on tube, only a little thinner. Of course, we've all put on a few. I was on the other side of him at the time but worked with his staff on some pretty high visibility bills and they were always square with me and the boss. Of course, even as an independent Bernie was in the majority at the time so it was easy to be magnanimous, I suppose.

I saw him about the corridors when I worked the 102 Congress, but it wasn't until the 103rd until I actually went into his office and interacted with his staff. Remember, he didn't bill himself as a Democratic Socialist or even a Democrat at the time. He was the Independent from Vermont (Socialist) and didn't really caucus with the Democrats until he and Ron Dellums set up the CPC. And even then he was the leftiest lefty in the caucus in what was a pretty crowded field at the time. Kids today look at Obama and Kerry and Clinton and say leftist, socialist, whatever, but they never knew one if they don't know about Mr. Dellums, Mr. DeFazio, Mrs. Waters, Mr. Bonior and the other left-liberals on that first caucus.

I worked in the minority at the time on the other side of Bernie but interacted with his staff to kill some product safety and liability legislation that was trying to shake down and strong arm domestic manufacturers through the courts after failing miserably through legislation in a deliberate death by a thousand cuts strategy. It was one of the earliest full spectrum multimedia campaigns that I recall using the coordinated and combined resources of the courts, the administration, the interest groups and all to a single end. Of course, that wasn't anything new, but the scale was what surprised me, not to mention the conscious and deliberate cooperation of the media as an equal partner in the enterprise. Again, not that this was new, but it was the degree of organizational discipline and systematic approach that struck me.

So this lefty pinko commie Sanders worked with some of the most (and I mean most) conservative and pro-business organizations and personalities in the government and out to expose and roll back the effort. And we won, passing legislation that protected lawful commerce and looked after the interest of the little guy as well as the big bad industrialists. Personally, I like the guy and nowadays I agree with him more and more as I catch up with him in age.

But that might as well have been a million years ago, back when government albeit grudgingly and with no deliberate speed still worked for more of us at least some of the time. Back when Kerry had moral courage and was closer to the memories of his war. Back when Pelosi had something resembling a moral conscience. Back when there really were real liberals in Congress and conservatives still had a sense of shame and limits, even in the leadership. Before what was left of the left overreached and underestimated with Iran-Contra in what would turn out to be their last gasp. Before the Contract and the Gingrich mess. Before the name Bush was a punchline. Before Clinton sold out the Democrats to the highest bidder. Before the GOP sold what remained of its soul to the devil.

And it's because I like Bernie I really hope he isn't elected. He's no saint and does what he has to do as a politician, don't kid yourself kids. But he is the real deal and if by some insane quirk of history he should be elected, well he might actually believe he's President and start acting like one. And the people who put him there, this children's crusade, well they might actually think that they could make it into something of a mass movement to "take back" what was lost. If that were to happen, well then it would really set the wheels moving among the owners of the country and they would very likely freak out and lash out.

If Bernie is like I remember him, or at least his reputation at the time, I think he might actually run with it and put himself in mortal danger. I mean, if the plutocrats who own the country are willing to finance a propaganda/psyops campaign of the likes we've seen against the "socialist" Obama - kayfabe as it is - I shudder to think what they might have in store for a genuine socialist and honest-to-god old school leftie like Bernie Sanders if he starts talking "revolution" like this guy once did.

The owners no longer content with operating the enterprise through surrogates, have decided to place one of their own "incorruptibles" in the White House. And so that is what will happen. If Bernie were to screw that up and then actually try to govern, well then he'd have to go.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

If Bernie is like I remember him, or at least his reputation at the time, I think he might actually run with it and put himself in mortal danger.

He himself said something on camera along those lines when speculating about the reactions he expects to his candidacy before he declared. Maybe in 2013 or so, around when he first started to pen consistent op/eds with the tagline 'political revolution.' I realized about a year ago, for better or worse, that he knew the consequences and just simply didn't care. He wasn't going to play it PC, or avoid stepping on toes, even if those toes were attached to a bank account that enough money to cause him tremendous pain and suffering. Seems to me that he committed himself to go all in, consequences be damned.

Did you read Ted Rall's piece the other day?