Trump 2024 ???

[KG1]

That’s one way to spin it. It looks more like he’s bilking fans for cash. But making everyone else laugh at him. I think it’s ****ing hilarious.

I mean seriously, how is this savvy? He could sell anything to his fans. He could make a cast of his junk and also sell that out in hours.

I think it's detrimental in the sense that it would probably turn off pretty much everyone that is not in his hardcore base. Including moderate Trump supporters that have voted for him in the past. One of which I am. I had a similar reaction like you did.

 

[KG1]

Who claimed trolling was beneficial?

Was it "savvy"?

 

[ditcherman]

It's no different than Christians who fear nonbelievers more than Muslims.

It's not hard for me to understand that some Jews don't care that much about Israel. Although I'm not Jewish, I suspect many people of that faith just don't feel a strong attachment to a set of political borders established by UN fiat. And that's what people are talking about, when they say "supporting Israel." They aren't talking about the ancient holy sites. That's something different, so don't sell me that. They're talking about Democrat vs. Republican and Congressional votes and such. The bordered political entity of Israel. The part created by fiat by a world political body. Support for that political entity is what Democrats and Republicans vote about in Congress. Not the ancient holy sites, because American politicians have no control over that part. But they do have control over how many weapons we sell them.

That fiat-fabricated political entity is the part some Jews don't care that much about. Deal with it. Their views are not required to make sense to you. They see the holy sites as entirely separable from a fiat-created political entity. The fact that doesn't "make sense" to binary-minded American Christians is mildly interesting but irrelevant.

I’m not sure how you can jump to conclusions concerning what I support when it comes to Israel, as an American Christian.
Doesn’t supporting the political borders and government protect the ancient holy sites? That just makes sense to me.
And it goes way above D’s and R’s and their congressional votes. Israel itself goes way above anything we do.

 

[J Galt]

Was it "savvy"?

Who said trolling was savvy?

Here is my post:
"Trolling people with TDS while simultaneously raising campaign funds was savvy."

I did not say raising campaign funds was savvy.
I did not say trolling people was savvy.

My comment on savvy was in reference to accomplishing 2 goals simultaneously.

Anyone can troll. That is not anything special. Trolling on the level of Elon Musk or DJT is something special. Mike Rowe takes trolling and elevates it to something that transcends just trolling. He trolls while simultaneously acknowledging valid points, engaging in self deprecating humor, and offering an olive branch to the person attacking / criticizing. All this and promoting his foundation that has a goal that will benefit, literally, everyone.

 

[Ingomike]

Trolling people with TDS while simultaneously raising campaign funds was savvy.

Not only that, though very sound marketing, the whole shebang raised awareness of his policy speech. And I believe that the motive for the cards.

He can troll with the best…

 

[jamil]

Who said trolling was savvy?

Here is my post:
"Trolling people with TDS while simultaneously raising campaign funds was savvy."

I did not say raising campaign funds was savvy.
I did not say trolling people was savvy.

My comment on savvy was in reference to accomplishing 2 goals simultaneously.

Anyone can troll. That is not anything special. Trolling on the level of Elon Musk or DJT is something special. Mike Rowe takes trolling and elevates it to something that transcends just trolling. He trolls while simultaneously acknowledging valid points, engaging in self deprecating humor, and offering an olive branch to the person attacking / criticizing. All this and promoting his foundation that has a goal that will benefit, literally, everyone.

Is inducing a heart attack while having sex savvy? Wait. Nevermind.

 

[jamil]

Not only that, though very sound marketing, the whole shebang raised awareness of his policy speech. And I believe that the motive for the cards.

He can troll with the best…

But I hear on INGO that it’s not beneficial.

 

[ditcherman]

Who said trolling was savvy?

Here is my post:
"Trolling people with TDS while simultaneously raising campaign funds was savvy."

I did not say raising campaign funds was savvy.
I did not say trolling people was savvy.

My comment on savvy was in reference to accomplishing 2 goals simultaneously.

Anyone can troll. That is not anything special. Trolling on the level of Elon Musk or DJT is something special. Mike Rowe takes trolling and elevates it to something that transcends just trolling. He trolls while simultaneously acknowledging valid points, engaging in self deprecating humor, and offering an olive branch to the person attacking / criticizing. All this and promoting his foundation that has a goal that will benefit, literally, everyone.

Ok, we agree, Mike Rowe for president!

 

[Ingomike]

But I hear on INGO that it’s not beneficial.

Probably not for other candidates but that is the engine that runs the Trump train, and always has, for better or worse…

 

[J Galt]

Ok, we agree, Mike Rowe for president!

I like Mike. Or at least what we see of him publicly. Idk if he would be effective. Plus, he's said no. He's far too savvy to get into politics.

Having said that I think he would make an ideal advisor.

Love him. Hate him. Indifferent to him. Trump is the most effective person to be president to provide for national security and economic prosperity. No one has his experience in negotiating deals with dirt balls. No one has his international clout. The other contenders are all career politicians. He's got F*** you money. He won't play ball with the other politicians.

I like Elon. He doesn't have the personality to deal in politics. He would also make an excellent advisor.

 

[jamil]

I like Mike. Or at least what we see of him publicly. Idk if he would be effective. Plus, he's said no. He's far too savvy to get into politics.

Having said that I think he would make an ideal advisor.

Love him. Hate him. Indifferent to him. Trump is the most effective person to be president to provide for national security and economic prosperity. No one has his experience in negotiating deals with dirt balls. No one has his international clout. The other contenders are all career politicians. He's got F*** you money. He won't play ball with the other politicians.

I like Elon. He doesn't have the personality to deal in politics. He would also make an excellent advisor.

I don't think Trump is the most effective person because his faults greatly impact his effectiveness. You guys think of his antics as some kind of 4d chess moves. It hasn't helped him. He's not politically savvy. Like at all. And you guys think that's a benefit. Washington chewed him up and spit him out.

The lengths that they went through to end his presidency informed us a lot about the cabal that we didn't know before. So that was a helpful eye-opening. But. He still got chewed up and spit out anyway, because he doesn't know how that game is played. He's a positive feedback loop of fueling opposition to his policies. I don't know if any AF personalities exist who have a full enough stack of attributes necessary to beat them. It's not Trump.

This self-love scheme he just put over on all his fans may give him egogasms. It's not helping America. Any.

 

[jamil]

Who said trolling was savvy?

Here is my post:
"Trolling people with TDS while simultaneously raising campaign funds was savvy."

I did not say raising campaign funds was savvy.
I did not say trolling people was savvy.

My comment on savvy was in reference to accomplishing 2 goals simultaneously.

Anyone can troll. That is not anything special. Trolling on the level of Elon Musk or DJT is something special. Mike Rowe takes trolling and elevates it to something that transcends just trolling. He trolls while simultaneously acknowledging valid points, engaging in self deprecating humor, and offering an olive branch to the person attacking / criticizing. All this and promoting his foundation that has a goal that will benefit, literally, everyone.

Usually we would say that killing two birds with one stone is savvy when the two things gained are actually beneficial. Certainly you might understand that the easiest interpretation is that you thought it was beneficial. And then with the addition of Mike Rowe and touting the benefit of everyone, makes me think even more that you thought of it as benefit in your original statement about Trump's savvy. But more like neener-neener, Trump is trolling you TDS'ers while making money at it. And I'm not saying it was that way. I don't know why you say what you did otherwise though. Maybe you can exsplain where I got the motivation wrong if I'm wrong about it.

 

[Leadeye]

I think Mike Rowe is doing exactly the best thing he can do, and doing it well.

His greatest political assets, if considered, would be Regan like invulnerability to the evil left eye. He's "folksy" as the gardener says, and that a hard target to sling mud at.

 

[ditcherman]

I like Mike. Or at least what we see of him publicly. Idk if he would be effective. Plus, he's said no. He's far too savvy to get into politics.

Having said that I think he would make an ideal advisor.

Love him. Hate him. Indifferent to him. Trump is the most effective person to be president to provide for national security and economic prosperity. No one has his experience in negotiating deals with dirt balls. No one has his international clout. The other contenders are all career politicians. He's got F*** you money. He won't play ball with the other politicians.

I like Elon. He doesn't have the personality to deal in politics. He would also make an excellent advisor.

RE Trump;
I don’t disagree with this, really.
We can argue effectiveness/amount of time on twitter/keeping his ego in check, but overall I see your point.

We end up ‘seemingly’ on ‘opposite’ sides because I just argue he’s well past being electable by a majority.

The ones among us who I see as “all trump or you must be a never-trumper tds ridden pansy” don’t seem to understand this nuance.

And the unelectable part will just divide the Right, and every side will blame the other.

 

[KG1]

Usually we would say that killing two birds with one stone is savvy when the two things gained are actually beneficial. Certainly you might understand that the easiest interpretation is that you thought it was beneficial. And then with the addition of Mike Rowe and touting the benefit of everyone, makes me think even more that you thought of it as benefit in your original statement about Trump's savvy. But more like neener-neener, Trump is trolling you TDS'ers while making money at it. And I'm not saying it was that way. I don't know why you say what you did otherwise though. Maybe you can exsplain where I got the motivation wrong if I'm wrong about it.

I have a very important policy speech that I want to give but first I have to troll and make myself look foolish to get everyone's attention. As an added bonus I can make some bread off of my hardcore base.

SAVVY Baby!!!

 

[jamil]

RE Trump;
I don’t disagree with this, really.
We can argue effectiveness/amount of time on twitter/keeping his ego in check, but overall I see your point.

We end up ‘seemingly’ on ‘opposite’ sides because I just argue he’s well past being electable by a majority.

The ones among us who I see as “all trump or you must be a never-trumper tds ridden pansy” don’t seem to understand this nuance.

And the unelectable part will just divide the Right, and every side will blame the other.

Would be nice if INGO could navigate this disagreement without making it a pro-trump/anti-trump binary. One's thinking about Trump is more nuanced than Trump cult vs TDS cult. There's a lot of nuance in between. At the end of the day, who is on the ballot to face Democrats? What are your priorities for America? Do you vote for the person opposing the Democrat or not. That's the real binary. That's where the nuance doesn't matter. We can disagree on who the best person is to run. But we divide ourselves into these pigeonholes, even though we all might agree that not-democrat is the first-priority consensus.

 

[jamil]

I have a very important policy speech that I want to give but first I have to troll and make myself look foolish to get everyone's attention. As an added bonus I can make some bread off of my hardcore base.

Meh. That's just 4d chess savvy.

 

[indyblue]

Trump’s Enemies Underestimate Him — Again - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

The election was a disaster.

spectator.org

“Never before had a president involved himself so intimately in the selection of Senate candidates,” said one observer. Words like “fiasco” and “bumbling” were used to describe the president’s selection of candidates and the resulting losses. As a result, his own reelection was now doubtful, endangered at best.
. . .
Reagan’s situation was seen as so dire that one political reporter who had covered his career — that would be the Washington Post’s Lou Cannon — said in his 1982 biography, Reagan: “I believe that Reagan will not run again.”

Suffice it to say that not only did Reagan run again, but two years later, in 1984, he won in a 49-state landslide.

The point is obvious. All the naysayers who insisted that the results in 1970 and 1982 guaranteed disaster if Nixon and Reagan were nominated again were proved wrong — big time.

No one — say again, no one — knows what the political landscape will look like two years down the road, in this case in 2024, any more than those post-1970 or post-1982 “experts”

There is no rocket science in realizing that Trump’s critics are underestimating the unwavering support of his base.

Not to mention that they are seriously underestimating the former president’s ability to win.

Again.

 

[J Galt]

RE Trump;
I don’t disagree with this, really.
We can argue effectiveness/amount of time on twitter/keeping his ego in check, but overall I see your point.

We end up ‘seemingly’ on ‘opposite’ sides because I just argue he’s well past being electable by a majority.

The ones among us who I see as “all trump or you must be a never-trumper tds ridden pansy” don’t seem to understand this nuance.

And the unelectable part will just divide the Right, and every side will blame the other.

". . . argue he’s well past being electable by a majority." -- Wasn't a similar argument made before he was elected the first time?

I don't disagree with what you're writing. You are especially right in pointing out that the flip side of TDS are the people frothing at the mouth screaming Trump. Isn't that Newton's Third Law? I am firmly in support of President Trump. Having said that I acknowledge that his personality will be off-putting to many. Having said that, you cannot fight the media, big tech, other nations' politicians, the extreme liberals, the world establishment, status quo, etc. without having a seemingly large ego, and be willing to fight back without engaging in behavior that (non-fighters) will find distasteful. He may not be what many want, but he is what our country needs.

It is sad to see so many people unable to separate their emotions from making an important decision. It just supports my theory that people are primarily ruled by emotions and unable to engage in any intellectual functions when engaged in emotions. Sam Harris' melt down is a perfect example of this.

I don't think I could ever live in the same house as Trump. It's a good thing I am looking for someone to get the country financially stable and nationally secure, not a house mate.

 

[J Galt]

I have a very important policy speech that I want to give but first I have to troll and make myself look foolish to get everyone's attention. As an added bonus I can make some bread off of my hardcore base.

SAVVY Baby!!!

You're missing the point. The savvy part was accomplishing 2 things at the same time. He knows how to work social media extremely well for someone not raised with social media.

You can engage in ad hominem attacks. Just keep in mind that that does not give any credibility to any point you may have. Ad hominem attacks do work to get many people emotionally worked up and makes the drooling sheeple chant along with you though. #JohnStewart So there's that side of things.

Savvy: practical knowledge or understanding of something

savvy_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of savvy_1 noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com