[Al_U_Card]

Good find. How about this, wiseguy

[y66]

From Elizabeth Warren Emerges to Attack Donald Trump on Twitter

Quote

Republicans spent an entire primary cycle searching for Donald J. Trump’s weak spot, to little avail.

But Elizabeth Warren, a first-term Democratic senator from Massachusetts, seems to have come up with an answer — or at least a way to rattle the New York billionaire.

On Friday evening, tensions between Mr. Trump and Ms. Warren spilled into a Twitter war, which spanned four hours and more than a dozen posts and insults — “Goofy Elizabeth Warren,” he called her; a sexist, racist, xenophobic “bully,” she countered — on both sides.

The back-and-forth, which played out in public rat-a-tat-tat bursts, 140 characters at a time, also offered a vivid preview of how the six months until Election Day could unfold, with the popular Ms. Warren emerging as a unifier of the Democratic base and Mr. Trump — so far, at least — still unable to resist small provocations as he tries to become a more disciplined general election candidate.

Ms. Warren is one of the few high-profile leaders in either party to repeatedly challenge Mr. Trump with clarity and directness, portraying him as both dangerous and a charlatan. She began her assault in a March 21 Facebook post, describing his candidacy as a “serious threat” and calling him “a loser” — one of the worst insults in the Trump lexicon.

...

“She is probably the most effective voice to engage Trump and Trump supporters because she won his voters in her election here, and when it comes to helping them and creating jobs, she is wildly popular with them,” Ms. Marsh said. “She has standing with Trump voters.”

For Mr. Trump, whose preferred attack megaphone is often Twitter, engaging with Ms. Warren has its perils and could undercut his recent efforts to reassure party officials that he has the temperament to be president. He also has high negative ratings among women, and attacking two of the most prominent female Democrats could backfire.

[kenberg]

Headline: Warren calls Trump a bully, Trump calls Warren goofy.

I can hardly wait for the rematch. They should move up at least to Comsymp and Fascist. Cad and hussy just won't do.

Could we move up the schedule? Maybe hold the election in June? I am going to have trouble with six months of this.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-May-09, 18:31, said:

Could we move up the schedule? Maybe hold the election in June? I am going to have trouble with six months of this.

Me too, but have some sympathy for Trevor, Samantha, Larry, Jimmy, Jimmy, and Stephen. The longer the campaign, the more grist for their comedy mills.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-May-10, 13:23, said:

Me too, but have some sympathy for Trevor, Samantha, Larry, Jimmy, Jimmy, and Stephen. The longer the campaign, the more grist for their comedy mills.

Maybe we should try our hand at this. Noting DT's suggestion that we negotiate a settlement on the national debt, I was thinking that the R convention could open with a rendition of Second Hand Rose.

Even our piano in the parlor
Daddy got for ten cents on the dollar.

We will need all the humor we can get.

[Winstonm]

Monty Hall for VP?

[barmar]

Michelle Branch spoofs one of her own hits:

https://www.google.c...121658157,d.cWw

[Winstonm]

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Quote

Why did almost everybody fail to predict Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican primaries? Nate Silver blames the news media, disorganized Republican elites, and the surprising appeal of cultural grievance. Nate Cohn lists a number of factors, from the unusually large candidate field to the friendly calendar. Jim Rutenberg thinks journalism strayed too far from good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Justin Wolfers zeroes in on Condorcet’s paradox. Here’s the factor I think everybody missed: The Republican Party turns out to be filled with idiots. Far more of them than anybody expected.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-May-11, 09:55, said:

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

I still maintain that this approach is just what the Donald would hope for. If someone is an idiot then there is no point in any sort of discussion. It rules out the possibility that a person might change his mind. As I understand it the gap in the polls between Trump and Clinton is not all that large, at least in some key states such as Ohio. If the Trump folks set out to win over those who currently are undecided or favor Clinton, and the Clinton folks write off the Trump supporters as idiots who are not worth the energy to talk to, or worse they talk to them but the talk consists of telling them that they are stupid, this might not go well.

If we agree that any candidate who cannot beat Trump must be stupid then we have established the stupidity of 16 Republicans and we will now have an intelligence check on one Democrat.

[PassedOut]

I don't see why the Trump voters need be characterized at all by democratic nominee, whoever she might turn out to be. Better just to put up a constant barrage of selected videos of Trump himself actually talking, and let those videos define him. Add bits of what republicans have said about Trump too. Put the old Jon Stewart crew on it. Instead of making people angry, make them laugh.

I'm thinking of a whole series of short spots with Trump contradicting himself. Or with his dumb commentaries about hair spray and other subjects. Each spot would conclude with Rubio saying, "You know what they say about men with small hands -- you can't trust them!"

Nothing negative, just some pointed humor.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2016-May-12, 07:08

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-11, 16:20, said:

I still maintain that this approach is just what the Donald would hope for. If someone is an idiot then there is no point in any sort of discussion. It rules out the possibility that a person might change his mind. As I understand it the gap in the polls between Trump and Clinton is not all that large, at least in some key states such as Ohio. If the Trump folks set out to win over those who currently are undecided or favor Clinton, and the Clinton folks write off the Trump supporters as idiots who are not worth the energy to talk to, or worse they talk to them but the talk consists of telling them that they are stupid, this might not go well.

If we agree that any candidate who cannot beat Trump must be stupid then we have established the stupidity of 16 Republicans and we will now have an intelligence check on one Democrat.

Republicans have gone to the polls and voted Trump as their standard bearer. You have to be stupid to think Trump is in any way anything but a ridiculous and potentially dangerous choice for any public office

Those who voted for Trump will not change their minds because they are called stupid.

[Al_U_Card]

10 cents on the dollar. Interesting ratio. Might have something to do with fractional reserve banking. 90 cents of every dollar are invented by the banks when they lend so there is only really 10 cents of value therein. Just sayin'.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-May-11, 22:57, said:

Republicans have gone to the polls and voted Trump as their standard bearer. You have to be stupid to think Trump is in any way anything but a ridiculous and potentially dangerous choice for any public office

Those who voted for Trump will not change their minds because they are called stupid.

I will focus on your last sentence. If you walk up to a Trump supporter and call him stupid he will remain a Trumps supporter. I agree. My point was a different one. Suppose you walk up to a Trump supporter and chat with him, sharing your concerns but letting him speak his mind and refraining from calling him stupid. Might he then give some thought to what you said and perhaps change his mind? No doubt some won't, but maybe some will? This is what I was getting at.

As a matter pf basic philosophy, I am opposed to writing people off. As a political strategy, I would definitely advise against writing people off.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2016-May-11, 21:56, said:

I don't see why the Trump voters need be characterized at all by democratic nominee, whoever she might turn out to be. Better just to put up a constant barrage of selected videos of Trump himself actually talking, and let those videos define him. Add bits of what republicans have said about Trump too. Put the old Jon Stewart crew on it. Instead of making people angry, make them laugh.

They've been doing this all through the primaries, and it hasn't been effective, and they were just trying to sway voters within their party. Why would you expect this to be effective in the general? That faces the uphill battle of swinging voters to another party.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2016-May-12, 08:59, said:

They've been doing this all through the primaries, and it hasn't been effective, and they were just trying to sway voters within their party. Why would you expect this to be effective in the general? That faces the uphill battle of swinging voters to another party.

The democrats don't have to swing any Trump voters at all, although I suspect some of those voters will eventually catch on if the democrats just focus on Trump and not (as Ken emphasizes) the people who voted for him in the primary. It's going to be very tough for Trump to get to 270 if the democrats hold their own voters and take some of the republicans and independents (like me) who would never vote for Trump.

The problem with running blatantly negative ads is that the candidate doing so looks bad too. By letting Trump do it to himself, especially by turning him into the butt of laughter, you mitigate some of that negative rebound effect. The democrats should try to educate in an entertaining way, not in an angry way. I expect that Trump's reaction to that would be funny itself.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 07:42, said:

I will focus on your last sentence. If you walk up to a Trump supporter and call him stupid he will remain a Trumps supporter. I agree. My point was a different one. Suppose you walk up to a Trump supporter and chat with him, sharing your concerns but letting him speak his mind and refraining from calling him stupid. Might he then give some thought to what you said and perhaps change his mind? No doubt some won't, but maybe some will? This is what I was getting at.

As a matter pf basic philosophy, I am opposed to writing people off. As a political strategy, I would definitely advise against writing people off.

I agree with you. My point is that most Trump (as well as Cruz) supporters do not care what you have to say and will not listen, regardless. I think there is a basic problem that many people have that is based on a refusal to look at the world with a critical eye, with critical thinking, looking for a reason or eveidence-based assumption rather than an ideological one.

To me, this is stupid, although not a proper use of the word. Perhaps stupnorant?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-May-12, 09:48, said:

To me, this is stupid, although not a proper use of the word. Perhaps stupnorant?

Maybe just lazy and emotional. People get into ideological ruts, and it's easy to just stick with it.

[kenberg]

Some of the following could be effective:

A calm presentation of real concerns about a Trump presidency. Trump has used bankruptcy laws effectively in his own interest. This is legal, as he points out. Filing bankruptcy and leaving others holding the bag may be a fine strategy if a person is watching out for his own interests and no one else's. It does not follow that trying to negotiate down our national debt by refusing full payment would work out well for the country. A business that files for bankruptcy is usually then out of business. People can understand this. And it leads to further thoughts. Trump uses existing law to play other people for suckers and make himself rich. Maybe not as rich as he claims, but definitely rich. Why on Earth would anyone think such a person is suddenly interested in my well-being or the well-being of anyone other than himself? Gambling casinos are legal. They also make the owner rich by playing people for suckers. Playing people for suckers is Trump's entire history. He does it legally, so we don't put him in jail. But don't play the slots, and don't make him president. This can be understood.


Paul Ryan has to get to know Trump better, or see if Trump will change, or some such. So he says. This is a very disappointing position. Which aspect of Trump is still unknown? We do not know what Trump will say in July. Or what he will say tomorrow, for that matter. Whatever comes into his head, I suppose. But I think both I and Paul Ryan have a pretty good idea of who Trump is.

Voting for Trump entails responsibility for the result. People can be angry, we can all get angry, but what we do with that anger has consequences. I think many people understand this. What is needed is something other than shouting and dismissing people as idiots. If our faith in democracy is misplaced, then we are in trouble. So we might as well approach this with the idea that appeal to reason will be productive.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 10:08, said:

Some of the following could be effective:

A calm presentation of real concerns about a Trump presidency. Trump has used bankruptcy laws effectively in his own interest. This is legal, as he points out. Filing bankruptcy and leaving others holding the bag may be a fine strategy if a person is watching out for his own interests and no one else's. It does not follow that trying to negotiate down our national debt by refusing full payment would work out well for the country. A business that files for bankruptcy is usually then out of business. People can understand this. And it leads to further thoughts. Trump uses existing law to play other people for suckers and make himself rich. Maybe not as rich as he claims, but definitely rich. Why on Earth would anyone think such a person is suddenly interested in my well-being or the well-being of anyone other than himself? Gambling casinos are legal. They also make the owner rich by playing people for suckers. Playing people for suckers is Trump's entire history. He does it legally, so we don't put him in jail. But don't play the slots, and don't make him president. This can be understood.

It seems to me that the bankruptcies and the Trump University scam would be more effective to flog than would Trump's casino ownerships. The students scammed know they were suckered, but a lot of the suckers in the casinos don't see themselves that way and would be angered to be labeled that way.

[onoway]

I think that making Trump look silly by using his own public behaviour and speech is likely the most effective approach. People don't mind being associated with a gangster type or some such, it makes them feel tough and someone to be reckoned with by association. But make someone look silly - that's much less appealing to be linked to. It should be done without stridency though, a bewildered " umm how's that again?" juxtaposition sort of approach might be quite effective. People don't like to think they are being manipulated about what to think, so if there is room for them to change their minds- they just might. Put their backs up and most won't even listen, much less pay any attention except to defend their position.