anyone else notice that Donald Trump repeats himself quite a bit? Seems to me like rather than giving justification for some arguments, he just rapid fires the use of the same word 3 or 4 times to fill the void in conversation
repetition catches on
should his opinions have any merit… this is perhaps a good way to educate people
This was discussed by some format some while ago, and there is method in this madness: Repeat something many times, and belief is instilled by rote, a sort of hypnotic effect takes place.
There isn’t very many ways to explain a idea in a rally, realistically.
You have a TED convention format, which while putting forward more information, is largely a sales pitch, and brushes over illogical ends of a argument for a sense of Utopian euphoria, you come away thinking “this is wonderful, this is the future” and then you slowly have your bubble burst over the long term. We used to have this back in the 50s in the form of books published full of fake as shit facts, I used to read them in the 90s and could quote them endlessly, to my teachers deep anger. They are a close relative to a freak show operation, we’ve made it the very signature of modern intellectual discussion. Left loves this sort of shit, and it us endlessly exploitable for laughs, cause it is based on unsightly weak showmanship presented as intellectualism.
Obviously, Trump doesn’t use that fashion show format, not that he is opposed to it for models on the cat walk, do the TED talk approach is out. Most people aren’t gonna sit around in a diner or eater cooler the next day talking about such a format, so it is a stupid approach, as it us largely a solitary experience.
There is the C-Span approach, of dragging his ideas out on the long burning coals well beyond most people’s attention spans. That shit while informative, never really wins debates, or gets movements behind it going passionately. He will be on C-Span in the future.
Other than informing people, in a dry academic or a ullshit braindead Utopian sense, you can have sales pitches. He is a businessman, he uses sales pitches. It is like a Ted Talk, but minus the details. This gives people excitement, while leaving flexibility in details open for once plans get underway. Less specifics in terms of campaign promises to fail in. Obama did this too with his “Hope” message and failed horribly in that abstract, nebulous term, so it can backfire, but generally is hard to do so.
It is a idea that opens up discussion about positive constructive debate. People can sit around in a diner eating eggs saying “How” instead of “If”, “When” dominates “Should” as it seems suddenly possible to do these things, that it is achievable.
Take the many references to jailing Hillary. She is a pure, unabashed mockery to the ideals the US was founded upon. She is a woman who lives above the laws, is a pure evil piece if shit who got rich off of running charities for the destitute. There is very little you can point to that is good in her, but she always had that presidential shield via nepotism and party elitist support. It always seemed impossible to ever imagine her playing by the same rules as everyone else, going to court, and being convicted.
Trump came along, made a few statements, again and again, and decades of anger unleashed. Everyone knew she was a elite evil butch before Trump came along, he didn’t convince us, or brain wash us, weknew, all he did was give the idea we should be thinking of the How and When, than the If and Should. Caught like wildfire.
That’s how exciting sales pitches work. Every salesman knows this. That’s why fear mongering with Global Warming works "we need to get serious, we need to pass these treaties now! " sort of pseudo scientific bullshit.
It is so deeply entrenched in our Psyche we don’t usually notice when it is being played on us. If you study rhetoric, how ideas are presented, you pick up on it. Doesn’t invalidate a idea by now means, as every idea needs selling, just at the same time doesn’t make the facts certain to be correct. We live in perhaps the dumbest era of history, where most any story could be sold, but a lot of it tends to have impressive science backing some if the ideas, like getting to the moon, or waking to China via the Atlantic cause the earth is round. We get a lot of flops as a result too. That’s a philosophers job to not pick it, but I think it is healthy that the discourse is steering back towards building and doing things once more, abandoning the Obama era of despondency and collapse in the face of a cabal of twisted liberal memes shattering the last vestiges of western civilization.
If they stop asking the same things and stop editing interviews to suit their needs, the dude would probably say new things and we would hear all of what he says.
Unlikely, he isn’t limited to what he is asked. He can start a new line of thought anytime.
So instead of a cabal of liberal despondency, replace it with a cabal of cuckservative despondency? 
Yesh
He could but, recall how the media cuts and edits the interviews to make the person look great or moronic. We do not see or read unedited anything. They brutalized Trump before the election and with this whole recount and Russia going on they will still make him look stupid just in case…
He ain’t exactly giving them much room for error…
Just Google “Trump”
They give a bunch of lies from leftist news stories (today is the first time I saw Fox News with a Trump story, scrolled completely at the end) but below that, they include Trump’s twitter feed.
Trump will also inherit the WhiteHouse email address, Obama sends out retarded shit on that constantly. Hotmail has decided all trump emails I get goes straight to my junk box (never asked for this to happen).
Now, if Twitter goes Magsj and starts fucking editing or deleting Trump posts, or banning Trump, we will obviously loose thus route, but I don’t think the liberals have the capacity to shut down the white house delivery route. Likewise, Trump can shut down access the media has to the entire federal government with a executive order, letting only department heads contact media only on their terms. CNN, NBC, BBCAmerica, CBS, ABC can be completely cut off from one of it’s most essential sources for news, while other outlets thrive. This is quite a possibility if they don’t start playing fair. I don’t mean publishing a negative or critical story, but outright fake news, like we saw with the election. If they don’t want to act like responsible reporters, they certainly don’t have to be treated as such, Trump can brief up reporters from Cat Fancy Magazine and Easy Riders, and everyone will read them instead. Who’s gonna watch CNN if the closest they can get to the president is Lafayette Park and none of their reporters are allowed in any place that requires a press pass? Capitol Police would just push them back saying only members of the media is allowed back there, not fake news.
Watch them suddenly rediscover media ethics then.
I love it when you say my name Turd 
I love it when one of my bretheren constipates you.
I’m just happy that your happy
They edit very well and take things he says out of context so very artfully. Heck you have seen this game here and not done nearly as well as the editors at news medias. Religious texts are a favorite here. Take a phrase out of context and intent changes. I am not pro Trump , I am anti ignorance of media.
I am coming to realise that your politics are a different game to ours… don’t the US media realise that they are messing with peoples’ lives and reputations? but I guess that’s the plan, and huge cheques waved under liberal noses helps those plans come to fruition.
No, yours is just more evolved in the game, ours hasn’t reached that point of generational corruption yet that the English always have had. In the UK, Trump wouldn’t of even been allowed to vote, all his speech would of been suppressed and fined, and the queen would of refused to recognize him.
Hon, Yours do the same thing, just different methods. Your country is more consolidated then mine. Your reporters and representatives will use different tactics. Try really going beyond and do your own research. Humans in all countries are really no different in their gullibility to the right manipulation.
Actually, ours still has some still functions restrictions, customed designed to avoid the worst aspects of the English System. Remember, we were once a colony. My methods of political satire directly descend from English experiments to writing news paper articles during the English Civil War. We preserved this right in our system of government, English to this day don’t have the same assurances. France doesn’t either, they defend Charlie Hebdo for saying the most aweful shit, yet persecute Dieudonne for doing far less offensive satire, on par with what your average stand up comedian in the US would say. Europe isn’t a free speech area, despite their abuse of the term. You only gotta look at the Netherlands persecuting it’s own legislators for having the nerve to speak up for their political platform. It’s why the EU is illegal, and dying. Internet was a very American invention, world is being transformed slowly to our expectations that speech remain free. Whenever a modern state tries to fight this legally, especially civil law nations, they run a 50-50% chance to loose that law. English are a common law nation, so their tyranny is ironically more resilient, they can point to precedent for being completely fucked up pieces of shit.
Had they had a freer press, and been more colonially inclusive, citizens instead of subjects, regions instead of nations, equal, British Empire would still be around in a significant form. Instead nobody likes one another, they cobstantly try to break up, gibe up on everything and try to block anything said that offends soneone. Whole damn country is a dysfunctional backwater. Should be compasdionately nuked out of existence, Pakistan may just damn well do it too.
Can’t let that happen. My Mags is in Britain. Time to save the day.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMDTgaEIi-Q[/youtube]
Not true.
We have plenty of nationalistic political groups and activists… acceptance is based on civility.
Different tactics, yes… certain TV corporations and newspapers will back a certain party, and promote that party and its values whilst suppressing the others in turn, but they speculate rather than lie here… hoping that the target will live up to that negative speculation, but not lie… that renders any reporter untrustworthy and in turn unhirable.
We are a nation of namers and shamers.