Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump 2016: Less of a Jerk in Person than you Would Think
So I had a little chat with Donald last night. In front of a few thousand people I asked him a question.
I was sitting about 25 feet from him so I got to study him for 20 minutes of talking and 10 minutes of questions. He came for the fund raiser which did not benefit his finances but rather Nevada republicans. He is a dynamic public speaker and is very much a politician. He spoke with a small cheat sheet but he is far faster on his feet mentally than I expected. The arrogance and bluster were apparent but also what was apparent to me is that he’s less of a narcissist than I thought. He took the time to thank a lot of different groups and also praised Reince Preibus at one point which was interesting.
I highly doubt now he’s a stalking horse and I expect him to play this out til Election Day. Hillary won’t do well debating him regardless of how many smart drugs she takes.
He is very good at identifying problems that the audience identifies with and very short on actual solutions beyond saying he can do better. He acknowledged his gaffes but also attacked the media for preordained narratives.
He took about 10 questions , all unscripted, and deftly deflected a couple kooks asking about Bilderbergs and what not. Quicker than I expected he studies a question and has a response with a talking point even if it’s not a direct answer. He’s been coached well recently and it shows.
Well I stood up and asked him about health care. He sort of answered. I’d link the video but I have no clue how to get a video from my phone to here. I almost don’t want to know how such technology works.
Published in General
Wish I had written this.
I’ve known about Social D but only picked up their albums in the last year. It’s basically all I listened to the last six months of running. Well, them and Queens of the Stone Age.
Get to a live show one day. Live at tbe Roxy is a good live album. I’ve seen them about 9-10 X
The fact that you appreciated it makes my day.
Big Social D fans in this house. This is tattooed on Son #1’s upper arm (note: I’m not bragging)
And Social D got me out of an $800 ticket. I went through an intersection on a green light, only to notice an ambulance barreling towards me from the north Windows up, radio loud, I didn’t hear the sirens.
The cop who pulled me over and asked me if I knew why. I replied I did know, it was because I was an idiot.
He asked for my registration and insurance, I began rifling through the console knowing full well I had neither. Behold, a Social Distortion CD fell out.
Thus ensued a delightful discussion; he was going to the same show all my kids were that night at The House of Blues.
And he let me off with a warning.
I will be grateful to Social D, and whichever kid left the CD in the console, til the day I die.
p.s. More to the topic: have seen them live twice – terrific.
If we were going to have an amnesty guy, I’d much rather than Rubio or Walker.
MUCH RATHER. They’re more ‘limited government on just about every other issue.
Thx Doc. I’m happy to read. Real experience. FTR/ I’m in favor of no ‘live audience’ in these debates. People will watch em regardless. NO to all the cheering booing noise ‘on stage’ness and all the vulgar press interfering and interrupting expressing their views via snark muckraking and need for limelight.
They had a show here in Charlotte last year but I went on a date instead. I chose….poorly.
So I went to Sawtelle Judo in LA, which is the oldest Japanese judo dojo in America. How I was given Yodan, is a hell of a story. But whenever I starttelling things that happened in my life–people think I’m either self-centered or a liar. And I know I shouldn’t care–but it always happens. I like it here, so I’ll save that story for a good time. It also involves someone famous.
Ooooo Nice link!!! Awesome!! Is Matwork still referred to derisively by the old Judokas? the Ka-dame waza?
So the incredible difference being the Gi is what essentilly makes Judo a sport, and Greco-Roman fighting (or foreplay, I can say that I did it for 4 years–the wrestling that is..I’ve explained too much havent I).
Matwork in Wrestling, while its been more than 20 years since I put on the singlet, was completely different physics.
Also, about Yodan and USJA rules–they are eschewed and implemented willy-nilly from what I’ve heard. Were you introduced to Judoka as a system rather than a person? This is also revelant to politics, because Judoka as form–is implementing the “loose branch, strong roots” philosophy to all aspects of life–and is the style Putin practices. Even within Judoka there are several thoughts, main ones being attack and defend. Guess which one Putin uses? Its core principal is still Judo based in using another’s force along with yours–but also that it can defeat any amount of strength by creating division in center of gravity, and feigning weakness to manipulate approach, get under fulcrum and use their weight against them. Take that as you will.
This is how conservatives need to defeat the left. But most want to use only their own strength, which isn’t nearly enough.
Very interesting discussion. Just curious: several references have been made to the debates. Given that neither candidate is unknown, what do you expect to actually happen at the debates to either candidate’s advantage?
The issues Trump will bring up will be discussed extensively as the debates will be viewed extensively.
Hillary benefits from shadow and darkness. That’s a short answer.
I’m sure the media are thinking hard about how not to play this to Trump’s advantage. The time they don’t spend thinking about the Clinton Foundation has to be spent doing something, and it may as well be on how to keep real information coming out of the debates.
It’s been long exposed, but it seems to make no difference. It was my main remembered takeaway from Buzz Patterson’s 2004 book Dereliction of Duty about Bill’s crappy National Security Presidency. (Patterson carried the nuke football for 2 years.)
She banned military uniforms in the WH except for ceremonial duties, insisting on polos and khakis. Junior staff were banned from the hallways as she passed. (One literally dove into the copy room where Patterson was working, barely escaping being caught in sight).
As oft-noted with her Secret Service “valets,” she treated all WH military with disdain.
In one anecdote, her self-possessed imperial temperament was exposed when she demanded Marine One turn around on a trip to Andrews AFB, as she had forgotten her favorite sunglasses. When informed that security concerns made it impossible to break away from the other two decoy choppers, she nearly busted a blood vessel (or maybe she did!). IIRC, she (vainly) promised heads would roll over that.
Good point. We shall see how the games work out.
I first saw Social D at Tipitinas in New Orleans. Mike Ness dodged a thrown beer bottle and didn’t stop playing his guitar.
I don’t think America likes horrible spoiled bosses.
And yet, certain “conservatives” around here are with her. Makes me sick.
That probably wouldn’t stop the press from “anonymous sourcing” the stories if they were there.
Now there’s a ringing endorsement!
It’s possible that Trump will try to make the debate about her lying and corruption, and she will try to make it about his various remarks such as the Mexican judge, the Kahn family, and much else. If that’s what happens that would be too bad, and might actually hurt the candidate that starts up with these tactics.
A debate that focused on the issues of national security, the economy, race relations, the debt, etc., would be much more illuminating and worthwhile. It might do Trump good to refrain from calling her “Crooked Hillary” during the debates. Recall that he routinely called his Republican opponents “Little Marco,” and “Lyin’ Ted” during those debates. It’s one of the reasons why I can’t vote for him. That approach will, I believe, turn off most of the undecided voters in the general election.
Trump needs, above all else, to demonstrate that he actually does have the temperament and intelligence to be president. He could easily blow this chance if he instead focuses on being an attack dog.
Interesting article by Charles Hugh Smith on elections having little to do with the candidates running and is more a referendum on the sitting president. If true, Clinton loses.
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-by-landslide.html
I can think of two cases that shed light on this question.
When Bill Clinton finished his second term the economy seemed to be doing very well (although a recession was beginning, no one knew it), the federal budget was in surplus (I give credit to the Republican Congress, but still) national security issues were looking really good (not much going on in the Middle East and no terrorism to speak of, yet), the tech bubble hadn’t burst, Enron hadn’t happened yet, and all was looking pretty good. Of course, there was the impeachment.
But Gore lost to GW Bush, a fairly weak candidate, in what was essentially a tie vote. My take on his loss is that he did not connect with people, regardless of how much they liked the previous president. Although, without the Clinton scandals, who knows.
Richard Nixon lost in another tie vote after two decent terms of Eisenhower . These were years of peace and prosperity and a growing middle class. But Nixon didn’t have Kennedy’s charisma. And even if Kennedy stole the election, if it was a referendum on the previous presidency, Nixon should have won in a walk.
In an interview Steve Wynn, another real estate guy, said much the same thing. He thinks something happens to Trump when in front of a large crowd. He gets going and can’t quite stop himself. But in a normal business meeting he is apparently a great listener, polite, etc.
Still, we vote for what we see more than what more expert testimony tells us, I think.
Ditto.
It’s true that the candidate should be careful about being the attack dog, but if he isn’t going to clean up the crime and corruption, what’s the point of winning? Bush refused to say he wouldn’t let Clinton’s corrupt practices occur on his watch; it still makes me throw up every time I think of it.