Have you noticed how Michael Cohen stuff has pushed down the Helsinki news conference?
Why would Trump say: I don’t know why he wouldn’t?
Trump was putting his own ego lower than Putins.
Now we know that Trump doesn’t have any confidence problems.
Think of Trump’s statement as a hypnotist.
When he says “I don’t know why he would“, he’s getting to motivation. It wasn’t intended to be factual, but persuasive.
Everyone who has evaluated it as a statement of fact, but it’s talking about Putin’s motivations, which he had just changed.
In the meeting, he had just made a big impact on Putin’s motivations.
There is a tit-for-tat-for-tit-for-tat forever.
If Trump removed his reasons and have him a virtual pardon.
Trump did the same thing with Kim Jong Il, he make a better offer. He took the reason away.
CNN covered story of Putin offer to interview 12 indictments, but it was never plausible.
(4 min) The people on the right are nicer to me when they disagree.
Trump departs from the fact checking more aggressively than we’ve seen before, but the results appear to be quite good.
Trump hasn’t broken stuff, which is better than people thought would happen.
It seems to be that Sam’s concern is the departure from the fact is so extreme that it will cause lasting damage. It will cause others to discard facts or cause people to not care about facts.
When Sam says there is a big problem with the Trump Experience I can’t see it because I see Trump as a unique experience. I think that the next President will be a reaction to Trump, like Trump was a reaction to Obama.
Sam’s assumption is wrong, but while his brand is “Rationality”, in the realm of politics, facts don’t matter.
(13 min ) The way people make decisions don’t depend on facts. Politics was always 100% bullshit, so Trump prioritizes winning outcomes in all cases.
Compare that to politicians whose priority is the truth.
In politics, the truth gets your economy in trouble because people loose confidence when you talk truthfully about the problems.
Sam’s prioritization of the truth is valuable in almost all except politics.
(19:55) In politics, there is no truth. There is no process to get there and even if there was, you wouldn’t want it because it wouldn’t be winning (and half the country wouldn’t believe you).
[Tim: since you can’t tell the truth all the times, disregard it completely]
Trump prioritied the Rust Belt states and made sure his message fit there. Hillary Clinton didn’t. She prioritized her gender.
Many Republicans would choose Nikki-Haley (showing that Hillary broke the glass ceiling)
(25 min) You’ve got to give Hillary credit for breaking the glass ceiling.
(14:26) If Putin continued to do the same things with elections in the future (and why would he because he seems to like a President Trump)
The best way to deal with interference is not to talk to that in a press conference. (Its just a good play)
I kind of like Putin’s play to say that we can interview the 12 Indicted hackers if he can interview Americans. (Uninformed)
And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.
People often vote against things instead of voting for them: against ideas, candidates and parties. Democrats, like Republicans, appreciate this whenever they portray their opponents as negatively as possible. But members of political tribes seem to have trouble recognizing that they, too, can push people away and energize them to vote for the other side. Nowhere is this more on display today than in liberal control of the commanding heights of American culture.
.. Liberals dominate the entertainment industry, many of the most influential news sources and America’s universities. This means that people with progressive leanings are everywhere in the public eye — and are also on the college campuses attended by many people’s children or grandkids. These platforms come with a lot of power to express values, confer credibility and celebrity and start national conversations that others really can’t ignore.
But this makes liberals feel more powerful than they are. Or, more accurately, this kind of power is double-edged. Liberals often don’t realize how provocative or inflammatory they can be. In exercising their power, they regularly not only persuade and attract but also annoy and repel.
In fact, liberals may be more effective at causing resentment than in getting people to come their way. I’m not talking about the possibility that jokes at the 2011 correspondents’ association dinner may have pushed Mr. Trump to run for president to begin with. I mean that the “army of comedy” that Michael Moore thought would bring Mr. Trump down will instead be what builds him up in the minds of millions of voters.
.. Some liberals have gotten far out ahead of their fellow Americans but are nonetheless quick to criticize those who haven’t caught up with them.
.. Liberals denounce “cultural appropriation” without, in many cases, doing the work of persuading people that there is anything wrong with, say, a teenager not of Chinese descent wearing a Chinese-style dress to prom or eating at a burrito cart run by two non-Latino women.
.. Pressing a political view from the Oscar stage, declaring a conservative campus speaker unacceptable, flatly categorizing huge segments of the country as misguided — these reveal a tremendous intellectual and moral self-confidence that smacks of superiority. It’s one thing to police your own language and a very different one to police other people’s. The former can set an example. The latter is domineering.
.. This judgmental tendency became stronger during the administration of President Barack Obama, though not necessarily because of anything Mr. Obama did. Feeling increasingly emboldened, liberals were more convinced than ever that conservatives were their intellectual and even moral inferiors.
.. college campuses — which many take to be what a world run by liberals would look like — seemed increasingly intolerant of free inquiry.
.. It was during these years that the University of California included the phrase “America is the land of opportunity” on a list of discouraged microaggressions.
.. Champions of inclusion can watch what they say and explain what they’re doing without presuming to regulate what words come out of other people’s mouths. Campus activists can allow invited visitors to speak and then, after that event, hold a teach-in discussing what they disagree with. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that states had to allow same-sex marriage, the fight, in some quarters, turned to pizza places unwilling to cater such weddings. Maybe don’t pick that fight?
.. Liberals can act as if they’re not so certain — and maybe actually not be so certain — that bigotry motivates people who disagree with them on issues like immigration.
.. Without sacrificing their principles, liberals can come across as more respectful of others. Self-righteousness is rarely attractive, and even more rarely rewarded.
.. many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable.
.. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to “superpredators.”
Liberals are trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. When they use their positions in American culture to lecture, judge and disdain, they push more people into an opposing coalition that liberals are increasingly prone to think of as deplorable. That only validates their own worst prejudices about the other America.
Correct. Trump is really good at “driving a media agenda.” He takes bold, beyond-the-Overton-window positions; he gets combative in interviews, he insults critics, he insists solutions are simple and that only a conspiracy of the malevolent and foolish stands in the way of enacting them.
.. I used to joke that Bill Clinton was the only guy who could distract attention from a fundraising scandal by getting into a sex scandal.
.. Trump figured out how to overload the system, generating so many headline-grabbing surprises, controversies and personnel changes that few if any really had the time to leave a lasting impression.
.. just during a couple months in the campaign, we saw Trump contending that a federal judge couldn’t rule fairly because “he’s a Mexican;” mock Carly Fiorina’s face; get into a war of words with a slain soldier’s father. Any one of those would have defined and politically destroyed a lesser-known figure.
.. Think about how Obama and the Democrats spent almost all of 2009 and a chunk of 2010 focused on what became Obamacare. But the amount of consistent focus — and presidential persuasion — needed to pass a legislative agenda is completely different from the amount needed to dominate a news cycle.
Every time it seems the president has zeroed in on an issue, and appears determined to see it through — guns and immigration are just the two latest examples — he moves on to something else. And Congress, which isn’t designed to respond swiftly to national events and the wishes of the White House even in the least distracted of circumstances, simply can’t keep up.
The constant whiplash of priorities is getting on lawmakers’ nerves.
“It’s unbelievable to me,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “The attention span just seems to be. . . it’s a real problem.”