It appears the “let Trump be Trump” faction has taken control of his re-election campaign. He certainly doesn’t sound like a candidate who wants to appeal to anyone outside of his cult.
Still, he’s appealing to young white men (per an NBC News piece Sunday night) and misogynistic Black men who don’t believe a woman should be president.
In other words, it will likely be up to progressive American women this Nov if we avoid 45 becoming 47.
I do think we're at that point with Trump. He will say anything and will try to say anything, knowing the more outrageous remarks will get him attention. The Harris team is trying to do rapid reaction to his crazy stuff. I'm interested to see what happens today (Monday) in reaction to Trump's military/Election Day remarks.
That's an interesting point, that Trump just wants attention. He's not used to the other candidate controlling the news cycle, and he can't take not being the center of attention. If Harris can manage to keep the focus on herself, she can push him into saying worse and worse things that will drive away the undecideds and less committed supporters.
I’m curious as well. Interestingly, that story got no traction on the network news on Sunday (or anywhere really, outside of your post) since another guy with a small arsenal was found headed toward a Trump rally.
“Trump’s behavior is Authoritarianism 101. In a 1951 book called The True Believer, political philosopher Eric Hoffer noted that demagogues appeal to a disaffected population whose members feel they have lost the power they previously held, that they have been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people are willing to follow a leader who promises to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again.
But to cement their loyalty, the leader has to give them someone to hate. Who that is doesn't really matter: the group simply has to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters are suffering. Trump has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings by blaming these groups for undermining him.
According to Hoffer, there’s a psychological trick to the way this rhetoric works that makes loyalty to such a leader get stronger as that leader's behavior deteriorates. People who sign on to the idea that they are standing with their leader against an enemy begin to attack their opponents, and in order to justify their attacks, they have to convince themselves that that enemy is not good-intentioned, as they are, but evil. And the worse they behave, the more they have to believe their enemies deserve to be treated badly.
According to Hoffer, so long as they are unified against an enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Indeed, their loyalty will only grow stronger as his behavior becomes more and more extreme. Turning against him would force them to own their own part in his attacks on those former enemies they would now have to recognize as ordinary human beings like themselves.”
All of the issues with those news outlets is similar to many folks only listening to non experts.
While I agree that established media and academia have issues with selectively applying standards. I also see why some folks are rejected. As usual, the critical thinking / analysis is only applied to half the folks.
It’s one of the things I’ve observed about Tucker Carlson, from afar. Bringing the rejected experts on and share their point of view is one thing, but to not question their analysis and conclusions is very poor.
Probably not. It’d be easy enough to deny and say the Ryan show was lying. The NG has enough to focus on that a small reprimand is probably all that’ll happen.
Most of Trump's supporter's don't hear his controversial statements because they are not the focus of conservative media - plus, the ole liberal media has never quite figured out how to report on Trump.
I recently met a woman from Texas who told me she was voting for Trump because she is opposed to abortion. I asked "what about those women in Texas who nearly died because they couldn't get care after their miscarriages due to the abortion laws?". She had no idea what I was talking about. I realized it's because she only watches Fox which of course isn't sharing those stories. Therein lies the problem.
And that is why I think Democrats should routinely push to have their lawmakers go on Fox News, Newsmax, conservative podcasts, etc. at every chance they can get. Just get on there and talk about news of the day which might not be getting through.
I like this idea a lot. It definitely would lead to some uncomfortable interviews for people, but I feel like everything gets so much worse when people stop talking to each other.
I don't think it would lead to uncomfortable situations for any members of Congress. The uncomfortable stuff would be the conservatives who have never had Democrats on their program. Just look at the ease at which Pete Buttigieg handles his Fox News interviews, weaving his talking points into his answers.
The Democrats, mostly in opposition to Cruz, are plastering ads featuring Texan women whose lives were saved by abortions (elsewhere, of course), and talking about women who died because of those laws. They also feature images of powerful state Republicans. I don't watch Fox, so I don't know if those ads are running on Fox, but they're all over the NFL games, and in Texas that's even better.
Luna's change of tune makes me wonder whether divisiveness in the face of an emergency is not playing well among hurricane victims looking to vote soon.
Every “tax cut” the convict is now calling for helps the wealthy and actively hurts everyone else.
No tax on tips? His version is that you can tip your stockbroker (or your favorite scotus criminal) any amount and no taxes needed. Compare that to most tips that never get taxed anyway, and reduces revenues that could help those making so little.
No tax on social security? Unless you take in more than $44,000 a year, you’re not taxed anyway. And guess who has benefits plus other income of more than $44,000 after 62? Not the poor people. So the taxes not taken in from the rich is deducted from all other SS benefits.
No tax on Car loans? Guess who saves more the more expensive the car is.
But the cultists cheer, because they are just that poorly educated. And so stupid they vote against their own interests, their own families interests. But they hate immigrants and blacks and Hispanics Jews and the sick and the poor and those damn commie liberals so much more than they love their own family.
1) OAN says there was no “widespread” fraud found. The insertion of “widespread” fraud has been a media creation for persuasion reasons from the beginning. Any fraud, if it occurred, would likely be limited or isolated to where it would make a difference. 2) Trump was describing election day chaos by radical left, not using the military to go after his enemies. 3) The Federal gov’t uses withholding funding from states for noncompliance to Federal regulations for unrelated things, true? Such as, withholding funding for roads if a state fails to comply with public education requirements. You might just be seeing another example of Trump negotiating. 4) True the [liberal] media does not know how to report on Trump (See #3). Reading Win Bigly or listening to an expert on persuasion is required for understanding Trump.
The terms I've heard are more like "results-changing," or maybe "determinative." Especially when some or most of the fraud that was found was in votes for Trump. Don't forget that: Whenever you go looking at fraud, some of it will be committed for your guy.
Agreed. The system is open to fraud going both ways, it’s designed that way. Otherwise, it could be proven the voting system is secure. Election officials cannot prove the last election was secure nor are safeguards in place to secure it in the future. This is the truth you might not be hearing.
It appears the “let Trump be Trump” faction has taken control of his re-election campaign. He certainly doesn’t sound like a candidate who wants to appeal to anyone outside of his cult.
Still, he’s appealing to young white men (per an NBC News piece Sunday night) and misogynistic Black men who don’t believe a woman should be president.
In other words, it will likely be up to progressive American women this Nov if we avoid 45 becoming 47.
I do think we're at that point with Trump. He will say anything and will try to say anything, knowing the more outrageous remarks will get him attention. The Harris team is trying to do rapid reaction to his crazy stuff. I'm interested to see what happens today (Monday) in reaction to Trump's military/Election Day remarks.
That's an interesting point, that Trump just wants attention. He's not used to the other candidate controlling the news cycle, and he can't take not being the center of attention. If Harris can manage to keep the focus on herself, she can push him into saying worse and worse things that will drive away the undecideds and less committed supporters.
I’m curious as well. Interestingly, that story got no traction on the network news on Sunday (or anywhere really, outside of your post) since another guy with a small arsenal was found headed toward a Trump rally.
The only place I saw this story over the weekend was on the MeidasTouch Network, being reported by Ben Meiselas.
Somewhat interestingly, CNN first posted about the story less than an hour ago, as I tore this.
In an absolute shocker, there is yet no mention of it on Fox News.
Heather Cox Richardson gets it:
“Trump’s behavior is Authoritarianism 101. In a 1951 book called The True Believer, political philosopher Eric Hoffer noted that demagogues appeal to a disaffected population whose members feel they have lost the power they previously held, that they have been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people are willing to follow a leader who promises to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again.
But to cement their loyalty, the leader has to give them someone to hate. Who that is doesn't really matter: the group simply has to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters are suffering. Trump has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings by blaming these groups for undermining him.
According to Hoffer, there’s a psychological trick to the way this rhetoric works that makes loyalty to such a leader get stronger as that leader's behavior deteriorates. People who sign on to the idea that they are standing with their leader against an enemy begin to attack their opponents, and in order to justify their attacks, they have to convince themselves that that enemy is not good-intentioned, as they are, but evil. And the worse they behave, the more they have to believe their enemies deserve to be treated badly.
According to Hoffer, so long as they are unified against an enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Indeed, their loyalty will only grow stronger as his behavior becomes more and more extreme. Turning against him would force them to own their own part in his attacks on those former enemies they would now have to recognize as ordinary human beings like themselves.”
Surely not every aspiring dictator becomes one. Does Hoffer say what can stop the wannabes?
All of the issues with those news outlets is similar to many folks only listening to non experts.
While I agree that established media and academia have issues with selectively applying standards. I also see why some folks are rejected. As usual, the critical thinking / analysis is only applied to half the folks.
It’s one of the things I’ve observed about Tucker Carlson, from afar. Bringing the rejected experts on and share their point of view is one thing, but to not question their analysis and conclusions is very poor.
This is why I enjoy this particular substack.
Your work is very much appreciated, Mr. Dupree.
I followed your link to the Shawn Ryan clip. If I understand correctly, the false information came from a National Guard officer?! WTH?
That's what it sounds like to me.
I wonder if the officer involved will face any consequences.
Probably not. It’d be easy enough to deny and say the Ryan show was lying. The NG has enough to focus on that a small reprimand is probably all that’ll happen.
Kudos to Shawn Ryan.
Such off the wall statements from Trump. It's wild this election is close.
Most of Trump's supporter's don't hear his controversial statements because they are not the focus of conservative media - plus, the ole liberal media has never quite figured out how to report on Trump.
I recently met a woman from Texas who told me she was voting for Trump because she is opposed to abortion. I asked "what about those women in Texas who nearly died because they couldn't get care after their miscarriages due to the abortion laws?". She had no idea what I was talking about. I realized it's because she only watches Fox which of course isn't sharing those stories. Therein lies the problem.
And that is why I think Democrats should routinely push to have their lawmakers go on Fox News, Newsmax, conservative podcasts, etc. at every chance they can get. Just get on there and talk about news of the day which might not be getting through.
I like this idea a lot. It definitely would lead to some uncomfortable interviews for people, but I feel like everything gets so much worse when people stop talking to each other.
I don't think it would lead to uncomfortable situations for any members of Congress. The uncomfortable stuff would be the conservatives who have never had Democrats on their program. Just look at the ease at which Pete Buttigieg handles his Fox News interviews, weaving his talking points into his answers.
I would love to see them do it more often. What stops them do you think?
The Democrats, mostly in opposition to Cruz, are plastering ads featuring Texan women whose lives were saved by abortions (elsewhere, of course), and talking about women who died because of those laws. They also feature images of powerful state Republicans. I don't watch Fox, so I don't know if those ads are running on Fox, but they're all over the NFL games, and in Texas that's even better.
Luna's change of tune makes me wonder whether divisiveness in the face of an emergency is not playing well among hurricane victims looking to vote soon.
Every “tax cut” the convict is now calling for helps the wealthy and actively hurts everyone else.
No tax on tips? His version is that you can tip your stockbroker (or your favorite scotus criminal) any amount and no taxes needed. Compare that to most tips that never get taxed anyway, and reduces revenues that could help those making so little.
No tax on social security? Unless you take in more than $44,000 a year, you’re not taxed anyway. And guess who has benefits plus other income of more than $44,000 after 62? Not the poor people. So the taxes not taken in from the rich is deducted from all other SS benefits.
No tax on Car loans? Guess who saves more the more expensive the car is.
But the cultists cheer, because they are just that poorly educated. And so stupid they vote against their own interests, their own families interests. But they hate immigrants and blacks and Hispanics Jews and the sick and the poor and those damn commie liberals so much more than they love their own family.
1) OAN says there was no “widespread” fraud found. The insertion of “widespread” fraud has been a media creation for persuasion reasons from the beginning. Any fraud, if it occurred, would likely be limited or isolated to where it would make a difference. 2) Trump was describing election day chaos by radical left, not using the military to go after his enemies. 3) The Federal gov’t uses withholding funding from states for noncompliance to Federal regulations for unrelated things, true? Such as, withholding funding for roads if a state fails to comply with public education requirements. You might just be seeing another example of Trump negotiating. 4) True the [liberal] media does not know how to report on Trump (See #3). Reading Win Bigly or listening to an expert on persuasion is required for understanding Trump.
There's always an excuse. Or two. Or five. Or ten.
Nicely countered, sir.
There’s nothing that convict can say or do that won’t draw a defense from his cultists. I can’t imagine how sad it is to live that way.
😂
The terms I've heard are more like "results-changing," or maybe "determinative." Especially when some or most of the fraud that was found was in votes for Trump. Don't forget that: Whenever you go looking at fraud, some of it will be committed for your guy.
Agreed. The system is open to fraud going both ways, it’s designed that way. Otherwise, it could be proven the voting system is secure. Election officials cannot prove the last election was secure nor are safeguards in place to secure it in the future. This is the truth you might not be hearing.