Donald Trump would be nowhere without the aid of a complicit Republican Party that has been scheming for decades to do exactly what they are doing now.
Donald Trump would be nowhere without the aid of a complicit Republican Party that has been scheming for decades to do exactly what they are doing now.
From the first impeachment case during which evidence established that Trump attempted to rig the election -- it did not matter. Why? The Republican Senators/Judges knew that Trump has tried to rig the election by attempting to get the Ukrainian government to lie but – ‘After all, he (Trump) was giving the Republican Senator judges what they wanted and permitting them to run the country as they wished’. (Letter)
Why kill the golden goose/orange man?
It was back then, when only one Republican Senator/Judge, Romney, voted to impeach – we could figure out where the country was headed.
The leaders of the Republican Party had abandoned the rule of law.
‘After World War II, political philosopher Hannah Arendt explained that lies are central to the rise of authoritarianism. In place of reality, authoritarians lie to create a “fictitious world through consistent lying.” Ordinary people embraced such lies because they believed everyone lied anyhow, and if caught trusting a lie, they would “take refuge in cynicism,” saying they had known all along they were being lied to and admiring their leaders “for their superior tactical cleverness.” But leaders embraced the lies because they reinforced those leaders’ superiority, and gave them power, over those who did believe them.’ (Letter)
In a review of journalist Maggie Haberman’s just released book about Trump called, The Confidence Man, readers will learn how Trump polished his Art of Lying.
‘Trump eventually came to understand that he could use his own raw, outer-borough resentments to feed the public’s latent anger against the politically correct snootiness of the establishment media. When he cried, “Fake news,” they believed him. During the 2016 presidential campaign, I continually interviewed people who loved Trump because “he sounds like us.”
‘…somehow, in a miracle of salesmanship, the way Trump’s supporters saw him became identical with the way he hoped to be seen.’ (NYTimesBookReview)
Trump had captured a large slice of the American people – hook, line, and sinker. The Republicans would not give that up.
At the end of the first impeachment case “one brave man,” Representative Adam Schiff’ recalled, “had validated my belief and that of the Founders, that the people possessed sufficient virtue to be self-governing.” (Letter)
The leaders of the Republican Party had abandoned the rule of law.
I have heard both “he talks like us” and “he gets us” from people I thought were reasonably intelligent people of integrity. I remember a conversation I had with a former coworker after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced; I asked him how he felt about that, having both a wife and a daughter. He said “I don’t like it, but it’s just talk.” I pressed the issue, and asked what he’d do if he was investigating a sexual assault and his suspect replied with something similar; without batting an eye he said “I’d think there was pc (probable cause) behind that”. I then asked why it was “just talk” for someone running for president, but “pc” in an investigation. He really didn’t have an answer.
White men, particularly of a certain age I think, have not been made to understand what women and minorities deal with. In fact, the limitations placed on me as a female were subconscious to ME for so long. When it's something you grow up with and it keeps getting reinforced by everyone around you, what's happening in society and the news, but never challenged, you just accept it. A vote for Trump was a vote against the safety of and respect for your wife, daughters, mother, granddaughters, grandmothers, female friends.
That is why I get so sad when I see the angry, contorted faces of all the females at his rallies or being interviewed..and even women I interact with here where I live. Do they really think their lives as females will be improved? Respected? It’s just beyond me
It's always puzzled me when I see any women at T**** rallies (and the press does cover them entirely too much - I would rather they were completely ignored) - I see them and I wonder "Why are they there holding those signs? Do they not know what he is?"
Ally, I will read The Confidence Man and not just because I'm a Queens (Bronx, Bklyn, Manhattan) gal, but it sounds as though Haberman got him. She also calls TFP a genius (believe it!) Maggie's got NYC in her blood. She interviewed TFP 3X.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure if you read the book or you're going on what someone else is saying about it. I don't see anything in Fern's comment above about support from NY'ers. The "he sounds like us" I do not believe is NY'ers but people around the country who have a similar anger/resentment. I think Haberman is saying his attitude was born and developed as a result of his home, but he took that out into the country at large to gain support.
Dave, The issue is not about whether you insulted us it, rather it is about the facts of the matter. He gained The Art of the Lie on a large scale, at rallies, not in NYC, but he learned a lot here as well but in other areas. As they say, 'Read the book!'
I’ve always thought that ridiculous reason to vote for someone. I don’t want someone just like me! I want someone much more knowledgeable, competent, experienced, etc.
His supporters shrug at his behavior because he’s a rich, white man. What if he were a Democrat, thrice married, publicly cheated on all of his wives, and gets caught on tape saying he grabs women by the pu…. How would they respond if he were a Black man? The hypocrisy makes my head spin.
Today, in the NYTimes' newsletter The Morning, here's what Maggie Haberman told David Leonhardt about whether she thinks TFP will run in '24.
'Maggie: I think Trump misses the pomp and legal protections that the presidency afforded him. I also think he wants revenge on Biden, and on the media, and on a whole range of people. And he wants to be able to continue to raise money and get attention, both of which disappear if he doesn’t run. What I’m not clear on is that he really wants to wage another campaign, in part because he’s that much older and in part because he seems less engaged generally. But that will reveal itself in the coming weeks or months.'
It was possible to know the truth, I got it; republicans not only abandoned the rule of law, they abandoned common sense and any pretense of integrity, by looking outside and seeing a storm and declaring clear weather.
Excellent commentary, Fern. The LIES & THE RULE OF LAW seem to be intertwined in a vicious, endless cycle indeed. BTW, I saw an interview with Haberman yesterday morning. She is brilliant, and exemplifies the type of journalism that used to be the standard we expected. Can’t wait to read her book!
Ha!! I think you are so absolutely right. Just from the clips I have heard, she is low key and keeps her voice incredibly even, non- threatening. She seemed to lull him down the road of revealing himself. Somewhere he said he liked her because it was like "talking to a psychiatrist." While I think Mary Trump has a unique understanding of the young Donald, Maggie Haberman may have the best grasp yet of Donald the older man!
"Any news organization with a functioning ethical compass would have understood that Maggie Haberman had a conflict with regard to covering Trump because of her family’s long-standing financial connections and relationship to the Kushner family. The New York Times didn’t see it that way. They saw opportunity. They saw a chance to take the inside lane, and make an access play. With that decision, a new journalistic era began at The New York Times that has broadly affected political coverage over these last years. It has ended with the destruction of the Watergate ethic and the reputation of the American media in the eyes of the American people, who despise them. Survey after survey testifies to the collapse of belief and trust in everyday people when it comes to what is reported to them by the media.
What is Maggie Haberman’s job? Supposedly, a journalist’s job is to report the news without fear or favor.
Ms. Haberman learned that Donald Trump had taken classified information from the White House to Mar-a-Lago in 2021. This was vital and important information that was withheld from the American people for her book and to make money — and with the permission of The New York Times editors. It is shameful conduct. It is scandalous conduct. America’s political reporters are, broadly speaking, the anchors around the ankles of the journalists who are risking their lives all around the world to reveal the truth. They certainly have no type of moral standing, and despite whatever delusions some may have, they hold no priesthood status in our free society."
Thx, Chips: I was reading these comments to see if anyone had posted the link to his substack post. Per Schmidt, Haberman is no different than Barr, & too many others, who are more interested in the sale of their books than reporting in real time, when it might benefit our country & we the people. Maggie had a lot of important information that she just sat on, including knowledge of t’s cache of presidential documents, preferring to fill her & t’s description of her role as his “psychiatrist.”
“This was vital and important information that was withheld from the American people for her book and to make money — and with the permission of The New York Times editors.” I don’t mean to defend her. Yes, but I don’t imagine Haberman was the only one who knew and “withheld” this information. The archivists at NARA knew, but they had their reasons not to report it early on. If the issue of documents tfg absconded with had come out at the same time as the January 6 business, maybe the public awareness of each would have diminished. Or, TFG dominating the news on two fronts vs. Biden doing his job.
FERN MCBRIDE (NYC) - "In a review of journalist Maggie Haberman’s just released book about Trump called, The Confidence Man, readers will learn how Trump polished his Art of Lying."
Ron, Always lending a hand and contributing good ideas. Thank you. I have a tip for you. Open the comment to edit; eliminate the tail of the link until you reach the ? and stop there. We'll then have more space and free of the mumbo-jumbo, not meant for us. Cheers, Ron, and thanks again.
I couldn't test it, Fern, since I'm a digital subscriber. Have you for sure verified with non-subscribers that they can read such gifts without the tail?
Mim, I have posted and clicked tailless links (NY Times) countless times. Have communicated this to Ron and left at least one reply to you concerning your question
Yes, I'm a subscriber! But anyone can open a gifted link and as I have indicated a number of times, post the link through the? as it is gifted it will open. The tail has no value and unnecessary for anyone using a gifted link.
Fern, okay, let me more clearly (I hope) state my understanding. The code that allows a non-subscriber to access the article is enclosed in the "tail" -- without the code they would be blocked by the Paywall. If one is a subscriber, access is, of course, available with or without the "tail."
This is why I said I, personally, as a subscriber, cannot confirm that the tailless URL would allow a non-subscriber access. If you are a subscriber, you cannot either. (There is probably a way around that involving the use of a computer that you are not logged in with -- without cookies identifying you.)
Fern, I convinced myself that the "tail" contained the "Gift" code, so left it on. Let's try it without the "Tail" and see. (I can't, personally, check since I have access anyway.)
Mim Eisenberg, Yeah, I am still confused about the "unlocked article code=..." contained in the "tail." Again, I am unable to confirm the tailless version since I have a subscription to the NYT. Can I assume those that say it works without the "tail" do not subscribe?
Mimi, I apologize for not realizing at first why you wanted to know if I was a subscriber You knew that as a subscriber to the NY Times, I could not claim that the gifted link without the tail worked for non-subscribers. I have tested this with non-subscribers in the past, and I know in this case at least one posted that the tailless link worked for them. I hope all is understandable now. Salud!
An argument can be made that reading skills are essential for a democracy to function, whereas visual and auditory skills favor authoritarianism. Reading is a two or three step process where sight translates written language into mental imagery based on the mind and education of the reader, which acts as a filter. Visual graphics, i.e. film or video, bypass the cognitive filter of the cerebral cortex and pass straight through to the amygdala, which governs emotions. Losing the filter means losing the ability to think. The voice of the authoritarian competes with the voice in our head. Trump has perfected the huckster's pitch, sing-song, and familiar. We realize afterwards that Trump has been lying his ass off, but the amygdalain part of us wants to hear Trump's spiel because he's so entertaining. His is the voice and sound of seduction. He succeeds because his voice lives entirely in the present, with no consistency with either the past or the future. It's like a movie where the character's attention is drawn to a newspaper or letter, often for no longer a second or two on the screen. The letter or newspaper page is a prop on which anything can be written. The images fly by like a road sign seen through the window of a car or a train. The sign is seen but not comprehended, and we're asked to accept on faith that it says what the characters tell us it says. Filtering is hard, and thinking is harder. The dissonance makes thinking all but impossible. This is why driving while texting or carrying on a phone conversation is the equivalent of a DUI. Distracted driving is the same as distracted thinking. And the Republican Party's modus operandi is the same as putting us all on a roller coaster while we're trying to figure out what they are pitching, and whether any of it is true.
Arthur, Your cognitive tour stirred my pre-frontal cortex, left brain, amygdala...while unable to map it all out, I applaud your brainy depiction of authoritarianism and Trump. It was so unlike the poor English used to mock him. At the end, I imagined Trump reading your tour description out loud to himself. It's not The Apprentice; that's for sure.
Glad you liked it. I cannot imagine Trump reading anything. He writes as though he is about fifteen or sixteen years of age. Trump's niece, Mary Trump, would say much the same thing, but more colorfully and in greater detail.
Maggie is interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning this week. Available on Paramount+, likely elsewhere. Her calm assessment of Trump’s character is remarkable. Her declaration of him seeming a bit lost and “diminished” since 2020 quite heartening.
Arthur, Where was the Republican party bc Trump? Why have they completely abandoned The Rule of Law? He captured millions -- so their political toilet and the electoral college are one.
Donald Trump would be nowhere without the aid of a complicit Republican Party that has been scheming for decades to do exactly what they are doing now.
LIES & THE RULE OF LAW
From the first impeachment case during which evidence established that Trump attempted to rig the election -- it did not matter. Why? The Republican Senators/Judges knew that Trump has tried to rig the election by attempting to get the Ukrainian government to lie but – ‘After all, he (Trump) was giving the Republican Senator judges what they wanted and permitting them to run the country as they wished’. (Letter)
Why kill the golden goose/orange man?
It was back then, when only one Republican Senator/Judge, Romney, voted to impeach – we could figure out where the country was headed.
The leaders of the Republican Party had abandoned the rule of law.
‘After World War II, political philosopher Hannah Arendt explained that lies are central to the rise of authoritarianism. In place of reality, authoritarians lie to create a “fictitious world through consistent lying.” Ordinary people embraced such lies because they believed everyone lied anyhow, and if caught trusting a lie, they would “take refuge in cynicism,” saying they had known all along they were being lied to and admiring their leaders “for their superior tactical cleverness.” But leaders embraced the lies because they reinforced those leaders’ superiority, and gave them power, over those who did believe them.’ (Letter)
In a review of journalist Maggie Haberman’s just released book about Trump called, The Confidence Man, readers will learn how Trump polished his Art of Lying.
‘Trump eventually came to understand that he could use his own raw, outer-borough resentments to feed the public’s latent anger against the politically correct snootiness of the establishment media. When he cried, “Fake news,” they believed him. During the 2016 presidential campaign, I continually interviewed people who loved Trump because “he sounds like us.”
‘…somehow, in a miracle of salesmanship, the way Trump’s supporters saw him became identical with the way he hoped to be seen.’ (NYTimesBookReview)
Trump had captured a large slice of the American people – hook, line, and sinker. The Republicans would not give that up.
At the end of the first impeachment case “one brave man,” Representative Adam Schiff’ recalled, “had validated my belief and that of the Founders, that the people possessed sufficient virtue to be self-governing.” (Letter)
The leaders of the Republican Party had abandoned the rule of law.
LIES & THE RULE OF LAW
I have heard both “he talks like us” and “he gets us” from people I thought were reasonably intelligent people of integrity. I remember a conversation I had with a former coworker after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced; I asked him how he felt about that, having both a wife and a daughter. He said “I don’t like it, but it’s just talk.” I pressed the issue, and asked what he’d do if he was investigating a sexual assault and his suspect replied with something similar; without batting an eye he said “I’d think there was pc (probable cause) behind that”. I then asked why it was “just talk” for someone running for president, but “pc” in an investigation. He really didn’t have an answer.
Asking good questions is the ultimate Mic Drop. I’m betting your co-worker avoided you from then on
Pretty much.
White men, particularly of a certain age I think, have not been made to understand what women and minorities deal with. In fact, the limitations placed on me as a female were subconscious to ME for so long. When it's something you grow up with and it keeps getting reinforced by everyone around you, what's happening in society and the news, but never challenged, you just accept it. A vote for Trump was a vote against the safety of and respect for your wife, daughters, mother, granddaughters, grandmothers, female friends.
That is why I get so sad when I see the angry, contorted faces of all the females at his rallies or being interviewed..and even women I interact with here where I live. Do they really think their lives as females will be improved? Respected? It’s just beyond me
It's always puzzled me when I see any women at T**** rallies (and the press does cover them entirely too much - I would rather they were completely ignored) - I see them and I wonder "Why are they there holding those signs? Do they not know what he is?"
It's a pretty bizarre phenomenon. I don't understand it either but all I can think is that people are very complex.
“Celebrity” causes brain fog
Ally, I will read The Confidence Man and not just because I'm a Queens (Bronx, Bklyn, Manhattan) gal, but it sounds as though Haberman got him. She also calls TFP a genius (believe it!) Maggie's got NYC in her blood. She interviewed TFP 3X.
It sounds like Haberman is tactitly painting New Yorkers with a brush that says “we admire a guy who can sell us ice in the Arctic”
Wrong this time, Dave. TFP did badly with NYC voters. Many of us knew who he was decades ago.
I didn’t mean to denigrate New York voters, but rather pointed the comment toward Haberman and her take on how TFP gained support
I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure if you read the book or you're going on what someone else is saying about it. I don't see anything in Fern's comment above about support from NY'ers. The "he sounds like us" I do not believe is NY'ers but people around the country who have a similar anger/resentment. I think Haberman is saying his attitude was born and developed as a result of his home, but he took that out into the country at large to gain support.
Ok, I can see that perspective. He learned his schtick in Queens, took it on the road and his non NYC folk embraced it
Is that closer?
I think that's what she's (MH) saying, or at least what Fern says MH is saying.
Dave, The issue is not about whether you insulted us it, rather it is about the facts of the matter. He gained The Art of the Lie on a large scale, at rallies, not in NYC, but he learned a lot here as well but in other areas. As they say, 'Read the book!'
My comment is directed at Haberman calling him a genius, and as I understood the reference, she said “he talks like us”
I’ve always thought that ridiculous reason to vote for someone. I don’t want someone just like me! I want someone much more knowledgeable, competent, experienced, etc.
Consider this my "heart" since it doesn't appear to be working today!
❤️🍎🍏🍎🌿
His supporters shrug at his behavior because he’s a rich, white man. What if he were a Democrat, thrice married, publicly cheated on all of his wives, and gets caught on tape saying he grabs women by the pu…. How would they respond if he were a Black man? The hypocrisy makes my head spin.
Or, God forbid, wear a tan suit.
That good old double standard.
Today, in the NYTimes' newsletter The Morning, here's what Maggie Haberman told David Leonhardt about whether she thinks TFP will run in '24.
'Maggie: I think Trump misses the pomp and legal protections that the presidency afforded him. I also think he wants revenge on Biden, and on the media, and on a whole range of people. And he wants to be able to continue to raise money and get attention, both of which disappear if he doesn’t run. What I’m not clear on is that he really wants to wage another campaign, in part because he’s that much older and in part because he seems less engaged generally. But that will reveal itself in the coming weeks or months.'
It was possible to know the truth, I got it; republicans not only abandoned the rule of law, they abandoned common sense and any pretense of integrity, by looking outside and seeing a storm and declaring clear weather.
Opportunity returns overrides integrity, especially if the costs are not closely associated with me. Republicans have never paid the price.
Excellent commentary, Fern. The LIES & THE RULE OF LAW seem to be intertwined in a vicious, endless cycle indeed. BTW, I saw an interview with Haberman yesterday morning. She is brilliant, and exemplifies the type of journalism that used to be the standard we expected. Can’t wait to read her book!
Maggie hypnotized him.
Ha!! I think you are so absolutely right. Just from the clips I have heard, she is low key and keeps her voice incredibly even, non- threatening. She seemed to lull him down the road of revealing himself. Somewhere he said he liked her because it was like "talking to a psychiatrist." While I think Mary Trump has a unique understanding of the young Donald, Maggie Haberman may have the best grasp yet of Donald the older man!
I quote Steve Schmidt:
"Any news organization with a functioning ethical compass would have understood that Maggie Haberman had a conflict with regard to covering Trump because of her family’s long-standing financial connections and relationship to the Kushner family. The New York Times didn’t see it that way. They saw opportunity. They saw a chance to take the inside lane, and make an access play. With that decision, a new journalistic era began at The New York Times that has broadly affected political coverage over these last years. It has ended with the destruction of the Watergate ethic and the reputation of the American media in the eyes of the American people, who despise them. Survey after survey testifies to the collapse of belief and trust in everyday people when it comes to what is reported to them by the media.
What is Maggie Haberman’s job? Supposedly, a journalist’s job is to report the news without fear or favor.
Ms. Haberman learned that Donald Trump had taken classified information from the White House to Mar-a-Lago in 2021. This was vital and important information that was withheld from the American people for her book and to make money — and with the permission of The New York Times editors. It is shameful conduct. It is scandalous conduct. America’s political reporters are, broadly speaking, the anchors around the ankles of the journalists who are risking their lives all around the world to reveal the truth. They certainly have no type of moral standing, and despite whatever delusions some may have, they hold no priesthood status in our free society."
https://steveschmidt.substack.com/p/media-corruption-at-the-paper-of?publication_id=836444&post_id=75927083&isFreemail=true
Thx, Chips: I was reading these comments to see if anyone had posted the link to his substack post. Per Schmidt, Haberman is no different than Barr, & too many others, who are more interested in the sale of their books than reporting in real time, when it might benefit our country & we the people. Maggie had a lot of important information that she just sat on, including knowledge of t’s cache of presidential documents, preferring to fill her & t’s description of her role as his “psychiatrist.”
“This was vital and important information that was withheld from the American people for her book and to make money — and with the permission of The New York Times editors.” I don’t mean to defend her. Yes, but I don’t imagine Haberman was the only one who knew and “withheld” this information. The archivists at NARA knew, but they had their reasons not to report it early on. If the issue of documents tfg absconded with had come out at the same time as the January 6 business, maybe the public awareness of each would have diminished. Or, TFG dominating the news on two fronts vs. Biden doing his job.
FERN MCBRIDE (NYC) - "In a review of journalist Maggie Haberman’s just released book about Trump called, The Confidence Man, readers will learn how Trump polished his Art of Lying."
[Gift Link]
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/books/review/confidence-man-donald-trump-maggie-haberman.html?unlocked_article_code=95BgiwX3mYcsGqfxmGaFEZmwTtcxfXZOsZBcNLGb8TimhtYZ0uhXtURKamaCgduaZlRBy6ch2wSaL9IHj8p-IVEvIlCY9kPaW3gnG08NBo-Xa7e4KNiUJgZud-d9ivRHu5xJ6k4sJlEdnE7HzE7QbOy3d4F7wPCCGgeu3wqjOgmfLBi4QC-aeCEDIxNhOmDc_peks6sxEaCm3OYeCI50hnZaxb8a7EPxcKfh9ap1i-OMSHasPEEa5h5_pIJPmmO8scIQtVpgj1HrufxJsnigQGaTDeW_rsWDCQrcyZ8paBYqGcMhgCYRfHbDPa6ExLrM5R1v9wfPCq2FdLMqX9esM288BYy7s3JSyIPlXm7g0-9rdOofSbQHqcoa&smid=share-url
Ron, Always lending a hand and contributing good ideas. Thank you. I have a tip for you. Open the comment to edit; eliminate the tail of the link until you reach the ? and stop there. We'll then have more space and free of the mumbo-jumbo, not meant for us. Cheers, Ron, and thanks again.
Fern, Ron shared a gift link. I believe all the code after the "?" must be included for non-NYT subscribers to be able to read the article.
No, Mim. Works best without the tail.
I couldn't test it, Fern, since I'm a digital subscriber. Have you for sure verified with non-subscribers that they can read such gifts without the tail?
Mim, I have posted and clicked tailless links (NY Times) countless times. Have communicated this to Ron and left at least one reply to you concerning your question
Fern, I believe Mim's question is: are you a subscriber to the NYT?
Yes, I'm a subscriber! But anyone can open a gifted link and as I have indicated a number of times, post the link through the? as it is gifted it will open. The tail has no value and unnecessary for anyone using a gifted link.
Dear Fern,
Only now have you confirmed that you are a subscriber and that the link without a tail will work for everyone. Thanks for that.
Fern, okay, let me more clearly (I hope) state my understanding. The code that allows a non-subscriber to access the article is enclosed in the "tail" -- without the code they would be blocked by the Paywall. If one is a subscriber, access is, of course, available with or without the "tail."
This is why I said I, personally, as a subscriber, cannot confirm that the tailless URL would allow a non-subscriber access. If you are a subscriber, you cannot either. (There is probably a way around that involving the use of a computer that you are not logged in with -- without cookies identifying you.)
Exactly.
I read your comments, Fern, but my question is whether you or others who say the link without the tail works are NYT subscribers or not.
Fern, I convinced myself that the "tail" contained the "Gift" code, so left it on. Let's try it without the "Tail" and see. (I can't, personally, check since I have access anyway.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/books/review/confidence-man-donald-trump-maggie-haberman.html?
That was my understanding, too, Ron.
Mim Eisenberg, Yeah, I am still confused about the "unlocked article code=..." contained in the "tail." Again, I am unable to confirm the tailless version since I have a subscription to the NYT. Can I assume those that say it works without the "tail" do not subscribe?
In any event, I can do it either way.
Mimi, I apologize for not realizing at first why you wanted to know if I was a subscriber You knew that as a subscriber to the NY Times, I could not claim that the gifted link without the tail worked for non-subscribers. I have tested this with non-subscribers in the past, and I know in this case at least one posted that the tailless link worked for them. I hope all is understandable now. Salud!
Apology accepted, Fern.
Mim (not Mimi)😉
I did it, and already posted that it works perfectly without the tail. You'll have a beautiful tailless link. I've done this many times. Cheers!
That worked!
Works beautifully without the tail. Lose that tail! Thanks, Ron.
An argument can be made that reading skills are essential for a democracy to function, whereas visual and auditory skills favor authoritarianism. Reading is a two or three step process where sight translates written language into mental imagery based on the mind and education of the reader, which acts as a filter. Visual graphics, i.e. film or video, bypass the cognitive filter of the cerebral cortex and pass straight through to the amygdala, which governs emotions. Losing the filter means losing the ability to think. The voice of the authoritarian competes with the voice in our head. Trump has perfected the huckster's pitch, sing-song, and familiar. We realize afterwards that Trump has been lying his ass off, but the amygdalain part of us wants to hear Trump's spiel because he's so entertaining. His is the voice and sound of seduction. He succeeds because his voice lives entirely in the present, with no consistency with either the past or the future. It's like a movie where the character's attention is drawn to a newspaper or letter, often for no longer a second or two on the screen. The letter or newspaper page is a prop on which anything can be written. The images fly by like a road sign seen through the window of a car or a train. The sign is seen but not comprehended, and we're asked to accept on faith that it says what the characters tell us it says. Filtering is hard, and thinking is harder. The dissonance makes thinking all but impossible. This is why driving while texting or carrying on a phone conversation is the equivalent of a DUI. Distracted driving is the same as distracted thinking. And the Republican Party's modus operandi is the same as putting us all on a roller coaster while we're trying to figure out what they are pitching, and whether any of it is true.
Arthur, Your cognitive tour stirred my pre-frontal cortex, left brain, amygdala...while unable to map it all out, I applaud your brainy depiction of authoritarianism and Trump. It was so unlike the poor English used to mock him. At the end, I imagined Trump reading your tour description out loud to himself. It's not The Apprentice; that's for sure.
Glad you liked it. I cannot imagine Trump reading anything. He writes as though he is about fifteen or sixteen years of age. Trump's niece, Mary Trump, would say much the same thing, but more colorfully and in greater detail.
Maggie is interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning this week. Available on Paramount+, likely elsewhere. Her calm assessment of Trump’s character is remarkable. Her declaration of him seeming a bit lost and “diminished” since 2020 quite heartening.
Here's the link to the Maggie Haberman interview:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maggie-haberman-on-donald-trump-confidence-man/
Exactly. That and a little help from Uncle Vlad.
Arthur, least we forget the extention of the Republican Party, the Supreme Court that comes back in session today to trounce our rights.
Arthur, Where was the Republican party bc Trump? Why have they completely abandoned The Rule of Law? He captured millions -- so their political toilet and the electoral college are one.
Media contributed to the rise of tRump. And journalists continue to aid and abet.