Each day has a theme, expressed in the form of the campaign slogan with the word "great" replaced by another simple word, safe/work/first/one*:
Monday: Make America Safe Again....The first speaker on the first night is... who else?... Willie Robertson, the star of "Duck Dynasty."
Tuesday: Make America Work Again....
Wednesday: Make America First Again....
Thursday: Make America One Again....
I couldn't figure out who, if anyone, is the "keynote" speaker.
__________________________
* Maybe Trump has the same idea as Randall Munroe, author of "Thing Explainer: Complicated Stuff in Simple Words" ("In Thing Explainer, he uses... only the thousand (or, rather, 'ten hundred') most common words to provide simple explanations for some of the most interesting stuff there is....").
Posts
119 comments:
When was the last time someone ran for president saying: "Everything's the best it can reasonably be, under the circumstances, and by God, I intend to keep it that way!!!"
Meanwhile, Frank Luntz continues to ventriloquize via his "undecided" focus group. Have they ever said anything original, anything that isn't just a banal regurgitation of media cant?
Has there ever been an election where the muddled middle didn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
Trump stole the Supreme Court nomination from Obama when he identified his potential candidates. There are reports that he will identify cabinet members during the convention.
Genius.
He forces Hillary to do the same. Pass the popcorn!!
"the pieces everything is made of (the periodic table)" This must be why the explainer doesn't explain things very well.
Who would Hillary nominate for SCOTUS? Name names. Now.
Unfortunately I only trust people who liberally employ sesquipedalian loquaciousness.
I believe the National Review writers are going to need heavy sedation and daily anger management therapy session when the RNC is over.
Clint Eastwood is the only speaker I can remember from the last GOP convention.
This will be a good week to work on my golf game.
Sales (or persuasion) 101.... Gear your presentation to the level of understanding that your client possesses. Don't talk over their heads to make yourself look smart. It only makes them feel dumb and they won't like you. Explain complicated ideas in common terms and use analogies. Talk in terms that can be understood.
If your client is sophisticated, then use concepts and terms that are on that level. If not, then adjust your presentation.
Trump is a master at this.
(edited for dopey typos)
Trump stole the Supreme Court nomination from Obama when he identified his potential candidates. There are reports that he will identify cabinet members during the convention.
Potential being the operative word.
What mccullough said at 940 AM bears repeating. Clint and the chair. Romney talked too. Other than that? Best forgotten, like all Convention speeches.
"I couldn't figure out who, if anyone, is the "keynote" speaker."
Trump, who coincidentally will also be the first to put his own name in for nomination.
>
"Gear your presentation to the level of understanding that your client possesses. Don't talk over their heads to make yourself look smart. It only makes them feel dumb and they won't like you. Explain complicated ideas in common terms and use analogies. Talk in terms that can be understood."
Or since many already dislike Trump and he's basically preaching to the choir ...
>
>
>
Wait for it.
>
>
>
Talk about Hillary and Bill.
>
As always, no charge for my keen grasp of the obvious!
"Who would Hillary nominate for SCOTUS? Name names. Now."
Ok, here goes:
--William Ayres
--Angela Davis
--Bernadine Dohrn
--Mumia Abul Jamal
Re: Dust Bunny Queen:
If your client is sophisticated, then use concepts and terms that are on that level. If not, then adjust your presentation.
Trump is a master at this.
Yes, at the cost of looking kind of dopey himself, he goes all in. Obama, at least, when he trotted out brain-dead slogans like "Yes we can!" felt a bit abashed.
Thursday: Make America One Again....
I guess he wants to aim high, but this is hopeless. It's a mistake to announce this as a goal. It moves responsibility such that you fail because the other side is nuts. Note W who both ran and governed as a uniter. Does anyone believe he's generally remembered as successful because of it?
That Eastwood bit was painful to watch. As a huge fan of his work I was embarrassed for him. It dragged on and on too.
But you know, we all get old.
Could anything be more boring than listening to either convention? These things exist in order for party members to meet and duh, have a party. All the important stuff is done in hotel room meetings. The RNC may have more stupid stuff to talk about, whereas the DNC will be the same old same old.
Are you going to watch much of it
Only if someone breaks into my house, puts a shotgun to my head, and forces me.
Why in the world would I want to subject myself to that?
I like Willie Robertson. I think I'll watch.
There are going to be at least two speakers from Wisconsin I think. Isn't Walker speaking and the sheriff?
I think I'd e joy the sheriff. Not sure that Walker won't put me to sleep.
Michael Brown knocked over a convenience store then tried to kill a cop.
The DNC is having his mom speak at their convention.
I'm not going to watch the Republican Convention nor am I going to watch the Democrat Convention unless there is rioting and then only for the entertainment value. I am going to vote for the candidate that isn't a an FBI certified liar, grifter, criminal and traitor but I don't have to do more than that.
I hope you are recording on C-SPAN. I learned my lesson in 2012 that the only channel on which to watch the full convention unfiltered by the biased press is via C-SPAN.
The sheriff was on Lemon at CNN.. Must watch.
The conventions are basically a circle-jerk for the faithful. It enlightens no one, converts no one, and convinces no one that was not already convinced.
The ONLY thing the RNC convention does is give the Demos and the MSM (I know, I repeat myself) fresh ammunition with which to attack them.
Lauderdale Vet said...
Michael Brown knocked over a convenience store then tried to kill a cop.
The DNC is having his mom speak at their convention.
7/18/16, 10:09 AM"
Why not? The party that has criminals as one of its core constituencies should honor the mother of a criminal at a convention to nominate a criminal.
Blogger pm317 said...
The sheriff was on Lemon at CNN.. Must watch.
Yep. There is a full 9 min clip on YouTube.
Wish our Republican politicians spoke like him.
"I am going to vote for the candidate who isn't a an FBI certified liar, grifter, criminal and traitor ..."
So you're voting for Hillary!
I've never watched a convention and I don't plan to start. It seems to me watching a political party's convention in 2016 is like watching bad reality TV. It's just embarrassing. I'm so sick of all this theater. But people whom I assume know better seem to think this grotesquerie is still necessary though.
I'm just glad I don't have to actually watch it since various bloggers and political analysts can cherry pick all the interesting stuff.
How about we Make America Boring Again. Just for a few years.
The Donald's Duck Dynasty begins. Thank God it's not Prophet Ted Cruz that Phil Robertson fell for.
Willie Robertson is a smart man.
So is Trump.
He is counting on lefty sneers when Willie speaks.
Donald Duck Dynasty. Will Disney sue?
I can't wait for Tuesday when Paris Hilton wannabe Tiffany Trump is speaking.
Ducks' Lives Matter.
Dark Ducks' Lives Dark Matter.
Anti-duck Lives Anti-matter.
Now to come up with some chords and a hook.
Currently having no Fox News access, I would be forced to watch the Convention through a hostile lens. I would like to hear Robertson's speech, though. The Duck Dynasty family has intelligence, wit and wisdom. The country could learn a lot from them.
"Thing Explainer: Complicated Stuff in Simple Words" ("In Thing Explainer, he uses... only the thousand (or, rather, 'ten hundred') most common words"
"Thousand" is on two lists of the 1,000 most common words, but "complicated" isn't in either.
RE: David:
How about we Make America Boring Again. Just for a few years.
"Return to Normalcy" lost resoundingly in 2012.
Re: mockturtle:
Currently having no Fox News access, I would be forced to watch the Convention through a hostile lens. I would like to hear Robertson's speech, though. The Duck Dynasty family has intelligence, wit and wisdom. The country could learn a lot from them
Is the RNC or the Trump campaign or whoever is nominally in charge of festivities not streaming the convention? That seems dumb. You'd think they'd want at least one camera they control, and preferably six or seven so they can change up camera angles. You know, a couple area shots, a tight focus on the speaker's upper torso from close and below, a couple cameras for panning and zooming. Some B-roll of the convention venue. You know.
Blogger shiloh said...
"I am going to vote for the candidate who isn't a an FBI certified liar, grifter, criminal and traitor ..."
So you're voting for Hillary!
7/18/16, 10:30 AM"
No I'm voting against Hillary. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. And are delusional as well. Seek help immediately for both of your problems. Life is much easier when you live in reality.
Balfegor said...
7/18/16, 11:10 AM
You are not only right but heck, why do they even let the media in? Allow each station that want to, setup one camera, period. No journalists allowed, just the camera guy and he is not to talk to anyone.
The RNC will never get a honest showing through the MSM so why continue to play that game? Side step them. They are not your friend. They are not fair or honest. The best you can hope for is to limit the damage they can cause.
This ties in perfectly with Scott [I can't endorse Trump because that would be life-threatening] Adams's concepts of Trump as the master persuader.
knighterrant said...
I can't wait for Tuesday when Paris Hilton wannabe Tiffany Trump is speaking.
7/18/16, 10:47 AM"
Trump's kid is a UPenn graduate so she isn't a dummy. She probably is smarter than Chelsea Clinton and without a doubt classier than Paris Hilton and also without a doubt doesn't have a mother who is a criminal and traitor. In the meantime that party of criminals is having who on their roster of speakers?
It's Marketing 101. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
When I was young, my parents taught me that a truly intelligent person is able to explain complicated things to people who are less intelligent than they. If you cannot do so, you're not really that intelligent.
That Eastwood bit was painful to watch. As a huge fan of his work I was embarrassed for him. It dragged on and on too.
It was also spot-on accurate about Obama.
The RNC will never get a honest showing through the MSM so why continue to play that game? Side step them. They are not your friend. They are not fair or honest. The best you can hope for is to limit the damage they can cause.
Force pool reporting of the Convention.
Ok, here goes:
--William Ayres
--Angela Davis
--Bernadine Dohrn
--Mumia Abul Jamal
You left out the most obvious: Highest Bidder.
"Clint Eastwood is the only speaker I can remember from the last GOP convention."
You missed Christie's "let me tell you why I'm so great" speech that was apparently supposed to help Romney. And then everyone acted surprised when Christie practically endorsed Obama the week before election day.
"That Eastwood bit was painful to watch. As a huge fan of his work I was embarrassed for him. It dragged on and on too."
I cringed watching it--they really should have worked on that in rehearsal. Maybe done it with a photo of Obama or something. Instead it sort of came off as a mix of corny and "does he know what he's doing up there?" which is odd because Clint is very much in his senses and has a good sense of humor.
Sadly I have a feeling Trump will be on good behavior, and while it may be the smart move it will be less entertaining for me than seeing a good stream of consciousness rant. The DNC I expect to be boring as usual.
Balfegor: Is the RNC or the Trump campaign or whoever is nominally in charge of festivities not streaming the convention?
Perhaps, but I live in a small RV and have limited data.
Sara Palin's Veep acceptance speech at the 2008 RNC was brilliant and until the eGOP heavies beat her into submission and Mau-Maued the nominal head of the ticket to smother her with a pillow (he folded like the proverbial $20 suit), resulted instantly in the McCain Palin candidacy seizing the lead in polling for a couple of weeks. Of course it was written by a pro speechwriter, but it completely presaged the latent upwelling rage of the bitter clingers which brought to where we are now. For better or for worse. It's on Youtube, go find it and watch it. Maybe even twice!
Make America America again
"Sara Palin's Veep acceptance speech at the 2008 RNC was brilliant and until the eGOP heavies beat her into submission and Mau-Maued the nominal head of the ticket to smother her with a pillow (he folded like the proverbial $20 suit), resulted instantly in the McCain Palin candidacy seizing the lead in polling for a couple of weeks. Of course it was written by a pro speechwriter, but it completely presaged the latent upwelling rage of the bitter clingers which brought to where we are now. For better or for worse. It's on Youtube, go find it and watch it. Maybe even twice!"
Her convention speech was excellent but quite clearly she was not prepped properly for the two upcoming televised interviews in which she flailed. Perhaps you could blame Charlie Gibson for asking the "Bush Doctrine" question (in truth, there was no singular "Bush Doctrine" as many things were given that name, but that's exactly what Palin should have answered with--"which doctrine do you mean, because more than one thing has been called that") but the Couric question was pretty softball (even if you don't read newspapers, make one up! Or say one of your aides reads them for you and gives you briefs so you can collect more info at once).
I've heard this blamed on McCain's team, but never really understood how they made sure she wasn't briefed--if they refused to help her, couldn't she ask her own allies to help, or just refuse the interview until she gets prepped? More likely, she just underestimated the need for prepping, and the fact that once you get labeled a lightweight you can never really overcome it (see Dan Quayle).
I won't get into what she did since that campaign, but the campaign was a lost opportunity for her. She might have been the presumptive nominee for 2012 or 2016 otherwise.
Here's someone who should be on the speakers list, Trump's ghostwriter. In the next couple of months well be hearing from more people who have had dealings with Trump and it won't be pretty.
DONALD TRUMP’S GHOSTWRITER TELLS ALL
The Art of the Deal” made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.
Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’"
Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties. The book was a phenomenal success, spending forty-eight weeks on the Times best-seller list, thirteen of them at No. 1. More than a million copies have been bought, generating several million dollars in royalties. The book expanded Trump’s renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon. Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, Tony created Trump. He’s Dr. Frankenstein.”"
Re: damikesc:
When I was young, my parents taught me that a truly intelligent person is able to explain complicated things to people who are less intelligent than they. If you cannot do so, you're not really that intelligent.
Sorry to be so disrespectful of your parents, but this really sets me off. I feel like people vastly overrate verbal facility as an indicator of intelligence. This attitude seems, to me, to lie at the root of so much that is wrong with the world -- we fall for glibness and superficial clarity as though it is indicative of understanding or intelligence.
I went to an engineering school. And I can easily imagine a situation in which a well-spoken engineer persuades his client in the clearest, most eloquent, most persuasive terms, that his design will work. And then it falls over the next time there's anything stronger than a breeze. Because if you and your audience are working on the verbal level, there is no rigour. Your rigour is completely illusory.
Being able to express and manipulate concepts verbally says nothing more than that you pass the Turing test -- it doesn't mean you understand them or that you are piecing them together in a way that makes sense. There's lots of fools who talk about quantum mechanics, but if they can't do the math -- if their understanding is at that superficial verbal level -- you'd be a fool to take them for anything but light entertainment on the subject.
Sure, someone who's an idiot won't be able to express himself clearly. It does not therefore follow that someone who can express himself clearly is not an idiot. Or that someone who cannot express himself clearly is an idiot or even an unclear thinker. I've had too many inarticulate classmates who were obviously smarter than I am to find that even remotely plausible. As a lawyer, I deal with other lawyers all the time, and there are so many of us who seem to think that expressing things in language is some kind of mark of intelligence (presumably because that is what lawyers are good at, and everyone likes a value hierarchy in which they're at the top and not being able to do math doesn't make them morons).
It's arrant, self-congratulatory nonsense. I think it is completely wrongheaded.
Balfegor fights the Sophists 2,500 years on.
I wish you luck in your battle, Balfegor.
"we fall for glibness and superficial clarity as though it is indicative of understanding or intelligence. "
I can concur here to an extent. My profession over-values talking to a fault. There's a creative director here who is now a "golden boy" because he can "own a room." However, he's lost his last 4 new business pitches because, frankly, he can't recognize good work nor articulate why it's good. He can probably wow clients with bullshit, but when it comes down to brass tacks, he can't execute worth a damn.
I've been here too long, and I've always been too quiet. But I know what the hell I'm doing and I can deliver award-winning work that also works for clients. But I'm always told in every review that I don't talk enough.
To be fair, being able to describe highly complex concepts in a coherent manner that is more understandable to laypeople could be described as a type of intelligence (whatever "intelligence" is). In order to do so with any degree of aptitude and success requires first a deep knowledge of a subject, then an ability to deconstruct it to it's fundamentals and recompile it into a more digestible form. On some level this requires some understanding of the way a normal, non technical person may think and learn, an awareness of how people put things together in their minds.
I agree that an absence of that ability in and of itself is certainly not indicative of a lack of intelligence. I also agree that there are plenty of exploitive charlatans and bullshit artists who are able to sound intelligent when in fact they are simply clever manipulators.
Thanks for posting. My husband is a delegate --- we have 't received any agenda, list of speakers or schedule. But we got on a nice bus, stood in hot sun for only 45 minute security line and made it here with 10 minutes to spare.
@ Balfegor Sorry to be so disrespectful of your parents, but this really sets me off. I feel like people vastly overrate verbal facility as an indicator of intelligence.
Perhaps you misunderstood the remark from Damsics parents. Verbal ability for the sake of verbal ability is not necessarily a good thing. Doing verbal gymnastics without getting your point across to the audience is failure. Being able to see that your 'high falutin' words are missing the mark and then being able to switch to another gear is success. Being understood by your audience and persuading them to your point of view is more important than looking "smart". If you are unable to see that you are missing the mark and unable to change your presentation to match your audience, then you are the one who is not very smart.
Trump is a businessman, an entrepreneur, a salesman, a persuader. Most politicians have some of these characteristics as well. They have to. Cruz is probably one of the smartest guys on the circuit. An exceptional debater. A really intelligent and accomplished mind. However, because he didn't have the ability (or didn't use it) to bring his rhetoric down to a more accessible level, he turned off the public and they tuned him out in most cases. His speeches were lectures.
Toning down your rhetoric doesn't mean that you are talking to dumb people or that you are talking down to them. I means that you realize that your language, terms, rhetoric are not getting through. Using jargon and terms that are not common to your audience means that you are basically wasting your time.
Example: In my practice I had to explain very complicated concepts to my clients. Ones that required math and understanding of economic principles. Most of the time, I needed to be very elementary and use a lot of analogies to get the understanding across. It didn't mean that my clients were dumb...just unfamiliar with the concepts. They knew things that would befuddle me too, like how to adjust a camshaft or overhaul an airplane engine. So...we are even :-)
Occasionally, I would have an engineering minded customer and we could really get into the weeds about process and mathematical concepts. (Sharpe ratios, bond duration calculations, portfolio dynamics etc) I enjoyed those clients, however, had I talked in those terms to my other clients I would have never persuaded anyone to do business with me.
This is Trump. Tailoring his presentation to the crowd he is addressing. Explaining in simple and familiar terms. Broad brush concepts and not getting into the micro details of ..say...currency manipulation. The engineering mind wants to know the details. The rest...not so much
both interviews were heavily edited, into incoherence, katie couric's researcher was also quite ignorant not to find her op ed defending alaska from the epa land grab, richard haas and sam nunn were the ones who briefed couric, the ones least likely to know anything about the Huntress, as it is translated from Russian, also the journolist revealed a visceral distaste by couric, wben she was picked,
David Begley said...
Who would Hillary nominate for SCOTUS? Name names. Now.
--
Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke Jul 14
Great 2talk w/ @NewsWithEd about women's support for @HillaryClinton & why we can't have a bully leading our country
--
Per wiki:
Marianne Schnall writes in What Will It Take to Make A Woman President? that Fluke "has been recognised for her extensive pro bono representation of victims of domestic violence and human trafficking and for her human-rights advocacy efforts in Kenya".[20][pa
We need more peaceful anti-Trump protests along these lines.
When does Mitch Mcconnell light it up?
(I can't wait for him to do that "raisin' the roof" gesture)
Dust Bunny Queen makes some excellent points. Effective communication involves getting information relayed and getting a point across. Most political talk is empty rhetoric that may sound impressive but has no meaning. It is to Trump's credit that we know where he stands on the issues.
Yes Big Mike, more please. Some of those protesters were very..moving.
This will be hot:
Tiffany Trump, Daughter of Donald Trump
Tiffany Trump was born October 13, 1993 to Donald Trump and Marla Maples. Raised in California, she is the second-youngest of Donald Trump’s children. Tiffany graduated from University of Pennsylvania this spring with a double major in sociology and urban studies. She is a fashion model, singer, and influential presence on social media.
Kathryn51 Thanks for posting. My husband is a delegate --- we have 't received any agenda, list of speakers or schedule. But we got on a nice bus, stood in hot sun for only 45 minute security line and made it here with 10 minutes to spare.
Will you be running a blog or anything on the proceedings? Would enjoy hearing your perspective.
One thing you can count on from the GOP Convention is plenty of "simple words."
The speeches by Ann Romney at the 2012 RNC graded out to seven grade levels lower than the speech by Michelle Obama at the 2012 DNC, when subjected to the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. That's just one example.
You may not like politicians, but they do know their audiences. The GOP will be keeping it simple in Cleveland.
Simple is a subjective term. That said, make abortion, not life.
bbkingfish said...
One thing you can count on from the GOP Convention is plenty of "simple words."
The speeches by Ann Romney at the 2012 RNC graded out to seven grade levels lower than the speech by Michelle Obama at the 2012 DNC, when subjected to the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. That's just one example.
You may not like politicians, but they do know their audiences. The GOP will be keeping it simple in Cleveland.
7/18/16, 1:17 PM
Ah, but was that "keeping it simple" for the attendees or for the "home audience" which was undecided, Democrats, and the media?
Was Michelle speaking to Democrat constituents or was she trying to win over Republicans?
Know your audience indeed...
"The speeches by Ann Romney at the 2012 RNC graded out to seven grade levels lower than the speech by Michelle Obama at the 2012 DNC, when subjected to the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. That's just one example."
Why do you hate poor people?
I hear far more intelligent discourse on business networks than on MSM. Maybe the notion that a successful businessman could do a better job than a professional politician isn't without foundation.
"Know your audience indeed..."
Excellent point. Really, the DNC could do a half-hour seminar on understanding Miranda, and it would be the greatest service they'll do their constituency in Philly.
>The speeches by Ann Romney at the 2012 RNC graded out to seven grade levels lower than the speech by Michelle Obama at the 2012 DNC, when subjected to the Flesch-Kincaid readability test.
I'll throw the BS flag on that one.... If I can find the texts, I'll run them through MS Word and see what it says.
I just love the idea that someone would feel the need to run that comparative analytic.
"I'll throw the BS flag on that one.... If I can find the texts, I'll run them through MS Word and see what it says."
Word says Romney at 5.5, Obama at 12.0.
Which communicated better? I have no idea.
However, on passive sentences, Obama had 10% while Romney only 2%.
And finally, ease of reading score (a little deceptive since these are speeches, not to be read)
Romney: 80.0
Obama: 61.9
I thought Trump promised show girls and dancing bears, movie stars and athletes! Excitement! Something new and different! Entertainment! What he delivered looks like same ole same ole, GOPes, and a very healthy dose of Trumps! Wonder what the Trumps will say about Daddy?
Same Ole Shit!
The only significant difference was Michelle's average sentence was twice as long.
Ann's average word length was 4.0. Michelle's was 4.1.
Assuming you can infer the intelligence of the audience from this is... problematic.
And yes, I'm picking up the flag. No BS penalty on further review.
Sorry to be so disrespectful of your parents, but this really sets me off. I feel like people vastly overrate verbal facility as an indicator of intelligence. This attitude seems, to me, to lie at the root of so much that is wrong with the world -- we fall for glibness and superficial clarity as though it is indicative of understanding or intelligence.
I'll give an example. My mother has taught nursing courses at colleges for decades. She will mention pharmacology. She gets new students who know virtually nothing about any drugs. Little about interactions between the drugs. As she said, what good does it do anybody to explain these somewhat complex topics in a way that these new students will have absolutely no chance to grasp.
The students weren't and aren't idiots (usually), but they had so little practical knowledge in this field that starting out a really fundamental level and then going from there was the only way to actually convey the knowledge. She knew her stuff. Her students would understand her stuff eventually. But you cannot sit there, throw them in the deep water with a weight attached to their leg and expect them to swim well.
My father was a manager of his bank's loan portfolios for over 20 years. He retired just before the mortgage bubble burst in 08...but he saw all of the warnings that he felt were incredibly obvious coming for years (he was telling me that it was going to end ugly back in 2005. He has said the main thing he didn't see was just how bad it was going to end up).
But his bosses just weren't getting it. So he had to first discuss, at a real basic level, the problem with the mortgage market and then expand on the report from there. His bank still got too invested in the whole mess (being in FL, hard to avoid), but they were less invested than a lot of the bank's executives wanted, partially because he explained what they were facing, what the risks were, and why heavily entering into the field was an incredibly poor idea.
His bosses, as he said, weren't stupid. They just couldn't see the big picture for whatever reason --- so he had to break it all down to really basic concepts, get them on board, and then slowly and gradually build up the info to be of some use.
It wasn't sophistry involved. It was explaining concepts that intelligent people just couldn't or wouldn't get in terms easy enough that even I, uneducated in both fields, could understand.
If they really want to get some mileage out of the convention, their surprise keynote speaker should be Juanita Broaddrick, followed by Kathleen Willey.
"If they really want to get some mileage out of the convention, their surprise keynote speaker should be Juanita Broaddrick, followed by Kathleen Willey."
CNN: OLD NEWZ! FAKE SCANDULS! WRONG CLINTON!
So in other words the theme of the convention is Make America Again.
Works for me.
Scott Baio is a speaker. I seriously thought he died of a drug overdose. I don't know why, maybe because the last time I saw him was on Happy Days in like 1978.
Mogadishu on the Cuyahoga.
Is Calista going to be speaking with Newt or is she going to stand behind him while he speaks? And why would she be speaking. She is ghastly and ghostly looking and Newt is fatter than ever.
"CNN: OLD NEWZ! FAKE SCANDULS! WRONG CLINTON!"
They can bleat that until the cows come home--but every low information voter who didn't know about the scandals will want to know what that's all about.
I've never been a fan of the expression "make America great again" in part because it steals from Reagan, and in part because it misses the mark--we're still a great nation unless you're really deluded. But in the past decade or so our country has really gone crazy, so I'd go with "make America sane again". It works for every issue, and anyone denying it has to defend all the insanity (which is pretty widely acknowledged).
Apparently no "Make America Free Again." That should please Hillary, and the NYT writer who recently groused about conservatives constantly using the words "freedom" and "liberty."
"Scott Baio is a speaker. I seriously thought he died of a drug overdose. I don't know why, maybe because the last time I saw him was on Happy Days in like 1978."
It would be even funnier if the speech started with Henry Winkler, and then Baio came out to replace him mid-speech. Any of us over-40 would appreciate it.
Is Calista going to be speaking with Newt or is she going to stand behind him while he speaks?
She'll stand sideways in front of him, so you get a clear view of Newt.
Does the name Calista translate to "pale, skeletal woman?" Harrison Ford wants to know.
Zapped was an unappreciated classic, the first consort's thesis, was distressingly close to what the shooter has been embibing,
From report of remarks to reporters by Manafort, there will be no keynote speaker this year in Cleveland. "It will be a different kind of convention."
So I guess we're not going to see the next Julián Castro or Chris Christie this week.
mock turtle ---- I don't have a blog or plan to report frequently. I'm digital challenged and difficult to do much on my old phone. Big Rules battle is brewing -- I wonder what they are reporting on tv???
Watching TV right now, old white rock-n-roll group and a bunch of middle aged white women "grooving" to the music. Ah, there's something new, not.
Told my husband his party is Doomed.
Vicki from Pasadena
Palin? Sarah Palin?
ah, comic relief...
"This is Trump. Tailoring his presentation to the crowd he is addressing. Explaining in simple and familiar terms." Yes and no. DBQ has a sophisticated understanding of the concepts that matter. Not sure Trump does. I'm sure he could in principle, with his Wharton degree and all, but does he have one in fact? For example, does he know what originalism is and why it matters? Does he know what comparative advantage is, and why it does or does not apply to free trade today? Does he know the actual principles that inform current immigration law, and the superior alternatives in other countries we might learn from? Does he know how "people" generally distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and what bearing this might have on our response to terror? No, I'm not saying he needs to be an egghead. I am certainly not saying HRC knows any better. But the question is whether he knows the "concepts" that apply in his new line of work, and can explain (or criticize) them "in simple terms." I can't stand to listen to the guy (or any other major politico) for very long, but I don't think I have ever heard him "explain" anything anyway.
"So I guess we're not going to see the next Julián Castro or Chris Christie this week."
No way Trump would give a prime speaking slot to Christie after his stunt at the last convention. And watching how quickly the man turned on Romney to practically endorse Obama, it explains why Trump wouldn't trust him as VP. A guy who sells out that easily can't be kept in check.
"DBQ has a sophisticated understanding of the concepts that matter. Not sure Trump does. I'm sure he could in principle, with his Wharton degree and all, but does he have one in fact? For example, does he know what originalism is and why it matters? Does he know what comparative advantage is, and why it does or does not apply to free trade today? Does he know the actual principles that inform current immigration law, and the superior alternatives in other countries we might learn from? Does he know how "people" generally distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and what bearing this might have on our response to terror? No, I'm not saying he needs to be an egghead. I am certainly not saying HRC knows any better. But the question is whether he knows the "concepts" that apply in his new line of work, and can explain (or criticize) them "in simple terms." I can't stand to listen to the guy (or any other major politico) for very long, but I don't think I have ever heard him "explain" anything anyway."
He doesn't sweat the small stuff, complicated things like "how many branches of government we have" and "what powers does the president actually have" are beneath him, he's a big picture guy. He says "make America great" and he puts the "best people" in, and they make it happen.
Trump's speaking style comes from years of honing it by talking up reality show audiences and customers for his various schemes. The sort of people who sign up for Trump University or think you can buy the best steaks at Sharper Image are the sort of people you talk at a certain level for--they want broad strokes and simple, repeated concepts. And it can work on smart people too--many of Trump's fans are smart (just look at Althouse--not exactly the "poorly educated" that Trump's fans are often stereotyped as).
However, it doesn't work on a lot of people who are just not picking up on that wavelength--people who might have questions about how Trumponomics might work, or how any of this adds up, or frankly who check on the truth of his statements and find he comes up short. Maybe Trump doesn't need them--maybe he can do just fine without those people.
Here's the schedule for the Democrat convention:
Monday: Get Rid of First Amendment....
Tuesday: Get Rid of Second Amendment....
Wednesday: Get Rid of Fifth Amendment....
Thursday: Raise Money to Pay off Comey....
Watching TV right now, old white rock-n-roll group and a bunch of middle aged white women "grooving" to the music.
You sound kind of racist, Vicki.
"Joe said...
Here's the schedule for the Democrat convention:
Wednesday: Get Rid of Fifth Amendment...."
No way, they NEED the Fifth Amendment.
No, Bushman. Showing what a lack of diversity the party has. Call them like i see them on the television, transmitted nation-wide. I am a middle aged white woman. By the Republican party's definition, i can't be a racist.
Vicki from Pasadena
Dan Balz
Washington Post Chief Political Reporter
Monday, September 25, 2006; 11:00 AM:
Princeton, N.J.: Stevenson gave a typically great speech. Someone stood up and shouted, "Adlai, every thinking voter is with you!" Stevenson shouted back,"That's not enough. I need a majority."
Dan Balz: Thanks for your comment.
@Brando: "he's a big picture guy . . . Trump's speaking style comes from years of honing it by talking up reality show audiences and customers for his various schemes." Sure, I get that. It's just not "explaining" anything in the sense of DBQ explaining things to her clients. The closest he has come, in what I have read of his oeuvre, is in explaining the art of the deal. Not saying Hill is better, of course. Plus she'd be applying mostly the wrong concepts.
"Ah, but was that "keeping it simple" for the attendees or for the "home audience" which was undecided, Democrats, and the media?"
They should know by now they won't be winning over any Democrats. They were keeping it simple for the simpletons among themselves.
Sure, I get that. It's just not "explaining" anything in the sense of DBQ explaining things to her clients
Well, I must admit, being the analytical type, that I would like a bit more explanation. I'm a detail kinda gal. However, there is a time and place for everything. Speaking to a huge crowd...versus... a one on one with investors. Too much detail at the wrong time will turn people off. Not enough detail will get you in trouble. Trump especially because the media is salivating to play gotcha. So if he gave a partial explanation, they would be all over his "lack of total details".
Example: We are going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. That's the broad brush approach. Sure, he could get into details about trade imbalances, currency manipulation techniques, tariffs, taxes on income across the borders, excise taxes, levys and charges on funds sent from the US by non citizens to other non citizens outside of the country. Mexico...billions of dollars a year go tax free to Mexico Every year. These are old figures but you get the idea. For the first 10 months of this year, the money sent home to Mexico from the US in family remittances was $16.5bn – only just below the $16.6bn that was sent back during all of 2004. It is also $10bn more than the $6.6bn remitted to Mexico in 2000. So he could talk about the velocity of money and the impact of the removal of this much currency from circulation, which would likely bore everyone to death. (not me of course :-)
He could get into the engineering specs on the concrete and steel of a wall. Really drill down into the mechanics of it. Or not.
All details that, while interesting to some, would make the general public's eyes roll back in their heads. The Deal that Trump is trying to seal...or any of these politicians are also, is to try to get the votes to get elected. Later...deals with Congress and other branches and departments of government.
Time and place.
"does he know what originalism is and why it matters? Does he know what comparative advantage is, and why it does or does not apply to free trade today? Does he know the actual principles that inform current immigration law, and the superior alternatives in other countries we might learn from? Does he know how "people" generally distinguish between Islam and Islamism, and what bearing this might have on our response to terror?"
Even if he knows, he's not going to talk and analyze in those terms. Why should he? The people who think that way have gotten us into our current mess. He knows that. Most everyone knows that, at some level or another. We are tired of "experts" who can talk about everything but don't ever seem to get good results. And he knows that most people don't give tuppence for the difference between Islam and Islamism. They want to be safe and have their neighbors be safe. It isn't a complicated as people make it.
@walter, you might try checking Dave Barry.
Watching TV right now, old white rock-n-roll group and a bunch of middle aged white women "grooving" to the music.
Bushman, I'll bet yo mamma is a middle aged white woman.
Thanks Big Mike,
Glad to see the (only?) absurd party represented:
"In the midst of the protest crowd I spotted a bearded man wearing unusual clothing and a large rubber boot on his head. This was my old friend Vermin Supreme, who is running for president, as always, on a three-pronged platform of (1) free ponies for every American, (2) zombie-apocalypse awareness and (3) mandatory toothbrushing. You may laugh, but he finished fourth in the New Hampshire Democratic primary with 259 votes. Really. At the Cleveland protest he was hitting himself with a pool noodle and yelling “STOP RESISTING!”
But if some of those women want to illustrate being screwed by the patriarchy, here to help.
But... but... but...
Safe, first, and one are adjectives while work is not.
Parallelism, people, parallelism. Sheesh.
"From report of remarks to reporters by Manafort, there will be no keynote speaker this year in Cleveland. "It will be a different kind of convention.""
Nothing says "we can't change" quite like repeatedly trotting out the Party's old warhorses every four years. You know, old war horses like...Hillary Clinton, for instance.
Forgive me if this has already been floated but it occurs to me that Trump doesn't intend for Pence to go the distance. He'll soak up some blows, take some heat, resign or be pushed out, and replaced with a vice-presidential candidate that has a bit more oomph. Trump thrives on sensation and LIV's just eat that stuff up. Ok, I'm taking the tinfoil hat off now.
sooooo....the return of the Know-Nothing Party!
(replace him with palin as further confirmation please)
Rudy Giuliani is using lots of simple, loud words right now.
Eh..and so will Hildebeast.
"@Brando: "he's a big picture guy . . . Trump's speaking style comes from years of honing it by talking up reality show audiences and customers for his various schemes." Sure, I get that. It's just not "explaining" anything in the sense of DBQ explaining things to her clients. The closest he has come, in what I have read of his oeuvre, is in explaining the art of the deal. Not saying Hill is better, of course. Plus she'd be applying mostly the wrong concepts."
Oh, I agree--there's really no explanation from him on anything. It's "I will win for you, trust me" as if that's all we need to know. Amazingly, it works on some people (and not just in the "at least he's better than Hillary" way, because he used that to beat his primary opponents too). I don't see it, but maybe I'm not the intended audience.
Post a Comment