Throughout the media world, this made journalists' heads explode. Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and "genius" associated with each other in perpetuity.
I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" at a White House ceremony. Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it. He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.
Trump calling her "Pocahontas" and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists. (Or is she the one who resists? It's so confusing.)
Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation. Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff's book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with "very stable genius."
With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation. They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him. They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.
Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man's nuclear button. People were appalled. It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said. You could almost hear liberal heads pop.
Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama's lunch money every day. (Why do you think Obama's so thin?) It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead. He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life. The Chinese have already said they won't come to his defense if he starts a war. (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.) So what does Kim have? Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of "strategic patience" – you know, a seven-course meal of "do nothing and leave it for the next guy," only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was. "Do nothing" was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.
If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen. Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.
Let's look at ISIS, Obama's bastard Middle Eastern child. Maybe he should have called them "the Snows" instead of "Daesh," an appellation he used instead of "ISIS." It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase "al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham." Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it.
Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure. You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around. It was the first war in history where one side wasn't allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn't even shoot back. I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that. Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a "genius."
Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama's policy of "defeat and allow retreat" to "defeat and pursue to the death," it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS.
Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it's clear with both Lil' Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.
They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews. Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left. The last Republican president able to dictate the conversation was Ronald Reagan, and even the "great communicator" was only partially successful.
Well, Donald Trump has been one hundred percent successful. When he tweets or says something off the cuff, it drives leftists crazy to the point where they will bang their heads against the wall repeatedly until they draw blood in the hope of convincing the public how unsuited and ignorant our president is.
There is a subtle genius to what Trump does and says. If you allow yourself to step back and see the big picture, Trump is extremely effective.
Ask Steve Bannon how effective he is. Bannon was presented to us by the media as the man whose hand controlled Trump the puppet, much as Cheney supposedly controlled Bush. How did that work out for him? First, he lost his job in the White House. In anger, he gave the Wolff in the henhouse many delectable quotes. For a few weeks, he was even contemplating running for higher office. That's all gone today. Forever labeled "Sloppy Steve," he lost benefactors and then his job at Breitbart. Now (with apologies to Yeats), there is no country for that old man. He is nothing more than "a tattered coat upon a stick."
I will close with this. In his book, the boy who cried "Wolff" presented Donald Trump as a semi-literate eleven-year-old boy, paranoid, delusional, and more than just a little unbalanced – so much so, in fact, that the Wolff maintains that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to depose him as president in what would be a bloodless (they should think again about that) coup.
The first thing Trump did was the "very stable genius" tweet. Then he held a successful televised bipartisan and bicameral meeting on immigration. Trump sat between Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer, two vocal supporters of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Just as a successful CEO would do, he went around the room asking those from each party for ideas. He then vowed to sign any legislation presented to him.
As a means to an end, he dangled the return of "earmarks," whereby, in order to get a congressman's vote, money would be allocated for some project in that congressman's district. Earmarks are wrong – but as a strategy to get bipartisan support, they are effective. It's surprising how inexpensive it is to buy a politician, and wouldn't it be better to waste a few million dollars in a Democrat's district or state and get his vote for a Republican bill than have the bill fail? Maybe promising a Democrat something can get his vote to end chain migration, or to end the visa lottery, or build a wall.
It's called negotiating, and earmarks at least give Republicans something to negotiate with.
Besides, Obama spent a billion dollars on his vacations, parties, and golf outings. Are we now going to worry about a few billion dollars out of our serial multi-trillion-dollar budgets?
In any case, Trump looked every bit the statesman, CEO, and president.
In many ways, the man really is a very stable genius.
By now, everyone has heard about President Donald Trump's tweet countering accusations made by the Wolff in sheep's clothing, who wrote a book detailing the supposed Shakespearian machinations that Wolff asserts are consuming the Trump White House. In his tweet, President Trump claimed he is, in fact, a "very stable genius."
Throughout the media world, this made journalists' heads explode. Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and "genius" associated with each other in perpetuity.
I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" at a White House ceremony. Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it. He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.
Trump calling her "Pocahontas" and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists. (Or is she the one who resists? It's so confusing.)
Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation. Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff's book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with "very stable genius."
With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation. They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him. They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.
Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man's nuclear button. People were appalled. It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said. You could almost hear liberal heads pop.
Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama's lunch money every day. (Why do you think Obama's so thin?) It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead. He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life. The Chinese have already said they won't come to his defense if he starts a war. (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.) So what does Kim have? Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of "strategic patience" – you know, a seven-course meal of "do nothing and leave it for the next guy," only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was. "Do nothing" was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.
If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen. Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.
Let's look at ISIS, Obama's bastard Middle Eastern child. Maybe he should have called them "the Snows" instead of "Daesh," an appellation he used instead of "ISIS." It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase "al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham." Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it.
Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure. You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around. It was the first war in history where one side wasn't allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn't even shoot back. I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that. Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a "genius."
Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama's policy of "defeat and allow retreat" to "defeat and pursue to the death," it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS.
Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it's clear with both Lil' Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.
They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews. Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left. The last Republican president able to dictate...
Read more: HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment