Clown Genius Trump is "rape drug" level nefarious hints Dilbert creator

[wizardwatson]

Ok, "rape drug" is my analogy. I think it's warranted given Trump's snake oil tactics in light of what Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) is saying. However, Scott's merely saying that Trump is using some sophisticated hypnosis techniques in his campaign.

Anyway, Trump is a clown. That much is clear. And by saying he's a clown we shouldn't get lulled into a false sense of security and think that he's harmless.

The truth is clowns are evil. Every child knows this at a fundamental level. John Wayne Gacy was a clown. Pennywise took the form of a clown.

Anyway, vaccinate yourself against evil Trump clowns hypnosis by reading these two articles, you'll thank me.

Article discussing and summarizing Scott's blog post:

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-adams-donald-trump-is-a-clown-genius-2015-8


"The sale he wants to make is, 'Remember that Donald Trump is a successful businessperson managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.' The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant," he said. "When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you 'think past the sale' and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car."

He added: "That is Persuasion 101, and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it."

And besides, Adams argued, voters will always be inclined to remember big, bold numbers like $10 billion instead of specific counterfigures like Bloomberg's $2.9 billion.

"I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump's wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump's anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident," he wrote, noting Trump wrote a book titled "Trump: The Art of the Deal." "Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff."

Scott's "Clown Genius" blog post:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

Very good observations made by Scott about some things we even discussed here:


On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a “whiner.” But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. That’s a psychological trick I call “taking the high ground” and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether “whiner” is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. That’s some clown genius for you.

Update: When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature. And they sure don’t want to see a Clinton presidency.

[Brian4Liberty]

And here's more of the actual post from Scott Adams:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius


Clown Genius

Posted August 13th, 2015 @ 9:09am in #Trump #fox news #hypnosis #persuasion #negotiating

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)

For starters, Trump literally wrote the book on negotiating, called The Art of the Deal. So we know he is familiar with the finer points of persuasion. For our purposes today, persuasion, hypnosis, and negotiating all share a common set of tools, so I will conflate them.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that.

But where is the smoking gun of his persuasion? Where is his technique laid out for us to see.

Everywhere.

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, there’s a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us “think past the sale.” The sale he wants to make is “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you “think past the sale” and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump’s wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump’s anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trump’s value proposition is that he will “Make America Great.” In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of America’s reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not. (Obviously we need good execution as well, not just brand illusion. But a strong brand gives you better leverage for getting what you want. It is all connected.)

And what did you think of Trump’s famous “Rosie O’Donnell” quip at the first debate when asked about his comments on women? The interviewer’s questions were intended to paint Trump forever as a sexist pig. But Trump quickly and cleverly set the “anchor” as Rosie O’Donnell, a name he could be sure was not popular with his core Republican crowd. And then he casually admitted, without hesitation, that he was sure he had said other bad things about other people as well.

Now do you see how the anchor works? If the idea of “Trump insults women” had been allowed to pair in your mind with the nice women you know and love, you would hate Trump. That jerk is insulting my sister, my mother, and my wife! But Trump never let that happen. At the first moment (and you have to admit he thinks fast) he inserted the Rosie O’Donnell anchor and owned the conversation from that point on. Now he’s not the sexist who sometimes insults women; he’s the straight-talker who won’t hesitate to insult someone who has it coming (in his view).

But it gets better. You probably cringed when Trump kept saying his appearance gave FOX its biggest audience rating. That seemed totally off point for a politician, right? But see what happened.

Apparently FOX chief Roger Ailes called Trump and made peace. And by that I mean Trump owns FOX for the rest of the campaign because his willingness to appear on their network will determine their financial fate. BAM, Trump owns FOX and paid no money for it. See how this works? That’s what a strong brand gives you.

You probably also cringed when you heard Trump say Mexico was sending us their rapists and bad people. But if you have read this far, you now recognize that intentional exaggeration as an anchor, and a standard method of persuasion.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbor’s pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it. Telling a neighbor to build his own wall for your benefit is not crazy talk. And I actually think Trump could pull it off.
...
Update 2: And what about Trump’s habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.
...
As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.
...
More: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

[CPUd]

Proof of success of his methods:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?350-2016-Presidential-Election

[wizardwatson]

Proof of success of his methods:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?350-2016-Presidential-Election

Well, that just shows that he's in the news as RPF is really just news commentary anyway. But he does seem to have swayed a handful of actual RPF members as well, so that's something.

[Rad]

Yeah he's a sophist. A very skilled manipulator of Republican sheeple. He wouldn't be where he is if he couldn't mesmerize people with his rhetorical skills.

Libertarians and paleoconservatives are bedfellows (I've gone through that elsewhere on this site) and well the paleo's have a serious man crush on Trump at the moment. His economic nationalism and his border security stance is music to their ears. Blue collared white people are competing with the illegal immigrants for jobs. They have seen their jobs lost to globalization. They believe in Jesus and Israel. They don't want to support deadbeats. They are like the horse in Animal Farm, working working working believing in what the Republican party promises them and what the good book (I mean news station Fox tells them). Always dutiful. Now they know they are being sold as dog food and they are rebelling against their masters. They are looking for a tough guy who will get things done like that German at the end of the Weimar Republic. Someone who will take care of them Ayerabs and Mexeecans and them job stealin Chi-knees (trying to get the dialect right). Trump fits the persona. They are strong, faithful, and stupid just like dear old Boxer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_%28Animal_Farm%29

[Lucille]

I actually think Trump will win in a landslide too. He'll do it without my vote though.

The Trump Master Persuader Index and Reading List
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-persuader-index-and-reading-list

[Smitty]

What does it mean when Trump says that the Iraq war was a huge disaster that's responsible for all of the destabilization in the Middle East today and for the flooding of Europe with Muslim refugees?

[Smitty]

What does it mean when Trump says that our economy has been decimated by the huge trade deficits we've racked up due to bad agreements and uncontested currency manipulation by our foreign trading partners?

[Smitty]

What does it mean when Trump says that we have incompetent leaders who have led us into an insane foreign policy which has the potential to kick off WW3?

[Smitty]

What does it mean when Trump says that America should no longer be paying for the defense of countries who can afford to pay for their own?

[Smitty]

Maybe Trump is a mind reader as well as a hypnotist,...because those are the things that I think about also.

[AuH20]

What does it mean when Trump says that America should no longer be paying for the defense of countries who can afford to pay for their own?

The game ends. He knows that they have no intention to pay.

[invisible]

What does it mean when trump is endorsed by both christy and the ghoul, Ron Paul is speaking out against him, and some people still continue to shill for him here?

[phill4paul]

What does it mean when Trump says that we have incompetent leaders who have led us into an insane foreign policy which has the potential to kick off WW3?

It means he'll be sending 20k to 30k of Americas military to fight ISIS, whichever amount his generals think best.

[Smitty]

It means he'll be sending 20k to 30k of Americas military to fight ISIS, whichever amount his generals think best.

Could be, but I very seriously doubt it. I think it's far more likely that he'll remove the threat of a no fly zone and allow Russia to take care of ISIS.

[Smitty]

There will have to be a deal made, however. Maybe Trump will assist Putin in expanding his oil market a bit to assist with the financial aspect of Russia's war with ISIS.

[phill4paul]

Could be, but I very seriously doubt it. I think it's far more likely that he'll remove the threat of a no fly zone and allow Russia to take care of ISIS.

He only spoke it from his own mouth at the debate, so...are you saying he is not a man of his word?

[dannno]

What does it mean when Trump says that the Iraq war was a huge disaster that's responsible for all of the destabilization in the Middle East today and for the flooding of Europe with Muslim refugees?

It means he thinks he can manage wars better.

[openfire]

It means he'll be sending 20k to 30k of Americas military to fight ISIS, whichever amount his generals think best.

It means he's not establishment. ISIS is a CIA trained, funded and equipped US proxy army.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/3tags-prod/article/542eaa36be5c4/542eaa36c2680/original.jpg

[Krugminator2]

What does it mean when Trump says that our economy has been decimated by the huge trade deficits we've racked up due to bad agreements and uncontested currency manipulation by our foreign trading partners?

It says he and his supporters (i.e. you) are economic illiterates.

A trade deficit is not a problem as has been explained forever by actual economists. I would argue we should work toward a larger trade deficit. But if you do think a trade deficit is a problem, the best way to reduce it would be through a VAT. It is ironic that I've noticed a correlation between **********s who complained about the VAT in Rand's tax plan, and people who are for protectionist trade and think trade deals and trade deficits are a problem.

Start by reading free market economists not listening to your gut.

http://cafehayek.com/2013/10/memo-to-pres-obama-raise-americas-trade-deficit.html
http://cafehayek.com/2015/04/lets-increase-americas-trade-deficit.html
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31528

[phill4paul]

It means he's not establishment. ISIS is a CIA trained, funded and equipped US proxy army.

Are you calling Trump a liar? Or do you not even bother to listen to what he says?

[Smitty]

I would argue we should work toward a larger trade deficit.

I need to keep my job. I can't afford the luxury of sitting around pondering the hypothetical advantage of a large trade deficit.

[openfire]

Are you calling Trump a liar? Or do you not even bother to listen to what he says?

I heard what he said, and it bolsters the argument that he's not one of them... Trump is correct about the "insane foreign policy" the neocons have embarked on. Deploying troops to destroy ISIS would be undermining the entire neocon strategy. How does that make him establishment?

[phill4paul]

I heard what he said, and it bolsters the argument that he's not one of them... Trump is correct about the "insane foreign policy" the neocons have embarked on. Deploying troops to destroy ISIS would be undermining the entire neocon strategy. How does that make him establishment?

Tell that to those that lose fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters. Then get back to me on how this is such a good idea.

[openfire]

Tell that to those that lose fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters. Then get back to me on how this is such a good idea.

At no point did I say it was a good idea. I'm pointing out that his statement is further proof that he's not on board with their agenda.

[phill4paul]

At no point did I say it was a good idea. I'm pointing out that his statement is further proof that he's not on board with their agenda.

Bullshit. It plays into the MIC agenda. CIA trains them, MIC fights them, a new generation of Jihad is born, creating more fodder for both sides.

Do you remember what Ron Paul suggested we do with our troops?

[openfire]

Bullshit. It plays into the MIC agenda. CIA trains them, MIC fights them, a new generation of Jihad is born, creating more fodder for both sides.

Do you remember what Ron Paul suggested we do with our troops?

Good point, but there is a larger geopolitical strategy in play here. What Trump proposes flies in the face of that strategy.

[phill4paul]

Good point, but there is a larger geopolitical strategy in play here. What Trump proposes flies in the face of that strategy.

No Trump would be playing into it. More blood and treasure lost.

I ask again....Do you remember what Ron Paul suggested we do with our troops?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've been telling people he's a brilliant troll for months. "Clown Genius" works too. :)

[TheTexan]

$10 billion or $2.9 billion either way he's really, really rich.

Admittedly, he'd be a better President if he were worth $10 billion instead of $2.9 billion, but only marginally.

[AuH20]

I've been telling people he's a brilliant troll for months. "Clown Genius" works too. :)

Someone rep this guy for me.

[openfire]

No Trump would be playing into it. More blood and treasure lost.

I ask again....Do you remember what Ron Paul suggested we do with our troops?

Yes, I get all that and I agree 100%. But I'm talking about the BIG picture with ISIS, namely the US/Israel strategy of using ISIS to remove Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah, breaking the Shia crescent, and furthering the agenda laid out in the Yinon plan, essentially the Balkanization of the Arab countries. This ensures US and Israeli hegemony in the region and allows a pipeline to be built through Syria supplying Europe with LNG from Qatar in order to cripple Russia economically.

ISIS is key to all of the above. Trump proposes destroying ISIS. He is not on board with the agenda, hence this:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Get it?

[phill4paul]

Yes, I get all that and I agree 100%. But I'm talking about the BIG picture with ISIS, namely the US/Israel strategy of using ISIS to remove Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah, breaking the Shia crescent, and furthering the agenda laid out in the Yinon plan, essentially the Balkanization of the Arab countries. This ensures US and Israeli hegemony in the region and allows a pipeline to be built through Syria supplying Europe with LNG from Qatar in order to cripple Russia economically.

ISIS is key to all of the above. Trump proposes destroying ISIS. He is not on board with the agenda, hence this:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Get it?

Oh, I do. I don't think that you do. 30k of blood and probably 30b of treasure is not going to destroy ISIS. It's not going to stabilize the region no more-so than the blood and treasure that has already been lost.

Have you ever really listened to what Ron Paul had to say about foreign entanglements?

[openfire]

Have you ever really listened to what Ron Paul had to say about foreign entanglements?

Absolutely. You seem to think that we're on opposing sides. I agree with you.

I just think that this notion that the neocons want Trump is absurd for the reasons I outlined.

[AuH20]

Yes, I get all that and I agree 100%. But I'm talking about the BIG picture with ISIS, namely the US/Israel strategy of using ISIS to remove Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah, breaking the Shia crescent, and furthering the agenda laid out in the Yinon plan, essentially the Balkanization of the Arab countries. This ensures US and Israeli hegemony in the region and allows a pipeline to be built through Syria supplying Europe with LNG from Qatar in order to cripple Russia economically.

ISIS is key to all of the above. Trump proposes destroying ISIS. He is not on board with the agenda, hence this:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Get it?

The CIA and the Saudis do not want us touching ISIS. They have big plans for them.

[openfire]

The CIA and the Saudis do not want us touching ISIS. They have big plans for them.

Exactly.

[Occam's Banana]

I need to keep my job.

Since you appear to think that "keeping your job" requires forcible market interventions by the government, why aren't you demanding new laws forbidding things like technological advancements? Or forbidding individual states from lowering taxes and eliminating regulations (since things like that can make those states more attractive to employers from other states)?

Better yet, why aren't you demanding that your state impose tariffs and other so-called "protectionist" policies against goods imported from all the other 49 states? They are, after all, at least as much of a "threat" to your job as China is - possibly even more so, in fact ...


I can't afford the luxury of sitting around pondering the hypothetical advantage of a large trade deficit.

The advantage is not hypothetical. Neither is the advantage of the large trade deficits you have with your local supermarket, hardware store, Amazon, etc. (and for the same reasons).

If you imagine otherwise, then let us see your household start non-hypothetically making everything it wants or needs for itself (instead of "importing" much of those things from "outside"). Your household's employment will certainly get a good boost - making all your own clothes and growing all your own food is a lot of work, after all - but your home economics will not be improved. Quite the opposite, in fact. Your household will be much poorer for it - and there is nothing "hypothetical" about this ...