Team Trump and 4D Chess

[VaporTrail]

So this is something that Trump has done consistently throughout his campaign, and no one in the media seems to be catching on. He takes a fact that is inconvenient for his opponents, and then he exaggerates it slightly. In response, factcheckers jump at the opportunity to prove him wrong, they cite the statistic that Trump actually wants published, and then they end up showing it to more people than if Trump were to directly cite it.

 

Exhibit A: Back in November of 2015, Trump tweeted this -

 

 

The factcheckers were offended and scrambled to pull up the statistics that proved Trump wrong. And they did so, publishing this -

 

 

In hopes of calling him out as a racist, CNN published that 90% of black victims of violent crime are attacked by blacks.

 

 

Exhibit B:

 

 

tl;dw - May 2016 Trump takes some heat for Trump University lawsuit. A tape of him reportedly pretending to be his PR manager in the 90s is leaked and enters the news cycle. Woman who recorded phone call of alleged fake PR manager tells Megyn Kelly she lost the tape 25 years ago, and suggests that Trump was the one who leaked it. Trump pretending to be John Miller dominated the news cycle that week.

 

Exhibit C: Kellyanne Conway cites the Bowling Green "Massacre" as reasoning for the immigration ban

 

This past week, the media was in an uproar over the immigration ban. The factcheckers immediately jumped to point out that there never was a Bowling Green Massacre. They did point out, however, that there was a Bowling Green Incident. This incident was a planned terrorist attack by two Iraqi refugees that was foiled by US authorities. This attack was used as part of the justification for a 6 month hold on immigration from Iraq.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-trump-travel-ban-differs-obama-2011-policy-article-1.2959631

 

Exhibit D: Sean Spicer attacks the media for not covering terror attacks committed by Islamic radicals

 

CNN's response

 

 

Remember when Trump tweeted this?

 

 

They're playing right into his hands.

[The Cysko Kid]

Mind blown

[Osiris]

Mind blown

Agree. Well nobody said he was stupid.

[Clevfan4life]

oh please, we heard this nonsense for over a year when he was campaigning. There's nothing they gained by any of these exaggerations. All of these points he could have made to the public in infinitely better ways so this notion he's playing chess from the 9 realms is absurd. Case in point the bowling green thing, they gained nothing by looking like morons. In fact they hurt the point they were trying to make, that being Obama imposing a travel ban after the bowling green incident.

 

I'll fully admit i didn't know about the bowling green thing, maybe i did hear about it all those years ago but i forgot it in any case. If he wanted to use that incident to make a point, having tootsie ann go infront of not one but two media outlets and refer to it as the "massacre" did nothing but make him and his administration further look like kind of bumpkins that don't belong in the white house. If you think obscuring his narratives by introducing them through exaggerations that make him look rheetarded, than you're rheetarded as well. He's the president now, he can put on an impromptu address one night and detail his case on the travel ban to the citizens of the U.S. Then he could have gone in depth into some of these incidents and explain how the main stream media glossed over them when they happened.

 

Saying stupid shit is not playing chess....it's just saying stupid shit and it doesn't work. ONly his supporters relate to that kind of communication, as evidenced here, but the rest of us he can make his case to us like an adult.

[Osiris]

oh please, we heard this nonsense for over a year when he was campaigning. There's nothing they gained by any of these exaggerations. All of these points he could have made to the public in infinitely better ways so this notion he's playing chess from the 9 realms is absurd. Case in point the bowling green thing, they gained nothing by looking like morons. In fact they hurt the point they were trying to make, that being Obama imposing a travel ban after the bowling green incident.

 

I'll fully admit i didn't know about the bowling green thing, maybe i did hear about it all those years ago but i forgot it in any case. If he wanted to use that incident to make a point, having tootsie ann go infront of not one but two media outlets and refer to it as the "massacre" did nothing but make him and his administration further look like kind of bumpkins that don't belong in the white house. If you think obscuring his narratives by introducing them through exaggerations that make him look rheetarded, than you're rheetarded as well. He's the president now, he can put on an impromptu address one night and detail his case on the travel ban to the citizens of the U.S. Then he could have gone in depth into some of these incidents and explain how the main stream media glossed over them when they happened.

 

Saying stupid shit is not playing chess....it's just saying stupid shit and it doesn't work. ONly his supporters relate to that kind of communication, as evidenced here, but the rest of us he can make his case to us like an adult.

 

Man I hope you are right.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[MLD Woody]

It is fitting that the best strategy in the country was to be wrong repeatedly.

[The Cysko Kid]

oh please, we heard this nonsense for over a year when he was campaigning. There's nothing they gained by any of these exaggerations. All of these points he could have made to the public in infinitely better ways so this notion he's playing chess from the 9 realms is absurd. Case in point the bowling green thing, they gained nothing by looking like morons. In fact they hurt the point they were trying to make, that being Obama imposing a travel ban after the bowling green incident.

 

I'll fully admit i didn't know about the bowling green thing, maybe i did hear about it all those years ago but i forgot it in any case. If he wanted to use that incident to make a point, having tootsie ann go infront of not one but two media outlets and refer to it as the "massacre" did nothing but make him and his administration further look like kind of bumpkins that don't belong in the white house. If you think obscuring his narratives by introducing them through exaggerations that make him look rheetarded, than you're rheetarded as well. He's the president now, he can put on an impromptu address one night and detail his case on the travel ban to the citizens of the U.S. Then he could have gone in depth into some of these incidents and explain how the main stream media glossed over them when they happened.

 

Saying stupid shit is not playing chess....it's just saying stupid shit and it doesn't work. ONly his supporters relate to that kind of communication, as evidenced here, but the rest of us he can make his case to us like an adult.

Let's get real if Trump says a fire engine is red the left will produce facts and figures to prove that these days most of them are actually green.

[Clevfan4life]

Let's get real if Trump says a fire engine is red the left will produce facts and figures to prove that these days most of them are actually green.

 

no they wont', because in that situation he's right.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

no they wont', because in that situation he's right.

He's right about a lot of things that the left shits on him about because he didn't say it in a way that made everyone feel snuggly.

[The Cysko Kid]

Cunningham's law states "The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer"

 

People are unwillingl dickfaces and if you ask something most people won't work with you. Trump is exploiting cunningham's law and therefore forcing his opposition to support his positions, to their great chagrin, just to be dicks.

[VaporTrail]

Somebody's finally wising up.

 

 

He's playing the long game, and I expect it to work just like the constant drip of the Crooked jab did against Hillary. The more polarized the country is towards the media, the better his outlook for reelection. We'll see if the media adjusts. I have my doubts.

[VaporTrail]

Saying stupid shit is not playing chess....it's just saying stupid shit and it doesn't work. ONly his supporters relate to that kind of communication, as evidenced here, but the rest of us he can make his case to us like an adult.

 

Whatever you gotta tell yourself. As far as I know, Osiris and Cysko weren't Trump supporters, yet they seem to agree with the point I'm making.

 

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.

-Ian Fleming

 

/edit - I'd also like to point out that Clev's response is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. His ego wants to believe that Trump only reached the presidency through blind luck, and in spite of the evidence I just presented, Clev resorts to calling me a reetard and saying that the only people convinced of this theory are people who support Trump. He's once again refuted by Osiris' post below this one.

[Osiris]

 

Whatever you gotta tell yourself. As far as I know, Osiris and Cysko weren't Trump supporters, yet they seem to agree with the point I'm making.

 

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.

-Ian Fleming

 

I most definitely do not support Trump. Katy Tur noticing it is a good sign (from my perspective) as she's an NBC broadcaster. I am interested to see which way the needle is nudged on the popularity of the travel ban in the days to come. That may give an indication of how effective the tactic is.

[VaporTrail]

 

I most definitely do not support Trump. Katy Tur noticing it is a good sign (from my perspective) as she's an NBC broadcaster. I am interested to see which way the needle is nudged on the popularity of the travel ban in the days to come. That may give an indication of how effective the tactic is.

 

Just curious, without looking, what would you guess the support for the ban is?

[Osiris]

So we know as football fans that a defense that can control the game is more effective than one that reacts to the offense (which is the natural course of things). What these media outlets should do, if they were smart, is rather than react to Trump's chess moves, they should counter-attack. For example:

 

If media wants to portray the immigration ban in a negative light, run a bunch of stories on refugees and immigrants who are currently having a positive impact on America. Run stories on the suffering that refugees are going through all over the world. Run human-interest stories about the guy whose mom died because she couldn't get back into the country for medical treatment. At the same time, show people how the ban is not going to work to keep terrorists out. You then demonstrate the high cost of the ban while simultaneously showing that it is of little value.

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm ambivalent about Trump. I hardly love him, but at the same time I think he's right about a lot of things, but it goes against the grain of what we've been led to expect from politics and therefore he's a rather controversial figure. I'd like to ask most people who hate him why they felt business as usual politics were working.

[Osiris]

 

Just curious, without looking, what would you guess the support for the ban is?

 

Hard to say without looking. I live in Massachusetts. I don't know of a single person that supports the ban here. But I'm also aware of prevalent attitudes towards Muslims in the USA. Polling suggests 52% of Americans have a negative opinion of Muslims. So I'd have to say about 50% of Americans support the ban. Right-wing news will say more, Left-wing news will say less.

[VaporTrail]

 

Hard to say without looking. I live in Massachusetts. I don't know of a single person that supports the ban here. But I'm also aware of prevalent attitudes towards Muslims in the USA. Polling suggests 52% of Americans have a negative opinion of Muslims. So I'd have to say about 50% of Americans support the ban. Right-wing news will say more, Left-wing news will say less.

 

That's a god damn good answer. Rasmussen had support at 57%, while a more neutral Reuters has support at 49% vs 42% against. With how much of a fit the media's been throwing over it, I suspect that most people think that support for the ban is much lower.

[calfoxwc]

I've been thinking about the 4d chess thing... it's really a great analogy,

Trump is not a dummy. The media does what it does, to use it to your

advantage isn't over Trump's head.

 

I support Trump bigly now, except a best friend hates the Devos-Sec of Ed confirmation.

She's afraid Devos is so charter school oriented, that she will have

vouchers ONLY going to the poor families, which will make the private schools

just as dangerous and poor learning environments as many public schools are.

That would be dumb, not seein it. Schools still have standards for entrance,

and she also supports locally run schools. Often? Most of the time? she said

fed money = fed control/forced acceptance of the bad kids...

nah. If that happens, Devos will be a very bad pick for the opposite reasons

the dems think she's a bad pick. Weird. I'll give her a chance.

[Osiris]

I'm ambivalent about Trump. I hardly love him, but at the same time I think he's right about a lot of things, but it goes against the grain of what we've been led to expect from politics and therefore he's a rather controversial figure. I'd like to ask most people who hate him why they felt business as usual politics were working.

 

I am pretty sure we agree that the single biggest problem in US government and politics is hyper-partisan nature of it. The current paradigm involves each party is going more and more to their respective extremes. The only way anything is accomplished in Washington is for one of the parties to control the entire government. They then put policies in place that the minority party finds objectionable. New election, flip the government and the script.

 

Let's say you put a 10 foot board on a pivot point and balance it perfectly at the 5 foot mark. Place a few weights on either side near the center, and it remains balanced. Put some weight on the far edges, and the board teeters. Now keep putting weight on the edges over, and over and over again. Eventually what is going to happen?

 

The board breaks. That's where we are headed folks. Trump represents to me a big fat weight being placed on the edge of that board. He doesn't represent a paradigm shift, he represents a paradigm accelerator. I'm just afraid it's going to take the board breaking for America to realize we should've started putting our weights in the center again.

[calfoxwc]

it's sad the left has made it a political football again, perhaps dangerously so...

 

it isn't a ban on Muslims - it's a temporary hold to review vetting standards from

eight countries whose "vetting" we don't trust. There are Christians living there too.

Sure, most will be Muslims, but it's something like 40? countries around the world

have a lot of Muslim immigrants coming here - they aren't affected at all.

So, how anybody claims it is a ban on all Muslims, is just really ignorant,

or more likely, just playing a destructive false narrative for political emotional

manipulation benefit. If there's another choice, I don't know what it is.

[tiamat63]

Trump isn't intelligent enough to tie these points together. His handlers on the other hand...?

[Osiris]

 

That's a god damn good answer. Rasmussen had support at 57%, while a more neutral Reuters has support at 49% vs 42% against. With how much of a fit the media's been throwing over it, I suspect that most people think that support for the ban is much lower.

 

Some other polls:

 

Gallup: 42% approve, 55% disapprove

Zogby: 52% approve, 41% disapprove

CNN: 52% disapprove (couldn't find approve statistic).

 

Most of these polls only sample 1000 to 3000 people. America has 319 million people in it. That's going to be part of the reason all these polls are all over the place. Another consideration. Some segment of poll interviewees could be saying they disapprove out of concern for looking/sounding/feeling that they may be judged as a bigot. If bigotry against Muslims is normalizing (I have argued that it's always been normalized to some extent, and I do believe it is normalizing), we could see a shift in polls toward the 'approve' category.

[VaporTrail]

 

I am pretty sure we agree that the single biggest problem in US government and politics is hyper-partisan nature of it. The current paradigm involves each party is going more and more to their respective extremes. The only way anything is accomplished in Washington is for one of the parties to control the entire government. They then put policies in place that the minority party finds objectionable. New election, flip the government and the script.

 

Let's say you put a 10 foot board on a pivot point and balance it perfectly at the 5 foot mark. Place a few weights on either side near the center, and it remains balanced. Put some weight on the far edges, and the board teeters. Now keep putting weight on the edges over, and over and over again. Eventually what is going to happen?

 

The board breaks. That's where we are headed folks. Trump represents to me a big fat weight being placed on the edge of that board. He doesn't represent a paradigm shift, he represents a paradigm accelerator. I'm just afraid it's going to take the board breaking for America to realize we should've started putting our weights in the center again.

 

With the exception of his immigration platform, Trump is closer to center than the people he ran against in both the primary and general election.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

I am pretty sure we agree that the single biggest problem in US government and politics is hyper-partisan nature of it. The current paradigm involves each party is going more and more to their respective extremes. The only way anything is accomplished in Washington is for one of the parties to control the entire government. They then put policies in place that the minority party finds objectionable. New election, flip the government and the script.

 

Let's say you put a 10 foot board on a pivot point and balance it perfectly at the 5 foot mark. Place a few weights on either side near the center, and it remains balanced. Put some weight on the far edges, and the board teeters. Now keep putting weight on the edges over, and over and over again. Eventually what is going to happen?

 

The board breaks. That's where we are headed folks. Trump represents to me a big fat weight being placed on the edge of that board. He doesn't represent a paradigm shift, he represents a paradigm accelerator. I'm just afraid it's going to take the board breaking for America to realize we should've started putting our weights in the center again.

A fine analogy, one of the better ones I've heard. I like it, with permission I may use it in the future. I'm not sure that Trump himself is extremely partisan, he seems rather malleable to me. I suspect that if the left stopped attacking him and came to him with respect with their concerns and looking for his assistance that he'd be receptive, but I do think that his mere existence as president is fueling the partisanism that is plaguing the country. As long as the far left keeps up their shenanigans he's going to side with his allies which is currently the right. But I do believe that he'd work across the aisle if given the opportunity. But in order for that opportunity to arise the left is going to have to acknowledge his legitimacy and that seems like it's going to be a difficult sticking point.

[VaporTrail]

A fine analogy, one of the better ones I've heard. I like it, with permission I may use it in the future. I'm not sure that Trump himself is extremely partisan, he seems rather malleable to me. I suspect that if the left stopped attacking him and came to him with respect with their concerns and looking for his assistance that he'd be receptive, but I do think that his mere existence as president is fueling the partisanism that is plaguing the country. As long as the far left keeps up their shenanigans he's going to side with his allies which is currently the right. But I do believe that he'd work across the aisle if given the opportunity. But in order for that opportunity to arise the left is going to have to acknowledge his legitimacy and that seems like it's going to be a difficult sticking point.

 

He praised and met with Tulsi Gabbard when she went after Obama for supplying Islamist rebel groups with weapons. He also signed the EO in support of LGBTQ rights, which is a 180 from previous GOP policy. If the president had been anyone else from the GOP, I doubt that'd be the case. Bernie Sanders praised him for his EO on the TPP. There's already cooperation across the aisle, but the immigration issue is eating up all the airtime. I expect things will cool off after he gets all his cabinet approved. I'm looking forward to seeing what he accomplishes in his first 6 months.

[Clevfan4life]

 

Whatever you gotta tell yourself. As far as I know, Osiris and Cysko weren't Trump supporters, yet they seem to agree with the point I'm making.

 

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice is enemy action.

-Ian Fleming

 

/edit - I'd also like to point out that Clev's response is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. His ego wants to believe that Trump only reached the presidency through blind luck, and in spite of the evidence I just presented, Clev resorts to calling me a reetard and saying that the only people convinced of this theory are people who support Trump. He's once again refuted by Osiris' post below this one.

 

 

I don't think you understand what ego means nor how this relates to anyone's ego, so you probably should stop mentioning it.

 

It wasn't luck that brought him to the office, it was the wiki leaks that made a ton of people stay home. But the wiki leak shit wasn't fake or anything like that so I need you to understand that I'm not pissed Hillary lost, If anything I'm mad the leaks didn't come out sooner so the dems could have run someone else. You haven't posted any evidence of anything except the fact that team Trump is in constant dmg control mode. The reason for todays rash of it is the Conway interview where Tapper took her to the cleaners. So now this 4-D chess narrative comes out to imply "we're not really impulsive morons we're playing this grand game where we make our selves look like unintelligible idiots so we get the media talking about us".

[VaporTrail]

 

 

I don't think you understand what ego means nor how this relates to anyone's ego, so you probably should stop mentioning it.

 

It wasn't luck that brought him to the office, it was the wiki leaks that made a ton of people stay home. But the wiki leak shit wasn't fake or anything like that so I need you to understand that I'm not pissed Hillary lost, If anything I'm mad the leaks didn't come out sooner so the dems could have run someone else. You haven't posted any evidence of anything except the fact that team Trump is in constant dmg control mode. The reason for todays rash of it is the Conway interview where Tapper took her to the cleaners. So now this 4-D chess narrative comes out to imply "we're not really impulsive morons we're playing this grand game where we make our selves look like unintelligible idiots so we get the media talking about us".

 

And there's his ego again, refusing to accept the reality that the MSM is broadcasting the narratives that Trump is trying to push.

 

Here, I'll post this again, since it didn't seem to get through to you the first time.

 

 

And because the reality of it seems to be lost on you, here's something you just posted.

 

 

 

I'll fully admit i didn't know about the bowling green thing, maybe i did hear about it all those years ago but i forgot it in any case.

 

And now, because Conway brought it up like she did, you're aware of the incident and you're aware that it led to Obama blocking immigration from Iraq for 6 months. If Trump does things the way you suggested in your last post, they get lost in the noise. Now that the media makes a huge deal about nothing, you remember it. That is 4D chess.

[Clevfan4life]

They dont get lost in the nouse if he does his job. Since i was in favor of the ban before the bowling green incidentbwas beought to my attn, i cant really say if it influenced me or not.

 

While i admit making more people aware of incidents like that is a good thing, if u think conway using the word massacre was deliberately done than the administration is reetarded because more people are talking about that than the actual circumstances surrounding the bowling green guys.