HYPNOTISM

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

Un-Hypnotizing a Rabid Anti-Trumper

When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.

If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.

But if a person’s main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.

Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.

Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business because he has several bankruptcies.

Objection 3: Trump is a racist.

Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT

If any of those four objections are behind an anti-Trumper’s opinion, you have ethical license to persuade, so long as you are sticking to facts and adding context. I’ll show you how to do that with each objection.

Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.

Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature. And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)

How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.

Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.

Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren’t afraid of his personality type. Trump often tells us that his first bid in any negotiation is super-aggressive. China knows it too. They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.
Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.

Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.

(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)

Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That’s an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything. Trump isn’t taking advantage of people with his licensing deals. Licensees are knowingly accepting the riskier side of the deal because they also have the biggest potential upside.

Trump doesn’t like risk. We see it in lots of ways. For example, Trump has never been in a physical fight. He asked his wives to sign prenups. He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.

Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don’t change character at age 70.

The exceptions to Trump’s risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense.
Objection 3: Trump is a racist.

Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise. Then point out…

Mexico is a country, not a race.

Islam is open to all races.

If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)

Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge’s parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.

Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.

(Professional pundits will talk about Trump’s so-called “racist dog-whistles,” but normal voters do not mention it. They don’t know what it means.)
Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!

Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.

For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.

I don’t think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense. And the job of the president includes knowing when to make exceptions.

If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you?
Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT

Persuasion:

Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers’ views on women and the LGBT community.

Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.

Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.

The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.

Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point.
The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.

Example:

You: Mexico is not a race.

Subject: Well, Trump also had bankruptcies.

Don’t allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.

Let me know how it works out.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

And I'm proud to be an American...

https://youtu.be/O_PC_fy0fk0

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

Come On Trumpers, this is good!

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Silver »


eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

AD NAUSEUM

Referring to something so many times it becomes
Tiresome.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Silver »

Oh, I agree. It must be exhausting for you to watch Marmalade fall, one campaign promise at a time. Me? Why, I'm just getting started.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

Ok then, if you are just getting started, how about making sense?

" Common sense is like deodorant, the ones who need it most never use it."

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Silver »

eddie wrote: April 14th, 2017, 2:20 pm Ok then, if you are just getting started, how about making sense?

" Common sense is like deodorant, the ones who need it most never use it."
Here's some sense that the Trump supporters are still denying:
Nowhere in the scriptures or the Constitution is the recent attack on Syria justified.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by captainfearnot »

Eddie, when you copy and paste someone else's original work you should give proper attribution to the author. Otherwise people might think you're taking credit for their ideas.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

captainfearnot wrote: April 14th, 2017, 4:17 pm Eddie, when you copy and paste someone else's original work you should give proper attribution to the author. Otherwise people might think you're taking credit for their ideas.
It was a meme, no author listed. By the way, you've done the same thing, only worse, you changed their words.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by captainfearnot »

eddie wrote:It was a meme, no author listed.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1461570263 ... ti-trumper

His name is Scott Adams. He writes a comic called Dilbert you may have heard of. This is from his blog post of June 19, 2016.

By the way, if you don't know who wrote something, here's a trick you might try.
eddie wrote:By the way, you've done the same thing, only worse, you changed their words.
Unfortunately, you might be right. If you would be so kind as to let me know where and when you've seen me do this, I will gladly correct the mistake and apologize.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Ezra »

I'm not anti trump I'm pro constitution. I'm for limited government.

It's no doubt trump is a good business man. He has already really helped his resort business mar a lago with tax payer dollars. 7 trips there so far on our dime.

Good business model. Guaranteed to line his own pockets on our dime.

Hypnotism @-) = trump support
Not the other way around.

Eddie you might as well just write him a blank check while you pat yourself on the back.

Those darn hypnotized anti trumpers. They need to wake up. =))

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

By Evan Lehmann, Emily Holden, E&E News on March 16, 2017


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt address employees at the agency's headquarters. Credit: Aaron P. Bernstein Getty Images
President Trump's budget released this morning aims directly at programs addressing climate change by eliminating funds for the Clean Power Plan and "reorienting" U.S. EPA on air pollution.
The blueprint calls for a 31 percent spending reduction for EPA, Slashing its budget by 2.6 billion

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Silver »

eddie wrote: April 15th, 2017, 11:41 pm By Evan Lehmann, Emily Holden, E&E News on March 16, 2017


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt address employees at the agency's headquarters. Credit: Aaron P. Bernstein Getty Images
President Trump's budget released this morning aims directly at programs addressing climate change by eliminating funds for the Clean Power Plan and "reorienting" U.S. EPA on air pollution.
The blueprint calls for a 31 percent spending reduction for EPA, Slashing its budget by 2.6 billion
As with all things governmental, believe only when you see it, never before. Besides, military spending is going up and trillion dollar infrastructure projects are being discussed. Net effect, more deficit spending and more debt slaves. This is not what I would call winning. $2.6 billion is 0.013% of our admitted $20 trillion debt. Doesn't move the needle much.

One more example, who paid for those 59 missiles we just fired unconstitutionally at Syria? If Trump is willing to break his solemn oath to defend the Constitution, how many other lies is he telling about reducing spending in the federal government?

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by eddie »

Trump Team’s Push for ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget Is Right Call

Rachel Bovard By Rachel Bovard | January 20, 2017 | 10:19 AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
The Hill reported Thursday that President-elect Donald Trump’s team is considering “dramatic” cuts to the federal budget, using as a baseline a report issued in 2016 by The Heritage Foundation.

Predictably, the left is having an absolute meltdown.

The bloggers at Slate fanned themselves with sanctimonious tweets from people who clearly hadn’t read the Heritage proposals. Meanwhile, the liberals at Salon and Mother Jones took to their fainting couches over the idea that Trump might eliminate the Violence Against Women grants—failing, of course, to note that the Government Accountability Office has already questioned the effectiveness of the grant program.

What all this hand-wringing and hysteria ignores is why contemplating budget cuts is so vitally necessary.

This country is almost $20 trillion in debt. Our entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—are headed toward bankruptcy. The U.S. continues to finance its spending with money it doesn’t have, making nations like China our largest creditor.

In 2015, the national debt exceeded 100 percent of everything the economy produced in goods and services—a warning siren if there ever was one, as countries with debt-to-gross domestic product ratios above 90 percent experience a significant reduction in economic growth.

The Trump Transition team is planning on some serious budget cutting based on a plan from the Heritage Foundation. https://t.co/iWUCYxYNNT pic.twitter.com/a1gMzeovF9

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 19, 2017
Without meaningful reforms, America is on track to become economically stagnant and permanently debt-bound.

That is why it should come as no surprise that the new president is focused on tackling America’s debt crisis. The Trump team received several mandates from the voters in November, but one of them was to get the bloated federal budget under control.

If it hews to the Heritage “Blueprint for Balance,” it’ll start by first tackling programs that are wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient—not the vital government services that feverish liberals would have you believe.

For example, have you heard of the catfish inspection program? This program is so wasteful and duplicative that the Government Accountability Office has tried no less than nine times to get rid of it. In 2016, the Senate voted to do just that, but without corresponding action from the House of Representatives, the program remains.


Ad Feedback
Eliminating it would save $14 million a year. (And lest you worry about the cleanliness of your catfish, a similar program already exists at the Food and Drug Administration, where it runs at a cost of $700,000 a year.)

Or maybe you didn’t know that the Environmental Protection Agency has a whole lot of office space that it isn’t using. If it leased all of it out, the agency could save $22 million in one year. On a similar note, if we eliminated just one of the many corporate welfare programs within the federal government, we could save anywhere from $15 million to $500 million a year.

These are the low-hanging fruit of budget cuts: easy and obvious ways to save money. Unfortunately, it’s still not enough to right the fiscal ship. Tough choices—trade-offs between spending and saving—must be made.

Over the years, the role of government has expanded into almost every area of modern life. Reducing spending requires reducing that footprint. That’s why the blueprint proposes to eliminate organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts.

While some may argue that government has a role in fostering the growth of culture, the government simply does not have the resources to do this while simultaneously promoting fiscally prudent growth.

As it stands, the American citizens are doing pretty well advocating the arts—in 2014, Americans gave $358 billion to charity, and of that, nearly $18 billion went to the arts and humanities. Rather than writhing in their sackcloth and ashes over this “draconian” cut in spending, liberals should be applauding this private philanthropy.

The same calculus goes for the tough choices that must be made at agencies across the government. Should we have an entire government office focused on promoting energy efficiency when the private market is already meeting this need? Should there really be an entire bank paying foreign firms and foreign governments to purchase American goods from already wealthy corporations?

Tackling spending requires a review of government priorities. It means looking at programs through a critical lens, with an eye toward responsible stewardship, efficient allocation, and the role of government.

To liberals who think every cent of government spending is sacrosanct, any budget cut means the end of the world. But to the rest of America, to those who want to live in a country with a strong economy with well-managed resources, the actions of the Trump team are a breath of fresh—and very necessary—air

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Alaris »

Trump can do no wrong is as hypnotized as Trump can do no right. Personally I'm a bit like Ben Shapiro in my stance where I will praise him when he's right and criticize when he's wrong. I probably am a little more forgiving and less critical than Ben Shapiro however Ben has to justify the last year + of his podcast where he's been extremely critical of Trump.

I will pray for our country throughout.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: HYPNOTISM

Post by Silver »

eddie wrote: April 16th, 2017, 12:16 am Trump Team’s Push for ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget Is Right Call

Rachel Bovard By Rachel Bovard | January 20, 2017 | 10:19 AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
The Hill reported Thursday that President-elect Donald Trump’s team is considering “dramatic” cuts to the federal budget, using as a baseline a report issued in 2016 by The Heritage Foundation.

Predictably, the left is having an absolute meltdown.

The bloggers at Slate fanned themselves with sanctimonious tweets from people who clearly hadn’t read the Heritage proposals. Meanwhile, the liberals at Salon and Mother Jones took to their fainting couches over the idea that Trump might eliminate the Violence Against Women grants—failing, of course, to note that the Government Accountability Office has already questioned the effectiveness of the grant program.

What all this hand-wringing and hysteria ignores is why contemplating budget cuts is so vitally necessary.

This country is almost $20 trillion in debt. Our entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—are headed toward bankruptcy. The U.S. continues to finance its spending with money it doesn’t have, making nations like China our largest creditor.

In 2015, the national debt exceeded 100 percent of everything the economy produced in goods and services—a warning siren if there ever was one, as countries with debt-to-gross domestic product ratios above 90 percent experience a significant reduction in economic growth.

The Trump Transition team is planning on some serious budget cutting based on a plan from the Heritage Foundation. https://t.co/iWUCYxYNNT pic.twitter.com/a1gMzeovF9

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 19, 2017
Without meaningful reforms, America is on track to become economically stagnant and permanently debt-bound.

That is why it should come as no surprise that the new president is focused on tackling America’s debt crisis. The Trump team received several mandates from the voters in November, but one of them was to get the bloated federal budget under control.

If it hews to the Heritage “Blueprint for Balance,” it’ll start by first tackling programs that are wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient—not the vital government services that feverish liberals would have you believe.

For example, have you heard of the catfish inspection program? This program is so wasteful and duplicative that the Government Accountability Office has tried no less than nine times to get rid of it. In 2016, the Senate voted to do just that, but without corresponding action from the House of Representatives, the program remains.


Ad Feedback
Eliminating it would save $14 million a year. (And lest you worry about the cleanliness of your catfish, a similar program already exists at the Food and Drug Administration, where it runs at a cost of $700,000 a year.)

Or maybe you didn’t know that the Environmental Protection Agency has a whole lot of office space that it isn’t using. If it leased all of it out, the agency could save $22 million in one year. On a similar note, if we eliminated just one of the many corporate welfare programs within the federal government, we could save anywhere from $15 million to $500 million a year.

These are the low-hanging fruit of budget cuts: easy and obvious ways to save money. Unfortunately, it’s still not enough to right the fiscal ship. Tough choices—trade-offs between spending and saving—must be made.

Over the years, the role of government has expanded into almost every area of modern life. Reducing spending requires reducing that footprint. That’s why the blueprint proposes to eliminate organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts.

While some may argue that government has a role in fostering the growth of culture, the government simply does not have the resources to do this while simultaneously promoting fiscally prudent growth.

As it stands, the American citizens are doing pretty well advocating the arts—in 2014, Americans gave $358 billion to charity, and of that, nearly $18 billion went to the arts and humanities. Rather than writhing in their sackcloth and ashes over this “draconian” cut in spending, liberals should be applauding this private philanthropy.

The same calculus goes for the tough choices that must be made at agencies across the government. Should we have an entire government office focused on promoting energy efficiency when the private market is already meeting this need? Should there really be an entire bank paying foreign firms and foreign governments to purchase American goods from already wealthy corporations?

Tackling spending requires a review of government priorities. It means looking at programs through a critical lens, with an eye toward responsible stewardship, efficient allocation, and the role of government.

To liberals who think every cent of government spending is sacrosanct, any budget cut means the end of the world. But to the rest of America, to those who want to live in a country with a strong economy with well-managed resources, the actions of the Trump team are a breath of fresh—and very necessary—air
It's called austerity. That's a fancy word that socialists use now because they've just about taken all of the "other people's money" that there is to steal. It's a word that was kicked around a lot in Greece which is no longer in the news because then it would be obvious that the Luciferian elites in the EU upper echelon are really powerless to resolve the crisis they themselves created. Anyway, austerity is coming to America. Just like the young college graduate who realizes he can simply apply for another credit card and borrow from it to make payments on his first card which has been maxed out, America tried borrowing its way to prosperity. Didn't work. Never works. We're just about done, but the Trump administration puts on an Academy Award winning show of straightening out the deck chairs on the Titanic as we go down. Bunch of Goldman Sachs bankers are having a hearty laugh over $300 lunches all at our expense.

Post Reply