(07-30-2016 07:46 PM)SirTimothy Wrote: I agree this situation could have been handled better, although it's a bit late for that now.
Not late at all. Everyone makes mistakes but if you're a real player the key is to take back control of the narrative as quickly as possible; sometimes it can even be turned to advantage. People need to see you are able to acknowledge a mistake, they need to see a human side; especially women. And it's another opportunity for Trump to remind voters that he is the one who wants to keep them safe from this savagery.
If Trump did something along the lines of what I suggested he could actually come out ahead.
I don't criticize Trump too much but this backlash against the Muslim American family was idiotic. He didn't mean it I know but it has no place. The guy gave his life for a country that doesn't espouse values of his brethren. I'd say it's a bigger sacrifice than most of us have made.
I don't know man, my Mom (Dem) said almost the exact thing about the Muslim couple that Trump did. She was like, "Did you see the Muslim couple who came out, and the wife just stood behind the husband silent the whole time. Why did she come out and stand there but not say anything? Her husband probably doesn't let her speak!"
"The DNC was like Noah's Ark, they had to have 2 of every kind!"
Average people see through all this pointless PC bullshit and want safety and prosperity again, not Social Justice.
Trump's only mistake was his reframe of sacrifice was off, and he almost bought into their frame.
He should have said something like, "Sacrifice? Listen, I'm running for President because I don't want to have to sacrifice any more American lives, like what's happened with the Obama Administration, and what will continue to happen if Crooked Hillary gets elected."
(07-30-2016 07:46 PM)SirTimothy Wrote: Alternatively it would have been nice if he had mentioned that it was Hillary Clinton who supported the war in which this man's son died, not to mention destabilizing Libya and Syria. Because frankly, this Khan guy is a damn sellout for supporting Clinton. Of course, Trump can't say it exactly like that, but I would have loved it if he had said something along those lines that got people wondering: "Yeah, why is he supporting the candidate who helped get his son killed?". That would have completely turned the situation on its head.
When he say it's a sacrifice, he meant his son died for a noble cause. He believed that his son died contributing to America, which testifies to the fact that American Muslims are also Americans and contribute to the country - that's the point he wants to make. Of course he doesn't want to believe his son died for an unjust worthless war, sacrificing for none but the selfish ambition of self-aggrandizing greedy politicians. His narrative is 'my son died for this country'/'we made a sacrifice for this country', not 'this country sent my son to death'.
So holding Clinton responsible for the war likely won't sway him and his family. It may nonetheless sway some people, though.
Trump should have said his sacrifice was giving up his business to run for office in order to Make America Great Again. He slipped, but this will be forgotten in a week.
(07-30-2016 08:13 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote: I don't know man, my Mom (Dem) said almost the exact thing about the Muslim couple that Trump did. She was like, "Did you see the Muslim couple who came out, and the wife just stood behind the husband silent the whole time. Why did she come out and stand there but not say anything? Her husband probably doesn't let her speak!"
But it's not really like that in this case. There is an interview with the couple in which they both speak. The husband is the head of the family, but they treat each other with obvious respect. The wife has a hard time speaking about their son because she is ready to burst into tears as soon as the subject comes up.
This is not such a simple situation because unlike the Twitter SJWs this couple are good and passionate people and they are genuinely convinced that Trump is a danger to America, to our Constitution and way of life. This is why his speech did, in fact, have a different resonance. It was spoken from the heart (he also did not use any notes or a Teleprompter).
If Trump were willing to make the kind of high risk / high reward move that could win the election, he would meet with this couple. He would speak with them in person and make them see that he treats them as human beings and honors their views. He does not need to change his ideas in any way -- the duty to protect the lives of innocent Americans from ISIS savages is paramount. But that does not mean that there isn't room for treating these people with the respect and gentleness they deserve.
This was a mistake. A genuine mistake.
But there is no Trump outrage that won't be forgotten by the general populace in a couple of weeks. Except for maybe the very first outrage about Mexican rapists. There are so many Trump outrages, no one single outrage would be particularly shocking that it stands out and sticks in the memory except the very first one (kind of an imprinting effect). The media with their constant outrage manufacturing has greatly numbed the public's sense of outrage - regarding Trump, at least, so his early numerous 'outrageous' remarks ended up helping him later. And people generally don't pay that much attention.
(07-30-2016 08:39 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote: This was a mistake. A genuine mistake.
But there is no Trump outrage that won't be forgotten by the general populace in a couple of weeks. Except for maybe the very first outrage about Mexican rapists. There are so many Trump outrages, no one single outrage would be particularly shocking that it stands out and sticks in the memory except the very first one (kind of an imprinting effect). And people generally don't pay that much attention.
Nobody is talking about judge Curiel now.
They're not all the same. Almost all Trump "outrages" are salvaged by either truth or humor. Normal people sense this and excuse them.
Trump's remarks about the judge were ill-advised, but Trump truly felt that the judge was treating him with hostility for political reasons. People understood this and more or less excused it.
The problems for Trump come when he appears to be mean-spirited or unusually selfish or callous. The Heidi retweet was like that; it was neither truthful nor humorous, it just seemed like a rich guy with a hot wife lashing out at the looks of another woman (who was far from ugly in any case). This new incident can be damaging because it makes Trump seem like an entitled jerk who doesn't care about the grief and sacrifice of a patriotic American couple that lost their son (and not just a son, but a US Army officer who died protecting his unit).
Trump needs to make clear to people that this is not the kind of person he is. And he should do so wholeheartedly and unreservedly, while also making clear that it does not change his views on what needs to be done to protect America from ISIS savages.
Trump does need to avoid these mistakes and potential gotcha moments, but at the same time the media are in the tank for Hillary and as such are going to try this shit constantly. Trump can't avoid it given the unprecedented exposure he is giving to the public during this race.
That said, the media risks overplaying their hand with their incessant attempts to turn molehills into Everest. At some point even normal people are going to get tired of the Evening News leading the broadcast with Trump's racist, bigoted, sexist, Islamophobic, anti Semitic hate and then feebly backing it up by going into detail about a nothing comment or tweet. Trump has also somewhat inoculated himself by constantly calling out the Dishonest Media every step of the way, so it might cause some to be wary before automatically crucifying Trump in their minds.
As TLOZ said, it's manufactured outrage, so its half life is going to be pretty short, especially in mid summer during vacation season. Look at all of the bullshit they've tried to pin on him in the last 2 or 3 months:
David Duke
Women should have some penalty for abortions
Mexican Judge
Trump's treatment of his exes and female employees
Star of David tweet
This soldier thing
and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
In the context of the cant wars TLOZ has described, all of these things are orders of magnitude worse than Romney's 47% comment. Yet that was enough to figuratively end Romney, while Trump just kept going. The media is desperately trying to get Trump to behave like a standard Republican and beg to be liked by them, but the second he acknowledges that their manufactured outrage is getting to him, he's done.
He's going to be pressed over this during the next few days and weeks. The best thing he can do is give slight concessions here and there so over time he eventually gets to the 'right' answer, all the while continuing to mention the Dishonest Media in every speech he does.
Meeting with the family would be fine as long as it was done off camera. Any on camera spectacle or big statement makes it look like he's begging for forgiveness.
Going forward every time the media tries the gotcha game with him he needs to nip it in the bud and explicitly call the interviewer out on the bullshit. That's exactly what he did last week when Chuck Todd tried to get Trump on David Duke nonsense again. Trump made a big stink of calling Todd out, making sure the viewer knew some underhanded stuff was going on. Todd had to retreat and uncomfortably move on. He needs to do that every time, in real time.
I don't think this, or incidents of this sort will damage him, but he does need to sharpen up because during the debates if Hillary scores a big gotcha moment, it WILL be a catastrophic blow. That's her biggest chance, so he has to know it's coming, be well prepared for it, and even expose it for what it is, in real time. If he does that, it'll be another Christie vs Rubio moment which will probably clinch it for him right there.
They came in too early and too hard with the "Trump will be laughed/screamed out by month (x)" nonsense and now it's utterly falling on deaf ears. Now I get the sense that people are actively recoiling from this group of blathering heads on the television who seem to be completely disconnected with reality outside their carefully managed studio sets.
I guess it's true and I realize it. Every outrage Trump has had like this, the media has desensitized the public to. While he should have reframed, he won't likely lose voters over it, including me.
(07-30-2016 08:57 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote: David Duke
Women should have some penalty for abortions
Mexican Judge
Trump's treatment of his exes and female employees
Star of David tweet
This soldier thing
and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
Don't forget the re-tweeting of "White Genocide".
Geez, what a list. Any mere politician would have had their political careers obliterated by now.
I think Trump could have called it out: "while your son's death is tragic, and he died a hero, the fact that Mrs. Clinton is using your son's death as a political tool to try to win an election is nothing short of disgusting. It is race baiting and more proof that Hillary is doing everything she can to try to divide the country before the election. Trying to take a soldiers death to argue that one candidate is better than another is preposterous and does nothing to remove the fact that we are being attacked by radical islamic terrorists and the islamic attacks happen in the USA and Europe every other week, and we must put a temporary halt on everyone trying immigrate from that region to make America safe again."
That would be sufficient.
edit
Really what Trump did was sufficient, this wasn't even any sort of gaffe or mistake in the first place.
(07-30-2016 09:07 PM)Dusty Wrote: Why the blazes is Trump doing interviews with StepInPoopolous?
The guy is a Clinton operative.
He worked on Bill's 1992 campaign and worked in the Clinton white house. He says he loves Hillary Clinton, and donates to the Clinton Foundation.
He set up traps for Romney in 2012 to advance the "war on woman" narrative. The little weasel needs to be shunned by Trump.
Oh, he treats Stephanopolus as hostile every time he goes on the show and is like "Oh George, I'm sure you having a very good time with your baiting, but I'm having a good time talking to you too"
"There is a new frenzy of manufactured outrage on social media over some (ill-advised) comments that Trump made today. This could be damaging to him and he needs to correct the record on this ASAP."
LoZ, I love your posts and I appreciate the value that you bring to this forum. But has there been a single event in the past 6 months that you have not tried to "solve" by giving 2000+ words of unsolicited campaign advice, complete with speech? I recognize the importance of this election as much as anybody, but I picture you opening the fridge at night and going, "We're out of milk! Trump must act now or he'll lose the election!" "This cheese expires in three days! Somebody, get a hold of the Trump campaign, now!"
Trump's response was fine. Stupid twitter hashtags change nothing. I think you're not giving the guy nearly enough credit.
(07-30-2016 09:22 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote: Geez, what a list. Any mere politician would have had their political careers obliterated by now.
True. The man is a MONSTER, he makes plenty of mistakes but he never gives up and never stops.
He's giving it all he's got against absolutely relentless propaganda and lies; we just have to hope against hope that it's enough.
It's an idle wish, but one wishes that SJW scum would -- even once, for one moment -- use some small fraction of their apparently infinite capacity for outrage and moralizing and turn it away from the charming, funny, blustering, well-intentioned, and all too human Donald Trump and towards murderous savages who have gone completely beyond the pale and are beheading and slaughtering innocent people on the daily like it's going out of style. Where is the outrage about that? It's as if these events are the most forgotten things in world history the moment after they happen. It's disgusting.
(07-30-2016 08:56 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote: They're not all the same. Almost all Trump "outrages" are salvaged by either truth or humor. Normal people sense this and excuse them.
Trump's remarks about the judge were ill-advised, but Trump truly felt that the judge was treating him with hostility for political reasons. People understood this and more or less excused it.
The problems for Trump come when he appears to be mean-spirited or unusually selfish or callous. The Heidi retweet was like that; it was neither truthful nor humorous, it just seemed like a rich guy with a hot wife lashing out at the looks of another woman (who was far from ugly in any case). This new incident can be damaging because it makes Trump seem like an entitled jerk who doesn't care about the grief and sacrifice of a patriotic American couple that lost their son (and not just a son, but a US Army officer who died protecting his unit).
Trump needs to make clear to people that this is not the kind of person he is. And he should do so wholeheartedly and unreservedly, while also making clear that it does not change his views on what needs to be done to protect America from ISIS savages.
In themselves they are not all the same, but the media made them all look all the same. I'm not sure how many people make a distinction between the Heidi tweet and the Judge Curiel scandals, either consciously or subconsciously.
In your view of reality, the general populace are sensible, attentive and discerning with regard to public scandals. In my view, the general populace are rather sensible in their private affairs and practical matter that concern them most directly, but as for things like politics and public scandals, they don't pay a lot of attention. The people who pay the most attention to politics are those who voted in the primary, and even them have forgiven Trump for his Heidi tweet, after less than a month, as soon as they realized how shady Cruz was with his delegate operations.
The general populace don't dissect things like this in details, make sophisticated analysis of how one outrage is morally distinct from another. Nor do they, I'd venture to say, pay enough attention to have more than a blurry sense that Trump just said something outrageous - one more to an endless list. The media coverage of it is not even as sustained as their coverage of policy issues for the public to develop a refined sense of it -- they jump from one outrage to another. The media's constant hysteria and the public's distrust of it work in Trump's favor.
How many people have watched the Khan's speech? How many have watched the Muslim couple interview in its entirety? Most people would only hear bits and bits of the thing, and probably through the filter of their social circle.
I assume that this will turn a number of voters from Trump for the moment, but that does not mean they will turn to Hillary (there are many other options). And as was the case with the Heidi tweet, as soon as they realize how shady Clinton is (even more apparent than Cruz's delegate operation), even Clinton voters will gravitate towards Trump. The impact and force of this incident is, at any rate, far less than the impact of Hillary's own scandals, and the stake of this election.
To conclude: If the public is as discerning as you make them to be, surely they would sooner or later realize - if they have not already - that Clinton's crime is far more grievous than any outrageous things Trump has said. If they are not so discerning, they will forget it as just another minor outrage in a couple of days or weeks. Either way, no lasting significant damage.
(07-30-2016 09:36 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote: "There is a new frenzy of manufactured outrage on social media over some (ill-advised) comments that Trump made today. This could be damaging to him and he needs to correct the record on this ASAP."
LoZ, I love your posts and I appreciate the value that you bring to this forum. But has there been a single event in the past 6 months that you have not tried to "solve" by giving 2000+ words of unsolicited campaign advice, complete with speech? I recognize the importance of this election as much as anybody, but I picture you opening the fridge at night and going, "We're out of milk! Trump must act now or he'll lose the election!" "This cheese expires in three days! Somebody, get a hold of the Trump campaign, now!"
Trump's response was fine. Stupid twitter hashtags change nothing. I think you're not giving the guy nearly enough credit.
No. I give Trump HUGE credit (as you can see from my previous post), but that's not to say that he doesn't make plenty of mistakes and that many situations could not have been handled better.
If Trump had the benefit of intricately canny political advice, he would be unstoppable -- I truly believe that. It's like a superstar player having the benefit of a good coach. He could still win even without it, but the idea that everything he does is always perfect and there is no room for improvement is laughable. Manafort does a good job on the big things -- like the VP pick -- but there is a lot of real time response that could be handled much more suavely.
I am under no illusion that the suggestions I give here will be followed -- it's not impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. But I'll still put them forward whenever I feel it's warranted, which -- believe it or not -- does not happen all that often.
(07-30-2016 08:13 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote: I don't know man, my Mom (Dem) said almost the exact thing about the Muslim couple that Trump did. She was like, "Did you see the Muslim couple who came out, and the wife just stood behind the husband silent the whole time. Why did she come out and stand there but not say anything? Her husband probably doesn't let her speak!"
But it's not really like that in this case. There is an interview with the couple in which they both speak. The husband is the head of the family, but they treat each other with obvious respect. The wife has a hard time speaking about their son because she is ready to burst into tears as soon as the subject comes up.
This is not such a simple situation because unlike the Twitter SJWs this couple are good and passionate people and they are genuinely convinced that Trump is a danger to America, to our Constitution and way of life. This is why his speech did, in fact, have a different resonance. It was spoken from the heart (he also did not use any notes or a Teleprompter).
If Trump were willing to make the kind of high risk / high reward move that could win the election, he would meet with this couple. He would speak with them in person and make them see that he treats them as human beings and honors their views. He does not need to change his ideas in any way -- the duty to protect the lives of innocent Americans from ISIS savages is paramount. But that does not mean that there isn't room for treating these people with the respect and gentleness they deserve.
Send these people back if they don't like America.
Trump already has the election in the bag, winning over losers that can't see through this BS just improves my Predictit winnings.
I deployed to Afghanistan with an Egyptian born Muslim who became an American citizen as a child. He also received a Purple Heart when he was shot multiple times in Iraq. He is a great friend and one hundred percent on the Trump Train.
This Muslim couple, however, can GTFO if they don't understand my country, or care enough to defend it.
Edit: this post was typed before I saw scorpion's post.
I don't think we are making very good arguments against TLOZ, or seriously considering his arguments.
For the record I do think Trump made a persuasion mistake. I simply don't think it is of lasting serious consequence.
The prediction TLOZ is making is that Trump will lose if he doesn't make a grand emotional gesture that will win over middle class suburban white women, unless a spectacular terrorist attack occur. It seems that he didn't do well with them before. In my most charitable interpretation of TLOZ's argument : the problem with the Khan thing is not so much that he will lose voters over it, but that he will miss a chance to win over those women if he doesn't make a grand emotional gesture (that of treating the Khans with gentleness).
Since TLOZ didn't address my previous post, I assume he conceded to the point that Trump won't lose his current voters over this. The question is whether for TLOZ this incident has derailed Trump from his presumed path to victory or simply presents Trump with an opportunity to get on a path to victory that he has not been on before.
I will need some times to think through his point that doing as he suggested will significantly improve Trump's chance. I advise others to do so.
To address another comment:
Quote:The idea that you must always "hold frame", never ever apologize, always fight back harder than ever no matter the circumstances, etc, is a young man's error.
I assume this is directed at me, since I'm the only one who made a reference to frame here. For the record, I myself am not committed to a never-apologize policy -- quite the opposite. Case in point. But it's Trump we are talking about, so I will take it that nobody suggested I think like a hot-headed greenhorn. Trump has made of himself a non-apologetic brand. It's vital to his image. Not that I think Trump should never apologize. There is time and place for that. But it has to be something spectacular, something of a grand scale -- otherwise it will damage his brand. I simply didn't think this incident is large enough - it's not worth it. I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't see it yet. Furthermore, it's possible for Trump to treat the Khans with gentleness without explicitly apologizing, as he did with Megyn Kelly.
“Always get even” and “Hit back harder than you were hit” are Trump's principles. It has always been. It's his way of life. That's why he's Trump and not Reagan - love it or hate it. It worked for him. You may say he has only fought in small leagues so far (I'm not in a position to say that), but if he felt that Khan's attack on him was unfair, I feel disinclined to advise him to abandon his principle -- especially when there are other ways.
"I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!" - Trump on Twitter.
If Trump caters to the media and SJW-hypocrites on this issue, he'll have to do so on every issue from here until November. So what's so uniquely special and powerful about this issue that makes permanent catering on every issue worth it?
(07-31-2016 11:36 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote: In this case, if Trump were to arrange a meeting with this couple it would be a HUGE win for him, and turn the whole incident around completely. He would sit down with them, listen and nod -- and because he is a human being, he would be moved by their story and they would probably find him charming and surprisingly warm. He would never change any of his opinions, and after the meeting he would say: "I am full of admiration for these amazing people -- these amazing Americans -- and for their strength and perseverance in the face of grief. I wish that all Americans would love their country like the Khans do. This does not change my view that we must do what we can -- and whatever it takes -- to protect this country from the threat of radical Islamic terrorism; on this Mr. and Mrs. Khan and I have agreed to disagree. But I was privileged to speak with them, and I will never stop listening to all Americans, whether they agree with me or not, whether they plan to vote for me or not".
In an ideal world, sure. This would be a humanizing and value-adding PR exercise. But Trump simply cannot afford to play this game. The issue is media spin - this would not be portrayed as Trump being a good guy, or being sensitive and reasonable. It would be portrayed - universally in the press - as Trump "backing down", as Trump "apologizing", as Trump "getting schooled by" this random Muslim guy. Finally, the media would say, We stumped Trump! We got him to back down! These are not acceptable optics. Trump's brand, his entire media persona depends on him not falling into these sort of positions. He does not lose, especially not to the politically correct media establishment. He does not get schooled. He schools. Even if he's perceived to be in the wrong in situations like this, due to the unique brand that Trump has created, he is better off quickly pivoting away from these manufactured media outrages than feeding them with any sort of conciliatory behavior or apology.
This is a major reason for Trump's success in playing the media. He is an active force himself, not a reactive player. He creates the news each time he acts, he does not wait around and plan his moves in response to the media's machinations and attempts to trap him.
Trump is not a nice guy, at least not in his media persona (although we can clearly say that from all reports, on a personal level Trump is an exceptionally warm and generous individual). But Trump's media persona cannot afford to be a nice guy. It's a key feature to his tremendous success. He is a fighter. He has to portray himself this way because if he isn't a fighter then we can't believe he's going to fight for us. People will forgive Trump's brash and callous media persona much more than they will any perceived weakness or second-guessing on his part. Everyone loves a genuine nice guy, right? But you know what they love even more more?
If Trump caters to the media and SJW-hypocrites on this issue, he'll have to do so on every issue from here until November.
Of course not. That's thinking that lacks confidence; it's like the guy who thinks "if I buy her flowers now I'll have to be a weak beta from now on". A real player is confident in his ability to buy her the flowers now and then go right back to being the asshole he always is the next day.
(07-31-2016 11:47 AM)MMX2010 Wrote: So what's so uniquely special and powerful about this issue that makes permanent catering on every issue worth it?
What makes this a good occasion for a surprising emotional gesture is that Trump was genuinely in the wrong here on a human and emotional level -- even though he is completely right in all his ideas. It's also a volatile time in the election when the swings post convention have not yet had time to harden. A great moment for a narrative-changing gesture that shows a side of Trump voters -- women in particular -- have not really seen and are longing to see.
After which he goes right back to being the exact same guy he always was. That's what drives them crazy and draws them closer to you.