Lazy8 wrote: 
Yes, I know, it's one of those "trigger" words for some people. 

It's a fact of life that certain words which started with one meaning get co-opted, and sometimes (in the case of words like Fascism) turned into trite pejoratives. Yet another addition to Orwell's list of "meaningless words", perhaps?

So how do we reclaim words, reinvigorate them consistent with their original meaning? Or some relatively consensual meaning? 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
FYT. The idea is always to get back to the place where things were supposedly better, i.e. making "it" great again. The yearning for the status quo ante.

 aflanigan wrote:
A good piece spoiled by the dramatic use of the term "Fascism". I've already said what I need to about the dilution of that term, but I'll admit it's more succinct than "authoritarian progressive nationalist".

Op ed by Republican Neoconservative (co-founder of PNAC) Robert Kagan. Interesting that a published historian uses the term fascism; he actually addresses the term about midway in, presumably to explain why he thinks it applies.

This is How Fascism Comes to America

 rotekz wrote:

I watched the first half of that interview but turned it off (perhaps prematurely) when I concluded that nothing of substance was going to come from the conversation. I thought Kelly did a good job of trying to push Trump to consider that his words have come across as bullying and hurtful, but he danced away from that issue by saying that he hits back hard when attacked.

1. I fully expect that Trump can demonstrate sanity and modulate his behavior. Trump likely realized that the blustering, attacking style of a stadium speech would make him look ridiculous in a 1-on-1 setting. And he's right, he wouldn't have gotten as far in this campaign as he has if he hadn't blustered and attacked in his speeches.

1a. So yes, during the first half of the interview he seemed calm, polite and somewhat reflective.

1b. The problem is that Trump has done little or nothing to show that he fully understands what it takes to be a successful president or that he has fleshed-out, realistic policies to address the nation's  problems. The politico.com article I pointed to shows that Trump's tax plan would have a drastically negative effect on the economy, and that Trump doesn't seem to grasp even the basics about global warming. 

Trump held it together for what, a 10-15 minute interview? Sorry, not impressed. Hitler could whip crowds into frenzies that Trump can only dream about. Hitler could also be quite charming and composed when he chose to be. Check out Erik Larson's "In the Garden of Beasts": Hitler's conversations with US Ambassador William Dodd were quite reasonable and respectful. 

2. Back to Trump and Kelly. You wrote 

"A real apology would have weakened Trump’s unapologetic brand. But an “excuse me” issued in person, combined with a hint of humility and some genuine professional respect feels…sort of…almost…like an apology? No, definitely not. But, well, maybe?" 

Trump owed Kelly an apology, full stop. She's a reporter, doing her job of asking hard, probing questions. Calling her a "bimbo" implies that she has loose morals but Trump only called Kelly that because she asked him hard questions. 

2a.  If you think Trump came away looking good by preserving his "unapologetic brand" and coming up with a pseudo-apology, I'm sorry but no. You seem fixated on campaign-focused appearances and image, so chew on this: that non-apology and other half-assed attempts at sincerity aren't going to sway female voters, many of whom have to put up with sexist crap from egotistical clods like Trump. 
Finally:  Not sure what you mean by Megyn Kelly making lemonade out of lemons, stylewise. Every time I've seen her she looked quite stylish and poised and struck me as intelligent. She's also quite telegenic.  

 rotekz wrote: 
If you're just interested in the table, you'll note that Taleb provides no evidence to back up his conclusions. 

via

 rotekz wrote:

IT’S OFFICIAL: DONALD TRUMP Breaks Bush Record With Most Votes Ever for Republican Primary Candidate

“Excuse me”

Posted May 18th, 2016 @ 9:48am 

---

Last night I watched Megyn Kelly’s much-anticipated interview with Donald Trump. Here are my quick reactions in terms of persuasion.

Megyn Kelly was the big winner for the night. Her new show probably had strong ratings and it was well-timed to promote her book release.  She also did a great job of connecting with Trump on a personal level. And kudos on her style decisions – the red dress was perfect. You rarely see someone make a whole barrel of lemonade from one lemon, but Kelly is pulling it off. Impressive.

But Trump did well too. He had two important things to accomplish (in my view) and he did. 

1. Demonstrate sanity

Voters worry that the dangerous-sounding guy Trump plays on television is real. So Trump successfully showed his sane side in the interview. Everything he said sounded reasonable enough, especially the part where he said he wouldn’t have gotten so far in the campaign without getting ugly. You know that’s true. 

Then Trump proved he can modulate his behavior on demand by…modulating his behavior on command. Trump was personable and even a bit humble with Kelly. He turned a professional enemy into what looks like a friend, and he did it right in front of our eyes. Kelly even mentioned that she gave Trump her cellphone number. The two of them got along great, and we got to watch. It all looked genuine to me. No sign of any insanity.

2. Demonstrate respect for women (Kelly)

Trump complimented Kelly on approaching him for the interview. He said he couldn’t have done what she did, which he clarified to mean a compliment for Kelly. Trump put her through nine months of hell and she climbed out of it a winner. Trump respected all of that and showed it. 

The funniest part of the interview involved Kelly asking Trump about him calling her a “bimbo” more than once during their enemy phase. Trump briefly tried to dodge the accusation and then unexpectedly pivoted with “Excuse me.”

Excuse me?

As usual, Trump lets you interpret his words in whatever way you want. If you think “excuse me” isn’t an apology in this context, you have a good argument. It sure doesn’t sound the same as “I’m sorry.” 

On the other hand, asking to be excused is an acknowledgment of a wrong combined with a request to be forgiven. That’s sort ofan apology, if you want to see it that way. Let’s call it a Trumpology – neither apology nor non-apology. You can have it any way you like.

Laugh if you will, but Trump does have the “best words.” A real apology would have weakened Trump’s unapologetic brand. But an “excuse me” issued in person, combined with a hint of humility and some genuine professional respect feels…sort of…almost…like an apology? No, definitely not. But, well, maybe?

Some of you will say nothing newsworthy happened in the interview. On the 2D playing field, that’s true. But on the dimension of persuasion, Trump showed us visually – which is the only way that matters – that his campaign personality is a tool, not a sign of insanity.

On one level, not much happened in the Kelly interview. But I’ll bet the people who saw it are less concerned about Trump getting along with foreign leaders. And treating Kelly with sincere respect goes a long way too.

I predict Trump’s favorability with women will start a slow climb from now through November. This will be an inflection point. People need a “story” to use as an excuse to change their minds. In persuasion terms, the Kelly interview provides what I call the “fake because” to do so. It won’t be enough on its own, but if Trump continues to make his case, it will be seen as a turning point.

A third act, if you will.

 kcar wrote: 
Because I'm only interested in the table he produced. The wording of his tweet is irrelevant to me. 

 kcar wrote:. 

Ironic case of misnomer. Sorry, no disrespect to you intended. I'm just not a fan of futility in general.

 kcar wrote: 
I think the GAO is confused. That's as much as building a mile of highway. Maybe they're going to pave the service road that'll have to run all along it.

Since we're just cutting and pasting here at this point, I thought you all might be interested in this politico.com article: 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trumps-policy-problems-223092

Donald Trump’s policy problems

POLITICO deployed its policy experts to study a week’s worth of Trump commentary and decipher what he’s saying, how his ideas would work and how far he could really go with positions that are unorthodox at best, and often heretical to his party’s ideology.

...

But there’s also a tougher takeaway on Trump’s policies: Many of his proposals are either unrealistic in terms of executive power or would run into a brick wall with Congress, making a Trump administration borderline impotent on the very issues that are driving his supporters to the polls.


(excerpt about The Wall, since we've been talking about it here):

THE WALL

What did Trump say? “Believe me 100 percent, we’re building this wall. … Who is going to pay for the wall? Mexico! Not even close, folks. A trade deficit with Mexico, $58 billion. The wall’s gonna cost $10 billion. Are there any bad business people here? … It’s gonna be beautiful ‘cause they’ll call it Trump someday maybe. Nah, I don’t want a wall with my name.” (May 1, Terre Haute, Indiana)

 

What’s he really talking about? Building the wall is Trump’s bumper sticker slogan. Trump has vowed to deport all 11 million immigrants here illegally, while letting the “good ones” back in. He’d turbocharge border security by erecting a wall along the 1,989-mile U.S.-Mexico boundary.

Where does his view come from? Building a fence along the southern border has long been one plank of overhauling the immigration system. About 670 miles of fencing is already up there (about 350 miles are in pedestrian areas) and a 2013 comprehensive reform plan introduced by a bipartisan group of eight senators called for 350 more miles of similar fencing.

What does he want to do? Trump’s six-page immigration platform released last August suggests building a wall, and making Mexico pay for it. He plans to force Mexico’s hand by blocking all of the remittances earned by immigrants working here illegally sent from the United States back home until the Mexican government hands over the money. He’d also boost fees for visas for Mexican nationals and may even deny issuing them altogether.

How far can Trump go? Not very far. One thing Trump can do unilaterally is to hike fees for visas, which can be done through agency regulations, as long as proposed rules are publicized. But the wall itself would have to be approved by Congress, just as lawmakers in the past have signed off on smaller-scale fences.

Who won’t like this? Mexico, obviously. The current president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has flatly said there is “no scenario” under which his country would cough up the money for Trump’s border wall. Advocates and lawmakers who have long pushed immigration reform would decry Trump’s security-only approach.

How would a divided Congress react? Democrats would reject it outright since it’s a security-only method that doesn’t come attached with a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States. Among Republicans, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a longtime proponent of immigration reform, has pointed to Trump’s ideas including the wall and another proposal to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States as reasons why he can’t see himself backing the presumptive GOP nominee. Trump’s plan, however, is likely to gain traction with key conservatives including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

How much would it cost? Trump insists that his wall will cost $10 billion (and nothing for the U.S. taxpayer, since Mexico would surely pay for it). That seems remarkably optimistic on Trump’s part. A POLITICO analysis last summer found that finishing the existing U.S.-Mexico fence cost $5.1 billion at a bare minimum, but likely much more. That’s because the remaining 1,300 miles that haven’t yet been fenced off are in considerably more difficult terrain. The Government Accountability Office estimated in 2009 that it costs an average of $3.9 million to build one mile of fence, although it could go as high as $15.1 million.

 rotekz wrote: 
Why not write your own thoughts, as you've done before?

Donald J. Trump to San Francisco: Sanctuary Cities ‘Unacceptable,’ A ‘Disaster’ Creating ‘Safe-Haven for Criminals’

 R_P wrote: 
Gotta love this one from the other day :

Trump Sits Down Beside Fire With Quill And Ink For Evening Writing Out Tweets

 kcar wrote: 
Correct. Ask Taleb if you are interested in his choice of words. 

That Time Donald Trump Threatened to Sue The Onion Over ‘Defamatory’ Story