Why Trump superfans admire her.
Like Obama and Trump, she and Trump actually have a lot more similarities than most fans of either realize. They’re both charismatic, they both know how to use social media to get attention and get around the MSM, and facts and reality never get in the way of their message. Now that I think about it, I’ll bet that if Twitter had existed four decades ago, Reagan would have used it.
Admire her? Really? Admire?
As a politician, not as a policy analyst.
I don’t “admire” her, but I enjoy her frequent gaffes and idiocies.
“I’ll bet that if Twitter had existed four decades ago, Reagan would have used it.”
I thought that was an interesting comment, but I found myself unable to imagine Reagan using twitter, although the reasons I came up with didn’t make much sense. For example, as an actor, Reagan would have been reluctant to forgo tv, but then again, Trump was fundamentally a tv star before running for President. I googled “would Reagan have used twitter” to see if I could see what other people thought.
This article makes the point that Reagan (and FDR, and Washington) communicated with the American people much less than people remember, even when their advisors urged them to communicate more, and the article suggests that this made them more effective rather than less:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-twitter-habit-isn-t-very-presidential-george-washington-ncna847746
So, in fact, Reagan did frequently forgo going on TV. The article makes that point that Carter gave more press conferences in his single term than Reagan gave in two.
Ronald Reagan’s son Michael elaborates on why less can be more:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-should-give-up-twitter-president-reagans-son-says
Two excerpts:
““Donald Trump, I think, would go a long ways if in fact he gave up Twitter for a while because it seems every time he stops tweeting he gets things done,””
[…]
“But like President Trump, Reagan said his father was not immune from harsh criticism on the campaign trail. The difference, Reagan said, is that President Reagan refused to engage with these accusations, and he ultimately rose above it.
“When my father ran for office, what did they call him? A warmonger. They said he was going to start WWIII, he was the worst thing that was ever going to happen to America, but you’ll never find a speech, you’ll never find an op-ed piece that he wrote denying all of those things. He didn’t let himself get caught up in the minutiae. Donald Trump spends too much time letting himself get caught up in the minutiae, and its stopped him from accomplishing things,” he said.”
And that’s an inspiration to stop commenting on blogs and go do something!
Let’s just say that if Reagan had used Twitter, it would have been judiciously.
There was no such thing as “social media” in Reagan’s day. Or internet news. The entire information field has changed fundamentally since then. We no longer have three major networks who all broadcast the same thing, from the same ideological point of view. We have almost a continuum of reporting, and of points of view. And a news cycle that is 1/86,400th of a day long.
In that regard, I think Trump is the master of social media use. He has kept the opposition permanently off-balance, in a perpetual state of responding to little short messages from him. The content is unimportant. It keeps the left busy at addressing nothing, and blunts their efforts at wrecking the nation.
It also exposes them as being violent totalitarians without an ounce of civility.
Democrats like to fight dirty and always tell people not to fight back. Why would anyone listen to their advice?
Michael Reagan is a Republican. His comments seemed to me to be well suited to quote here because of his familiarity with President Reagan, but in addition, I thought his comments might be well-received here because Michael Reagan has written many pieces supporting President Trump.
Or maybe they do notice the similarities? And if noticing similarities makes someone an admirer, does that means Rand admires Trump?
To me, this comes off as a variation of the attack used against Trump as loving dictators because he said Putin was an effective leader, or whatever the quote was that Democrats used to incept this meme. Saying something true about someone doesn’t mean a person has an affinity for that person.
When you read the article, there is very little admiration.
if noticing similarities makes someone an admirer, does that means Rand admires Trump?
No. Or, OK, I admire his ability as a con man. That doesn’t make me think him not a despicable human being.
Exactly my point. But does Gell Mann come into play at any point when other humans are placed in a similar situation?
We should all be grateful that ignorance doesn’t have mass. If it did, Bolshevik Barbie could trigger a singularity. I do not admire her. A best, she is the posterwoman for educational malpractice.
She has a degree in economics from a prestigious university. Scary.