ANS -- It's a TV reality show

This is an interesting explanation of what is going on with Trump and our country -- It's a TV reality show, because it's all he knows how to do.  (I guess it's a pleasanter explanation than that he is TRYING to destroy the country....)

What do you think?

--Kim

Tom Van Hosen ·teooprnsdSlu014a3a63fthui41mcc95840211h1gc540cmif426735l8g03 ·

Ian Boothby

dSosenport ccrf1778la43l32hM740ah11i61i0fhcgh3ut8al833gf1330 ·

People are still trying to attack Trump by pointing out his hypocrisy, the incompetence of his staff and the reality that the economy is tanking and his policies have no hope of actually working.

These would be solid hits against any other politician, but they don't work on Trump. Democrats are like the soldiers still shooting at Godzilla. They do it because it's all they know how to do but it's not working and they keep getting stomped on.

They're attacking him like he's a politician and he's not. He never has been.

He's a celebrity. That's it. Sometimes he's a celebrity real estate mogul, sometimes a celebrity reality tv host and sometimes a celebrity president.

Do you remember when The Apprentice was cancelled? You do? Well, good news if you liked it, bad news if you didn't, it never stopped. It just went global. You're living in the show right now, Black Mirror style. Nothing he does makes sense as the leader of a country and everything makes perfect sense as a reality show producer.

Everyone he's hired have no idea how to do their job but are great reality show material. The anti-vax nut in charge of health care? The guy with no experience and a drinking problem in charge of the military? The head of the FBI can't believe he got the gig and hired an extreme right wing podcaster as his voice of reason? How can you not watch that train wreck? Actually it's plane crashes but you get it.

It's a TV show and so all that matters to him are the ratings. He's said it over and over. After the terrible Zelenskyy meeting the last thing he said was, "This is going to make great TV". Almost 60,000 Ukrainians dead and he and Vance set up their own Real Housewives scenario where they called Zelenskyy ungrateful, bragged about themselves and made fun of his clothes. Made no sense in reality but perfect sense if your goal is ratings.

Trump is producing a reality show because it one of the only things he knows how to do. And he's learned that it doesn't matter how bad things get, he'll be safe and the show will be renewed as long as there are eyeballs on him interested in what he's doing. In the world of real life he's a felon in court answering charges and paying for sexual assault. As long as he's on TV he's safe. A million Americans died from a disease he called a hoax because reality wasn't good for the plot of the show he was producing.

He won the popular vote because doing extreme things is interesting. Keeping things in chaos keeps you the centre of attention. There's no winning in winning, only in saying you're about to win. Ratings go down when plot lines are resolved. You can never have a healthcare plan, a great one has to always been a few weeks away. Once something exists it becomes reality and people can judge it. Keep things nuts and all hope in the future and you're gold.

So how do you beat him? Run a qualified sensible candidate against him? Maybe, reality has the advantage if it actually being real. But you need to weaken him first.

Remember how mad he got at Alec Baldwin's impression on Saturday Night Live? Really got under his skin. Because Trump is about image and Baldwin's impression was a counter image that made him look ugly. Baldwin was enough of a celebrity to enter into the only world Trump cares about. It made Trump number two on the call sheet.

The same thing happened with Steve Bannon. The hashtag #PresidentBannon started to trend after a popular editorial cartoon and some Tweets saying Bannon was the one actually in charge and it caused a big split between them. Because Trump can't be the co-star. He needs to be what he was on The Apprentice, the be all and end all voice of authority and power. Unquestionable. With the final say on all issues. If he's not, he's got nothing.

He was furious at Spy magazine for saying he had small hands. So much so he bragged about his penis size in a debate. He has doctors tell people he's taller than he is and weighs less than he obviously does. He cannot have any shortcomings. He's a reality show character, and like most of them with the name of a real person but more fiction than an actual person.

So to bring him down you need to attack one thing, his image. You need something fictional with a core of truth that takes the place of the fiction he's presenting. Like JD Vance having sex with a couch. A stickier narrative than the one they're putting forth.

The problem with just attacking with the truth is it's not as interesting or appealing as a good made up story. You need to back up the truth with facts and by the time you do that people have lost interest. It's what John Oliver has shown, wrap the medicine of the truth in the tasty cheese of jokes and made up scenarios and that pet might actually get better.

The only things that have worked against Trump are image based. Jokes. Memes. Sketches. Cartoons. They're the first thing you need to do in the boss level of the video game before any of your truth based hits can land and bring them down.

You're in Season 21 of The Apprentice. Like it or not. Time to be like past Celebrity Apprentice winner Joan Rivers and get mean and hilarious. All that matters is today. No one remembers last week. People write books with the most horrific stories but they might as well take place in the Roman Empire. You're on the reality show now, make a scene, take focus, mess with his image, it's all he has. Once that's gone, he falls.

Time to cancel this terrible show.

ANS -- On Charlie Kirk's Dishonest Persona

I do not know who Cory Nichols is, but it was posted by Scott McIssac, and he is trustworthy.    If you have been following the news, you may be sick of the topic of Charlie Kirk, but this is a good description of what he was doing and how he was fooling people into believing he was inviting a fair debate, which he mostly wasn't. 

--Kim

Scott McIsaac

doopstSern95u641l9h043341l6f057f805faa46ci70l33gi77i3ul7t17c ·

Cory Nichols

onSetpsordat8er5eMl6l5t0c 73tS1b7it 9057:f57p16a7m10ef g 14fu346A ·

The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I'm not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I'm talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.

While Kirk's shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the "normies" don't have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn't someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying "That's not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it's true." And that was his goal.

The whole "Prove Me Wrong" setup that made Kirk famous wasn't really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there's the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It's like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he'd ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He'd start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - "What is a woman?" - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he'd demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he'd find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn't understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He'd interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn't defend their positions when really they just couldn't get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk's team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What's particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn't interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The "Prove Me Wrong" framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk's format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment's hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side "destroying" the opposition with "facts and logic." Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren't just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk's approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren't just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can't lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk's format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk's assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it's worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.