I always have a problem with arguments that are founded on how smart one is at observing how “dumb” most everyone else is.
.

Agree that symbolism is powerful, and that herd instinct (something you don’t directly mention is the case, but seems to be what you are indicating) can seem downright illogical, if taken in isolation.

In a general sense there is truth to this (e.g. “irrational exuberance” in the markets), but usually one can break it down to understand that individuals are behaving in what they may “see” as their own interest, where they have limited access (for one reason or another) to a broad set of relevant information.

We may believe they are wrong in their assessment, without assuming some defect in their intellect or other inability to process logic.

It even goes back to the Civil War I. It isn’t all that new. What makes it new is all these humans that think they know everything a human civilization can do, while they do not.

Of course in the longer scheme of things, people will have to fight the Left and by extension their Islamic Jihadist allies at home. Trum cannot distract them forever from DC. Even if he actually survives in DC.

By making everything about Trum, Trum connects it to the power of the Throne in DC, which connects it to the American people who voted the Throne its power.

It is a physical manifestation of the principle even if it is not a logical argument. For most of America, rhetoric and manifested symbols are easier to understand then pure logic.

This is where we part company.

There is a huge difference between being assertive and what trump is doing.

The key is, EVENTUALLY, he has to have BROAD support.

He won’t get that with lies, exaggerations, lack of focus, obsessed with petty issues, public emotional reactions, etc, etc.

He has to make the case and to gain that support.

In this, he is entirely ineffective at the bigger goal we ought to have (won’t go into the veracity of the polls here, but they do overall show trump down from the election, as one indicator).

What all his supporters of his current behavior are betting is that the results will prove him out.

Will the results actually be what they all imagine?

Will they think it worth all this daily angst?

Will folks, not already part of trump’s core, agree?

Enough for the GOP to maintain majorities in 2018 and 2020?

We’ll see.

Yes, but it can all be traced back to what the definition of “is” is. It’s a 10 year old’s way of winning an argument —focusing on the exact phrasing. Tough for me, since I’m a straight shooter — I could never make it in politics.

I hate to sound like I’m 9, but they started it, and while I’d like for it to end, it won’t. Why? Because it works for them.
* * *
http://theweek.com/articles/679867/just-found-essay-wrote-when-10-sounds-exactly-like-president-trump

Millman draws the conclusion that Trump sounds just like an ignorant 10-year-old.
Reading the essay portions he quotes, I think it is more the case that he was smarter at 10 than he is now.

1) “Unnamed officials”: makes it easy to appear that any assertion is backed up by statements from “those in the know.”
* *
On this specifically see:
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/06/revenge-of-the-anonymous-sources/

“At what point do we simply stop blindly accepting reports which provide no sourcing other than these anonymous sources? I feel kind of sad saying that because in the past it really wasn’t ever an issue. Reporters were supposed to be diligent in ensuring that their sources had the goods, and in return they could offer them anonymity so they wouldn’t get into any trouble with their bosses. But the case Jim highlighted is just one more data point which makes us question these age-old assumptions. Somebody was feeding the reporters a bunch of baloney and the news consuming public still really has no idea which is which.”

(talking about this situation)
“Jim Geraghty of National Review writes on the subject in the Morning Jolt today and highlights some recent incidents where “anonymous sources” directly contradict each other in the mainstream media.(Emphasis added)

“Last week, we noticed that “U.S. officials” could tell NBC News that the Yemen raid yielded no significant intelligence and “American officials” could tell the New York Times that computers and cellphones seized offered “insights into new types of hidden explosives the group is making and new training tactics for militants.” A difference in assessments that stark is hard to chalk that (sic) up to a mundane difference of opinion on the value of the intelligence. It’s hard to shake the feeling that some officials are leaking a false version of events and hiding behind anonymity in an effort to influence public perceptions.”

So far, the story of alleged Russian collusion with Trump has relied just about entirely on anonymous sources.”

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
* * *
That one deserves a neo post of it’s own.
Amazingness indeed, especially the reactions of the people who conceived of the idea and implemented it — and didn’t get the result they thought they would.

Prog: Transcripts? What transcripts?
* * *
Addressed at length by McCarthy here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445522/russian-election-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign
“That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal – a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died.”

At this point I confess a clinical curiosity how far Trump can push his rope-a-dope tweeting.
* * *
“In case you have been missing Robots Read News, here’s a new one.” – it’s at the end of the post.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157989057151/am-i-predicting-or-influencing