Forum

Kasparov vs Trump's Alternate History  

  RSS

Gary Fletcher
(@gary)
Member Moderator
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 162
05/01/2019 1:29 pm  

Garry Kasparov is pretty articulate and witty, especially for a guy for whom English is not his first language. I love the last line of this quote from the article (bolded text indicates my emphasis):

 

“The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there.” Here the history lesson seems to take a dark revisionist turn. Or was it just nonsense? Like professional art critics pondering the works of a kindergarten class, pundits tried to decipher this blatantly incorrect assertion.

Here's the whole article:

Donald Trump, master revisionist

He walks without purpose to an uncertain fate


ReplyQuote
ventboys
(@ventboy)
Member Admin
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 169
06/01/2019 8:46 am  

I think Kasparov both nailed it and wildly overanalyzed it himself. His one weakness that I see (hell, it may be literally his only weakness, what do I know?) is that he attributes volition to every move.

In the case of Donald Trump, Kasparov is doing exactly what you bolded up there. He's judging the work of a bumbling fool (not exactly a Kindergarten class, but the analogy is along the same lines) with the lens of an expert. Experts struggle to get outside their expertise, and Kasparov is no different. He's human.

There is (emphasis mine) no method to Trump's madness.

I'll say it again, without the emphasis but for emphasis. There is no method to Trump's madness. 

Donald Trump is, relative to the average politician, a mongoloid retard. His reasoning skills barely match those of a 5-year-old. His logic is that of a simpleton. He is glib, in that he talks a lot and he's comfortable in front of crowds, cameras and (apparently) mirrors. But he has a severaly limited vocabulary. He ain't know lots of words, to paraphrase the moron-in-chief his ownself.

Kasparov, who is brilliant, educated and experienced in both politics and the working of Cold-War gamesmanship, is the art expert looking at a picture of a house stuck to the fridge.

And he can't stop judging its artistic merit. 

And he needs to stop judging its artistic merit, say, "what a cute picture of a house," pat the little dipshit on the head and say the only thing you really can say to Donald Trump:

"We know you are a old, dull fool with too much money and too much power. Every word out of your mouth means exactly the same thing: it means all you care about is your own needs, whatever they are at the time. It means you are obsessed with your own weiner."

"So from now on, Mr. President, we are going to stop pretending that there is the slightest smidge of insight remaining in your shallow, narrow worldview."

And Kasparov, if he's smart (he is) and astute (he is), he will realize that his brilliance and expertise are actually getting in the way in his rush to insight. He needs to stop trying to understand Trump, who is a simpleton, and go back to trying to understand Putin, who is not.

In rough terms -- very rough, mind you -- that's Kasparov's one disconnect. He continues to overestimate Trump's motivation and underestimate Putin's. 

I still think one day all the muddy media and punditry will slow down, exhausted by it's constant overanalysis, and leave one clear, cloudless, mudless day where we will all be able to see Trump for who he really is. 

Basically, he's a whole lot of very little. He ain't worth ten minutes of analysis.

But his EFFECT is. Looking at Trump is a waste of time. Look at the people looking at Trump. Those are the interesting people. Kasparov is one of those. But he's just one. 

Curmudgeon would be a great name for a newly discovered species of crab.


ReplyQuote
Gary Fletcher
(@gary)
Member Moderator
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 162
06/01/2019 10:27 am  

Good post, but I didn't see that Kasparov was analyzing Trump. I thought he was just flat out saying that Trump was clearly taking notes over the phone in a history class conducted by Putin.

He walks without purpose to an uncertain fate


ReplyQuote
ventboys
(@ventboy)
Member Admin
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 169
06/01/2019 5:47 pm  

Yes. And that's giving Trump far too much credit. Have you ever asked a toddler to take notes? To follow directions?

Trump isn't smart enough for a conspiracy. I suspect he is smart enough for the wink and nod sort of conspiracy -- the Don Knotts sort of conspiracy, where he pretty much tells everyone that he's conspiring -- but forget the cloak and daggar shit. Trump ain't got the smarts for cloaks and daggars. 

Putin can't manipulate Trump directly, either. He's too dumb (Trump, not Putin). Putin manipulates Trump much like Trump manipulates his base. He says things Trump wants to hear, and makes Trump think he's just the coolest guy.

Curmudgeon would be a great name for a newly discovered species of crab.


ReplyQuote
Gary Fletcher
(@gary)
Member Moderator
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 162
06/01/2019 9:54 pm  

Yes, that's right. Putin recognizes how to handle Trump: show him a good time, make him your friend and let him fall in love with you. 

We are agreeing. Funny how often agreement leads to arguments about minor details.

He walks without purpose to an uncertain fate


ReplyQuote
ventboys
(@ventboy)
Member Admin
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 169
07/01/2019 9:41 am  

I think the disagreements we have come mostly from how we consume information, especially since I went to school and got my happy butt indoctrinated into the journalist mindset. 

I'm an almost obsessive skeptic now, after most of a lifetime of skimming to get a quick take and leaving the deeper understanding to others. I think that's what you do, sort of quick-skimming most of what you read to get a feeling for what it means, so you can read as much as possible in the time you have available.

My delivery style is too long-winded for most people, who -- like you (and like me before journalism all the time, but now only sometimes) -- tend to skim for key words and try to skip the large swaths of chaff in search of a quick meal of whatever the writer is serving.

This might be why my quick-hitting quotes land harder with you than my attempts to explain something in detail. My detailed concepts almost always go over your head, confusing the very point I'm trying to make, while you'll understand quick lines, quotable lines better than I do, even if I wrote them. 

Lines like, say, "he's about as happy as a clam in a chowder pot." You probably think you understand that line better than even I do (the guy who made it up), because, lets face it. That line sounds sort of funny, but it doesn't really say anything.

I think it's because it's small enough for you to eat it in one bite. And that's how you consume information. You read it once, usually at a pace normally reserved for first-draft copy editors, and if you miss something it's just gone. So you are far better at fully understanding shorter pieces, which you can read without missing anything.

And I've made this a long piece, so by now you are about 96 percent eyes glazing over and skimming like a madman. 

And that's what everyone does, including me. My difference is that I will, when I am genuinely interested, go back and re-read something several times to make sure I fully understand the meaning. I can't do that for everything -- who has time? -- but I generally read what you say to me at least twice, and I do it so automatically that I didn't realize I did it until literally this paragraph.

In fact (thinking about it), I bet you can tell when I do that and when I don't, based on my response. If my response is surfacy or misses your point, often that means I skimmed and didn't re-read your post. 

That doesn't mean I'll get your point if I re-read, though. Often I'm reading your post in reaction to something I wrote, and my "did Gary get my point?" glasses are on. That means my next post will invariably combine my previous post and your reaction.

That's something I need to stop doing, or at least be more circumspect about how I do it. The problem is that we wind up talking past each other, rather than talking to each other. I'm rehashing a point you didn't even see -- skimming -- and you are (usually) bringing up a completely different point.

*** separate point ***

The second disconnect is that liberal Twitter mindset you are soaked in, spending so much time over there. Often the left thinks simply not being Trump is enough to assume the mantle of nobility. It isn't; the left has its own blind spots and weaknesses. And its own massive base of morons. 

So we hit disconnects when I point out what I see as liberal blind spots. Avenatti was one; the cute little bunny-legislator is another. There would be a lot, but honestly? I skim that stuff too, only noticing when it's pretty obvious that the left has bought into a false narrative. 

*** put a cherry on it and send it ***

That's all I got, just observations, really. Is there something to be done? Probably not. You are you and I am me, and we ain't going to stop being ourselves.

Hopefully I'll cut down on the blabbering wordiness so you can get my concepts easier (assuming it's important that you get my concepts), but I know I won't.

Hopefullly you'll stop believing everything you hear on Twitter from liberals who are every bit as prone to self-serving statements as conservatives, but I know you won't. 

So here's the shortie, the quick-hitter worth keeping from this long post (no, not the chowder thing):

"Donald Trump is not what conservatives will be after he's gone. And 50 p0ercent of the world will still be made up of conservatives. Understanding them is vastly more important -- and valuable -- than understanding Trump."

That's what matters, right there. Tell yourself to stop trying to understand Trump, who is just a whole lot of need and bragging bullshit. Understand who loves him, and why they love him, and you'll have genuine insight.

*** Ok, enough. Stop typing and hit send, you blabbering idi

 

 

 

 

 

Curmudgeon would be a great name for a newly discovered species of crab.


ReplyQuote

Leave a reply


  
Share: