Donald Trump’s First Ad is Trolltastic
“He’ll quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil”
Released Monday, Donald Trump’s first TV ad is about as trollish as they come.
The ad transcript:
The politicians can pretend it’s something else, but Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism. That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on. He’ll quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil. And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our Southern border that Mexico will pay for.
Concluding with his slogan, “We will make America great again,” his ad is a jam-packed Greatest Hits reel: Troll Edition. Squeezed into Trump’s first ad is every line that made the media, Republicans, Democrats, and just about everyone else squeal like a stuck hog.
Dara Lind explains at Vox:
This is basically a “greatest hits” of the Trump proposals that have drawn the biggest outcries — not just from liberals and the media but from the Republican establishment. Trump’s promise to “make Mexico pay for the wall” has been mocked by Jeb Bush; his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States was condemned not just by Bush but by Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, at last month’s Republican debate.
Trump’s campaign appears to believe that this is what Republican voters really love about their candidate: that he’s willing to do things in the name of protecting America that even other Republicans think go too far. This has been part of the Trump campaign from the beginning. But there were certainly other themes the campaign could have drawn on in its first ad to depict Trump as the truly independent candidate: talking about his success as a businessman, or hyping up his independence from wealthy donors or special interests. It’s certainly worth noting that the campaign gravitated to the things that people who aren’t Donald Trump fans are most likely to find offensive.
Crudely wielding his Twitter account to poke and prod at media personalities and candidates who cross him is only one of Trump’s tools. He picks fights, seriously presents the unconscionable, calls people ‘losers,’ and it all works in his favor. Trolling everyone has one advantage though — earned media. And Trump is better than the rest of the field combined in the Earned Media category.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Every day of the week, Muslims are making Trump’s case for limiting Muslim immigration.
Muslims are rapidly making the EU into 3rd World countries.
If elected, I predict Trump will be more conservative than Reagan, especially on border security, immigration and trade.
Here’s a chart comparing Trump and Reagan.
Quote another blog (lost link, sorry):
“Reagan enacted several globalist trade initiatives:
1. Reagan’s campaign announcement on 11/13/1979 called for a “North American Accord” that would allow commerce and people to move freely across borders. He also called for Statehood for Puerto Rico.
2. Reagan gave us the first “free trade agreement” with Israel in ’85.
3. This was followed by “free trade” with Canada in ’86
4. Reagan then launched the Uruguay Round which led to GATT and the WTO.
5.Reagan’s amnesty of illegals in ’86 was a bargaining chip thrown in the pre NAFTA negotiations.
6. Reagan’s VP, Bush Senior, finished the NAFTA negotiations in ’92 and signed NAFTA in principle with the PM of Canada and the President of Mexico in Dec. ’92.
7. Bush Senior, Reagan’s VP, started the family move into China in ’74 and they have been wheeling and dealing and selling America ever since…”
Free trade is conservative. It’s the original cause for which the liberal political movement, now known as “conservative” after the socialists stole our name (just as they steal everything not nailed down), was formed. Free trade is a good and moral policy; it’s also the only rational policy. Protectionism is immoral, intrusive, and irrational. There is no room in the tent for protectionists.
A lot of Trump fans seem to be redefining “conservatism” as “whatever Donald Trump believes.” And then labeling everyone else, including actual conservatives, as “RINOs.”
True in a way.
But, the corrupt hacks hogging the leadership positions of the GOP have left us no choice. In any event, aside from Cruz, there is no true conservative running. Trump is close, and he has displayed the ability to throw off the yoke of the corrupt rino leadership and their masters, the news media.
If we have to settle a bit, then we do. The trade-off is prety damn good: we get common-sense Donald Trump, and we get to fire a lot of rinos in the process, bury Hillary Clinton and have at least some hope of reversing the sickness put upon the nation – in law and in the national psyche – by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and…Boehner and Pee Wee Prebus. (Runners up for the top dishonors in the Hall of Shame: McConnell and Ryan.)
So long as Trump bucks the system, we’re in for him. We also remain in it for Cruz.
Look for Trump and Cruz to run on the same ticket. What a powerhouse. They just might save the Republic.
Which strategy at this juncture going to be more appealing, Trump and cutting off the head of Isis or the Bill and Hillary circuit?
Maybe I should not go there because God knows we have not had enough of Bill and Hillary and sex scandals?
Anyone who’s read my previous comments here knows I’m no Trump fan, and I really really don’t want to see this guy end up the Republican nominee for President, but I have to say I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the reaction this particular ad has been getting from the Left. Master troll trolls masterfully.
And it didn’t even have a trigger warning! OMG!! There are not enough smelling salts or fainting couches in the world to cater to all the vapor-stricken Sensitive Lefties who are having kittens over this.
I don’t think it’s going to change any hearts or minds, though. The people who love The Donald will love The Donald a little harder after this; but I don’t think it’s going to win him any votes he wasn’t already going to get.
But for sheer entertainment value, it’s lovely.
See, up until mid-2015 I was seeing the news as one long march toward the grim inevitability of a Hillary administration, but Trump’s thrown everything into a tailspin. The entertainment value is exactly why Trump’s emergence should be treasured.
I mean, totally aside its media genius causing journalists to perform slave labor for him, that is.
Oh, look! Trump being Trump! Did you really expect Trump to NOT revisit known fertile ground?
“Squeezed into Trump’s first ad is every line that made the media, Republicans, Democrats, and just about everyone else squeal like a stuck hog.”
Everyone except, evidently, the electorate.
Hummmm! So, your point is?
Trump is addressing issues that other GOP candidates, with a single exception, are generally ignoring, specifically national security, immigrations policies and practices, and national identity. When these other candidates do talk about these issues, they generally follow the GOPe go along to get along idiocy.
For you to call that “trolling” is ridiculous! Don’t hold your breathe too long, tantrums aren’t good for the soul!
And your exception is “Me too Ted”, who favors the same solutions, but only after he sees how many people agree with Trump.
Ted was arguing cases before SCOTUS as Republican Solicitor General of Texas while Trump was a registered Democrat eating caviar and playing footsie with Hillary Clinton.
Cruz’s experience is irrelevant to the skills needed as President. For those skills see Trump’s experience. Oh and as regards Hillary, Trump’s current attacks on Hillary certainly cancel out footsie.
Experience in and before the other two branches of government is irrelevant. Riigggghhhhhhht.
Exactly experience of 17 years as a government employee and government bureaucrat do not utilize the skills that are necessary to be president. The skills necessary to be president have to do with executive leadership, management, getting things done through others. Cruz has never built anything or ran anything of any size and complexity. Cruz’s experience as regards being president is no better than Obama’s in 2008.
“The skills necessary to be president have to do with executive leadership, management, getting things done through others.”
No. They aren’t. The Founders didn’t design the presidency to be limited to oligarchs and corrupt crony capitalists.
They certainly didn’t design it to be run by a man who neither likes or understands our system of government…or telling the truth, for that matter.
Ridiculous. The first President one of the founders was a general who had experience leading an army for many years. I guess the founders should have checked with you before electing George Washington as our first president. They would have been much wiser to choose the guy who had no leadership experience and worked as a government lawyer and bureaucrat.
As for oligarchs. We don’t have any in this country because our country is not an oligarchy. But yeah you’re right a guy who lead a large group of people to build a company from negative net worth in 1992 to 10 billion net worth in 2015 should be ridiculed for being successful. Instead better to worship some pencil neck government lawyer with no leadership and management experience.
Stupid.
The SECOND president was a lawyer, who like Cruz, practiced privately as well as heading up an executive agency. The third president was a scholar and farmer (who would spit on T-rump). We could go on. And on.
And, of course, you lie about oligarchs. They don’t have to be NATIONAL oligarchs. They can be…and in Duh Donald’s case ARE…regional oligarchs. See cities, blue.
(BTW, Bierhall Britt, nobody cares about your bullshit, because you’ve made yourself a hiss and a by-word.)
“But yeah you’re right a guy who lead a large group of people to build a company from negative net worth in 1992 to 10 billion net worth in 2015 should be ridiculed for being successful.”
STRAW MAN #1, liar
“Instead better to worship some pencil neck government lawyer with no leadership and management experience.”
STRAW MAN #2, liar
You really just can’t comment without lying and employing the most farcical fallacies, can you, Bierhall?
According to Britt, Abraham Lincoln was unqualified to be POTUS.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/05/king-corns-attacks-on-ted-cruz-dont-seem-to-be-gaining-traction-in-iowa/
If only Dud Donald had had the integrity to just follow Cruz’s principled stand, instead of selling out to the ethanol lobby.
Oh, well. Mr. Establishment will be who he is…
The second president Adams and the third president Jefferson were both founders, original signers on the declaration of independence and principal authors of the constitution in addition to being lawyers and other things so I’d say yeah they qualified to be President in the late 1700s and early 1800s.
Fortunately for me Rags your opinions about me or anyone else are not worth 1/2 of what I deposit into the commode each morning. Your persistent nonsense and unpleasantness has already caused people to post right here on LI how they can’t stand to read your posts anymore. Because they are always so full of hateful invective childish name calling. Sadly its the only way a man/child like you knows how to communicate.
Paul, the country and the presidency in the 1800s were not the same as today, so Lincoln turned out to grow into the job quite well and quite fast. Lincoln was a successful small business man running his own business before becoming a politician. Unlike Cruz who has never been anything but an non-management employee 17 years for the government and 3 years for the lawyers that owned the law firm for which he worked.
The facts are that as smart as Cruz is he has no management executive leadership experience of the kind that makes for a good president. His record in the senate indicates he needs more time to ripen.
I’m also troubled by Cruz’s positions on immigration as they are not nearly as solid as Mr. Trump’s. He was johnny come lately to copy Trump on building a wall and now he says he will build a “wall that will work” and “secure the border”. For me that just leaves too much wiggle room in that “wall that will work” for it to not be a real 30ft high wall like Trump will build. I am also troubled by his previously seeking to vastly increase the number of H1B Visas, and his support for Obamatrade is extremely troubling. Obamatrade not only involves a sell out of american workers for lousy multiparty trade deal, but also includes a sell out of USA sovereignty to unelected committee of international bureaucrats. That is hardly something one would expect from a person who claims to be the most dedicated to our constitution of any candidate ever.
Don’t get me wrong, Cruz is still better than the other non-Trump candidates. He is at least giving lip service to most of the right things. I think he could be a good president if he gets the opportunity to study under Trump for 4 to 8 years first. There is more about Trump that he needs to learn to do his “me too Cruz” routine on than just the wall.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/05/king-corns-attacks-on-ted-cruz-dont-seem-to-be-gaining-traction-in-iowa/
If only Dud Donald had had the integrity to just follow Cruz’s principled stand, instead of selling out to the ethanol lobby.
Oh, well. Mr. Establishment will be who he is…
Jimmah Caaarta was military officer and a state governor.
Dollar Bill Clinton was a state governor.
Some “executive” background is hardly a NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT condition to be a good POTUS. But, in any case, Cruz HAS it, liar.
Build us a new straw man, Bierhall…!!!
Nobody cares about ethanol Rags. We care about the wall and strength in leadership. Trump has it which is why NBC poll out today Trump 35%, Cruz 18%.
Also, you apparently don’t even know what a stawman is. You keep seeing them everywhere like communists under a rock. Not surprising since you also can’t properly indentify ad hominem attacks and don’t know what the word “oligarch” means.
Oh, Bierhall, I KNOW you don’t care about T-rump’s sell out. You’ll play that thing you think is a flute til the cows come home! You’re queer for your little yellow god, and anyone who can read knows it.
I certainly DO know what straw men are, and I’ve schooled you on your use of that fallacy. Should we walk down memory lane together. I’ll be happy to rub your pustulent face in it again!
Along with your LIES about ad hominem, you poor, stupid, lying SOS. Always my pleasure!
I love taking you to the woodshed. I also love to demonstrate you despicable lack of ethics, knowledge of history, and disdain for conservative principles. LOVE IT…!!!
In case anyone is late getting Britt his Christmas present:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/668184781885149184/VGmr0JfK.jpg
Hey Paul, get me one. I would love it. I could also use a blonde Trump wig to wear under my Trump Make America Great Again hat when I play tennis.
Rags you skool me and others the same way Kerry skooled the Iranians and McConnell skooled Reid and Pelosi. You, like them, are a legend in your own mind. It is impressive how well you type with just one hand above the keyboard.
With the other on your throat.
Heh…!!!
You are sooooooo easy, Bierhall…!!! Whadda punk!
It is really disturbing to know that you fantasize about touching me while coming to grips with your more carnal desires. These thoughts of yours are made even more creepy when one recalls your penchant for using various homophobic slurs from time to time.
I’ve offered to come meet with you in person and in the alternative invited you to come meet with me. Perhaps meeting in person over a beer could help cure you of some of these more creepy fantasies you are apparently having.
Gawd, you’re a liar! You “OFFERED” to kick my ass when you totally lost your shit a few days before Christmas!
Then you called me a “chickenshit” when I let it slide.
We can, I’m fairly sure, have the Prof. review the tapes as it were…
Up to you, Baghdad Bob.
And, what’s been terribly amusing is you thinking slurring me with a PC term like “homophobe” would have ANY effect! THAT must come from your Austin immersion for so long. Whadda punk!
The homophobic content of many of your prior posts speak for themselves. It isn’t me that condemns you but your own words. You can run to the professor or your mommy for all I care. I did call you a chickenshit which you are. You are just the typical internet bully wanna be. All brave with a big mouth as long as you can hide behind your keyboard.
Only one of us has physically threatened a poster here.
That would be you, you lying, cowardly sack of shit.
I could easily have gotten you banned, but I didn’t. Think about that. Who is the “bully”, Bierhall?
I’m curious why this is “trolling.”
Let’s break down the ad.
“The politicians can pretend it’s something else, but Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism.”
This is “trolling”? It’s what Trump has said innumerable times. The leading politicians do demonstrably wish to “pretend it is something else” or, worse, deny it is something at all. Is “trolling” repeating your campaign themes in an ad?
“That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on.”
Also verbatim from his multiple statements on this subject. Nothing new or different. If he were to change his position or wording in the ad, would would that be called? But, again, it is “trolling” to reaffirm a declared policy?
“He’ll quickly cut the head off ISIS and take their oil.”
Also a repeat of his public statements.
“And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our Southern border that Mexico will pay for.”
Probably the most well-known and oft-repeated of his campaign promises.
In fact, this ad is a pointed, simple and unremarkable reiteration of most of the core of Trump’s positions.
Is it the fact he simply holds these positions at all, or would dare to double down by affirming them in an ad, that compels the breathless charge of “trolling”?
It is interesting to me, and indicative I think of the auto-immune disease within the Republican party, that some would label a provocative, assertive and unapologetic challenge to the establishment double-talk and nice-speak and plain BS as “trolling,” with all the jejune implications of the word. Of course, Trump can’t possibly be telling us what he really believes. We can’t take him seriously. He’s just a crude troll. We’re all too refined for this kind of messaging.
Just more KOS-worthy BS. Imagine using a left wing slop bucket like Vox as the main engine of a puerile attack on a leading Republican candidate.
That’s something you’d expect from a common Rubio shill.
THAT’S TROLLISH!!! My, my but the Trump does live rent-free in their heads doesn’t he.
I won’t be voting for Trump under any circumstance, but I will say that it’s comically ineffective to use troll-like methods to paint Trump as a troll. What is this, a high school newspaper?
Well, enjoy president Clinton.
Good question. Doesn’t the editor select the title to an article? If that wasn’t the most biased headline to an article I’ve read here it comes close.
Show some integrity and class. And I’m not a Trump supporter.
I think this ad does two things:
1. Those who watch the ad will be reminded in summary form of many of Trump’s positions, and it cuts through the news media deliberate confusion of Trump’s temporary halt to muslim immigration by emphasizing that it is a “temporary” halt and not some permanent ban (i.e. temporary = common sense and permanent would be religious discrimination).
2. I think it does troll for free media time. It is loaded with little baited hooks for the left wing media. They are already biting on one scene where people are running across a border (the media has dug into this and determined that the border shown is actually in morocco). Of course the picture is just for illustration purposes and the audio does not claim the picture shown is the southern border. The news media will talk about this ad infinitum and show the pictures which will override in viewers minds the words they say when trying to criticize the ad. Brilliant !!
Another one is the line that he will build wall and make mexico pay for it. The media will latch onto that one and claim its impossible (which of course it isn’t for someone like Trump) and show the ad again to talk about that.
Result is bonus free media for Mr. Trump.
And it’s in 30 seconds. People should reflect upon that. The time discipline and bang for the buck is truly remarkable.
Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, gives this ad an “A++++” rating and says, “It might go down in history as one of the best political ads of all time.”
Trump-haters had better not follow this link:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136612798856/trumps-first-ad-master-persuader-filter
Personally, I really like this ad. How refreshing!
Thanks. Interesting analysis from Adams.
Adams’ analysis is, well, over-analysis.
This is very simple: the nation is pissed-off that the GOP is corrupt, the democrats are nuts and corrupt, and Obama is running our way of life off a cliff. The nation is looking for a savior, and Trump fits the bill.
Adams stated he’s not smart enough to know who would be the best president. Is he smart enough to know who would be a catastrophe as president? (Namely, a sickly, horribly corrupt, utterly incompetent old leftist fascist hag?) If not, why is he writing anything?
Not all politicians avoid that. And even Hillary Clinton uses the word radical, but not the word Islamic.
Is he proposing to start this “temporary” shutdown more than a year from now!, on January 20, 2017?
If he thinks the problem is going to last more than one year, or that we won’t understand what’s going on by then, then it doesn’t look very temporary.
I mean, what is he saying? Is this an idea tossed out now that he hopes the president and Congress will adopt, but that he knows will be irrelevant in a year? Is it his plan for when he becomes president? Will it then take him take him only 3 months or so to figure out where the terrorists are coming from? Is this just boob bait?
This is something that Obama is actually trying to do. Is he saying he will be more successful or what? Can he at least hint at the reason he would be more successful?
This is something that many administrations have been at great pains to say they have no intention of doing anything like that and that the war is not for oil!
Why does he want to feed ammunition to all the leftwingers in the world? Because no other Republican will do it? I think that’s the answer.
And there’s not much oil there in territory occupied by iSIS anyway. Is the rationale for taking the oil that this way the war is paid for? You could make an argument for that, and that the people should pay something for their liberation.
The video then shows a wall in Morocco…
…that people are climbing over!
I think actually this is very hastily put together ad that says nothing new.
It couldn’t.
They had to make sure that “the Donald” approved it, and theer wasn’t time to decide what to say.
“I think..”
No, you don’t. Your still nuts.