P T Barnum with a amplified Megaphone.

Is that guy you are seeing in public really him or a character?

At practically any other time in American history, public confirmation that the occupant of the Oval Office is a serial con man who lied, schemed, and impersonated his way to public prominence would have dominated the news for weeks. These days, though, the media is virtually overwhelmed by the sheer number of Trump stories. When Greenberg’s article appeared, on Friday, it had to compete with the latest developments involving the former F.B.I. director James Comey, the Trump associate Michael Cohen, the former F.B.I. official Andrew McCabe, and North Korea. Although a few cable news shows and commentators did pick up on Greenberg’s piece, the burst of interest didn’t last long.

That’s unfortunate, because the seventy-one-year-old Trump currently in the White House is merely an older version of the thirty-seven-year-old Trump who misled Greenberg all those years ago. “When I first contacted him for the inaugural issue, Trump pulled out all the stops to convince me that he was the wealthiest real-estate developer in New York,” Greenberg wrote in his article. “At an afternoon-long meeting in his cavernous Fifth Avenue office, he argued that his family was worth more than $900 million and deserved to be higher on our list than any of the far more accomplished developers (with names like Rose and Rudin) who had spent generations building top-tier housing in the golden borough of Manhattan.” After Greenberg reacted skeptically to some of Trump’s claims, he got a call from the developer’s lawyer, Roy Cohn. “I am sitting here looking at his current bank statement,” Cohn said. “It shows he’s got more than $500 million in liquid assets, just cash. That’s just Donald, nothing to do with Fred, and it’s just cash. He’s worth more than any of those other guys in this town!”

<SNIP>

Judging by subsequent history, the lesson that Trump learned from this experience was that lying to the media works. His regular appearances on Forbes’s list didn’t merely give him bragging rights in New York real-estate circles. They also burnished his personal brand, which he eventually rode to a starring role on a network-television show, “The Apprentice.” From there, he set his sights on the White House.

Another lesson that Trump seems to have learned early is that, if you are going to make things up, there’s no point underdoing it. When he was running for President, he claimed to be worth more than ten billion dollars, even though most independent analysts reckoned the true figure was less than half that. “Trump has latched onto such fanciful figures not simply because he’s insecure about his wealth but because he knows that pretending he has that kind of money keeps him in the media’s eye and keeps potential business partners interested in him,” Timothy L. O’Brien, the author of a critical 2005 biography of Trump, noted at Bloomberg View on Monday. “It’s all part of the long con.”

people say' or 'lots of people have told me' or the like. All lies. He talked to no one. Unless its himself. Being so much into himself and only himself, he probably rants and raves to himself all day. Disgusting.

And he's not fooling one single person with his stupid act...

Yes, that generalized use of words is fallacious and insubstantial and it works. You can see it used as a deceptive rhetorical device in many instances and from different people.

My point is, actually, that he is not only fooling his base, but he is fooling the left in the sense that I don't think people who react to all of the strange behavior as catching on to it possibly being much phonier and fabricated than it seems. That does make a difference when you think about it.

He has crafted a multi-faceted character that is designed to appeal highly to those in his base AND have an intentional, negative impact, (with several implications) on our side of the fence. The ulterior motives then become an issue. If we are reacting to that character, we are, in a sense being fooled and perhaps, missing the point. This is not meant to condone what he says and does, but it changes the focus and depth of our usual picture of him.

He fooled over 60 million people with his act four years ago.

Building a resource thread that lays out some information to support the thesis that both sides are being played. That is, if the character we are seeing and reacting to is an intentional, crafted facade with an anticipation of general reactions to it.

The greatest show on Earth for one and all? Step right up!

Donald Trump was on his way from China to Vietnam, but appeared to touch down on Chicago’s South Side Thursday night as Kevin Young, author and poetry editor of The New Yorker, melded the long history of bunk, humbug, and hoaxes with Trump and P.T. Barnum.

He recounted the huge allure of Barnum's hoaxes in the 1800s and how Trump’s appeal also rests on hoaxes and fakery that entertain, even enthrall some. “There’s something American about it,” said Young to a Chicago Humanities Festival audience as he recounted about 150 years’ worth of de facto fake news, including the 1830s advent of the so-called penny press, which promised information on the cheap, just like the Internet.

Young writes in Bunk: The Rise of Hoaxes, Humbug, Plagiarists, Phonies, Post-Facts, and Fake News that “the Age of Euphemism has its modern inheritor” to Barnum in Trump, a man similarly aware of the press, “by turns defiant of and dependent on it in ways that only reinforce the spectacle's power.”

They both experienced bankruptcies and ran for office (Barnum served one term as mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and in the legislature) and, yes, both “planted fake-news story as matter of course.” Admittedly, Barnum didn’t start a phony university, pretend to be his own publicists, or fabricate Time magazine covers that filled halls in his properties.

Older article. I think his endgame may be far worse then they could have imagined at that time and this article deals mostly with the manipulation of the press itself. That's only scratching the surface.

Trump’s strategy operates on multiple levels: He attempts to undermine credible yet unflattering news reports by calling them “fake” or “dishonest.” Then, by provoking an alarmed response from journalists, he’s poised to brush them off further as hysterical. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, he chastised professional news organizations for not calling themselves fake. That, he explained, was proof that they were.

Similarly, calling the press “the opposition party” makes every unflattering story seem like confirmation that journalists are acting against him—rather than merely reporting the news and holding him accountable as an elected official. Trump is taking the naturally adversarial role between the press and the government, and attempting to recast it as a fight between political rivals. In this way, he is setting a stage so that any of his or his administration’s potential missteps can be recast as politically-charged criticism or outright lies.

As a bonus to him, Trump’s hostility toward the press is a distraction from the actual work of the Trump administration. Which means Trump successfully leaves the impression that the press is busily focused on itself—rather than concerned primarily with the issues of the people. (Never mind that journalists have covered his administration doggedly, and will continue to do so.)

He has no introspection, humility or even common decency. Of course there are many such creatures among us, but I’m sure we’re not supposed to put them into high office.

Another exhibit. It is not surprising that he would flip what he had to in order to campaign as a Republican, but it does bring up the question again, who is the real Donald Trump, then? This is a little beyond just what a big liar he is, which some people might think and then just pass on. Should we assume we know and react to a ventriloquist's puppet in his show?

There is a difference from just changing your mind or views and core values that you have, (which can be very difficult to change, even if you want to) Rather than assuming Trump has any real stance other than what facilitates his goal(s) it is better too question what is going on here and how he is able to fashion and display a role with expertise. Who's really behind it?

He loved Hillary Clinton; now he thinks she's the worst. He was very much in favor of abortion rights before he opposed them. And he might be running as a Republican today, but he was once a registered Democrat who called for legalizing drugs, a massive one-time 14.25 percent tax on the wealthy and staying out of wars that didn't present a "direct threat" to the U.S. In many ways, he's been to the left of Clinton and even Bernie Sanders on some issues.

That sure sounds like a manufactured name. De Claw!