4 ms·

I don't consider him charismatic but I am excited to see him win the election. The reason his character appeals to me becomes clear when he is being interviewed

I don't consider him charismatic but I am excited to see him win the election. The reason his character appeals to me becomes clear when he is being interviewed in the media. They seem so fake, polished and conditioned. He does not. Juxtaposed to members of the media, to me, he seems like myself. I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. Other presidential candidates are just like those people to me. They won't say anything that will upset you. They go with whatever the current flow is. Whatever narrative the nation is supposed to follow at the moment. It's the same way I feel when reading comments on the net, including on HN. The character Trump represents appeals to me because he seems to see through the kind of bullshit that I feel like I'm seeing through as well.

davesque 10y ago
But....he also doesn't mind if nuclear weapons proliferate.........and he wants to ban Muslims (1/5th the world population) from entering the country.
- coderdude 10y ago
  The actual discussions are more nuanced. What you have determined from what you've read or heard does not align with what I have determined. Having listened to the conversation that causes the reaction "Trump is for nuclear proliferation," I don't think that's what he was describing. What he said was that North Korea has nuclear weapons but no carrier system. That they will have a carrier system soon. That he'd rather Japan be able to defend themselves equally against NK if the need should arise, and not for the United States to be in charge of keeping Japan safe. That is what he said.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Uh, letting other countries defend themselves by having nuclear weapons is the exact definition of nuclear proliferation. The whole point is to contain as much as possible which countries have nuclear weaponry.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
I more or less agree with your characterization of the members of the media. But when I listen to Trump being interviewed, he reminds me of a stereotypical New York organized crime figure talking to a police detective, or, even worse, the lawyer representing such a crime figure. Trump tries to say things which are technically true but uninformative and non-committal, things which are mere expressions of opinion instead of fact, things which are just his best recollection or his "impressions" of people and situations. He seems evasive so often. And, of course, he's so willing to offend and treat his perceived enemies rudely and ferociously that even a lot of Republicans dislike him. How would this guy possibly collaborate and build a coalition to get anything done? How would he ever win his fellow Republicans, much less Democrats (who are all convinced he's a vile racist/sexist asshole they cannot touch with a ten-foot pole) over to his side on anything? I guess the answer is charisma?
- coderdude 10y ago
  You present a compelling argument. It may just be that charisma is alive and well in Trump. I can't answer those questions. I grapple with them, myself.
mistermann 10y ago
I feel very similarly, and I think a lof of the general public do (or will) as well. If you spend much time on reddit you may have seen that Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet, and a lot of examples of lying, flip-flopping, pandering, etc. So much high quality material for Trump to work with.
- coderdude 10y ago
  I think it goes both ways with the two candidates. I believe that Trump is also playing the political game here. I've seen examples of him saying things that are contradictory to things he has said in the past[^]. He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis. [^] Much of this information is shown by shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a show that I love to watch but have grown sick of the super obvious political slant it has. It was cool when Jon Stewart was doing it 10 years ago. That was fresh. It was funny when Colbert parodied it later but now that each of these three figures are now so obviously and unapologetically slanted toward a particular political view, it's become unappealing to me. So while I take in the facts as I can, I do have to remember that in each direction I face, I'm consuming propaganda. Edit: I hate you, markdown syntax.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis. Do you know of any specifics? I think he probably has a habit of "objectifying women" which for most people would be the death of a candidacy, but I bet Trump can just shrug his shoulders when accused and that will be the end of it. Of course this will incense young liberals, but the general public is well aware that men and women are not identical and sexual innuendo, etc are facts of life and not the end of the world. For example, a lot of regressive liberals would equate being a cocktail waitress at a Trump party as the near equivalent of rape, whereas the waitresses themselves (I'd happily bet $$ on this) are falling over themselves for the next gig as it pays well and is fun. Pure speculation on my part of course. And yes, completely agree on the John Oliver schtick....maybe its bias but I sense a change in the effectiveness of this approach, people are tired of it.
krapp 10y ago
>I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. I hope you realize that this impression has likely been conditioned into you by politicians and the media.
- coderdude 10y ago
  Can you explain to me why politicians and the media would want me to believe that politicians and the media are not real people? It seems like such a matter-of-fact thing to say to me but flies in the face of rationale. I'm open to your interpretation of what we're being spoon-fed.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Politicians want you to believe that politicians other than themselves are not real people. It's what I call the "Mister Smith goes to Washington" syndrome. Encouraging cynicism among the electorate makes voters more malleable. Cynics can be trusted to believe or doubt statements which conform to certain biases, regardless of their actual truth, to be swayed by rhetoric, and to vote based on emotion rather than reason. I'm purposely differentiating between cynics and skeptics in this case. Yet every successful politician by definition is "fake" in the ways that politics requires. As a result, politicians who are successful at a "down to earth, anti-establishment" facade appear more sincere, despite that being a political schtick that goes back to ancient Rome. Politicians who are sincere, but don't present that facade appear fake. The fact alone that Donald Trump openly rejects appearing "presidential" while running for president should clue you in that there's a game being played. George W. Bush went to Harvard Business School and Yale, came from an elite family, and yet presented himself as a cowboy, like he'd just stumbled into the White House off of the turnip truck. And of course Obama is an example from the other side. He basically ran and won, and got a Nobel Prize, for not being George W. Bush. If we respected politics as an art, and expected politicians to be experts in their fields like doctors or scientists, and we were engaged in the political process, then politicians would have to prove their worth by the weight and value of their ideas. But, we've been trained to hate politics, despise politicians, and to have no faith in the system. They just have to ring the populist bell and we drool. Politicians also want you to believe the media is wholly bought by the other party, so that you'll dismiss criticism and attempts at in-depth interviewing as propaganda and 'hit-pieces.' If a Democrat runs, the media is a tool of the right, when a Republican runs, it's a tool of the left. Meanwhile, media companies are in competition, but they're also reporting on the same events, so to differentiate themselves they present biased reporting as unbiased and encourage people to believe that their competition can't be trusted. A belief in the fairness and sincerity of the media would mean less brand loyalty among media consumers.
ido 10y ago
Isn't his policy a lot more important than how he appears on tv? None of what you said sounds particularly important for a president (basically "seems like a dude I'd like").
- yolesaber 10y ago
  It's scary how many people vote that way
jimbokun 10y ago
This is a shockingly superficial and short sighted way to evaluate people. Sure, Trump doesn't say what people expect him to say. But what he actually says is usually incoherent, cruel, self serving, false, or all of the above. I mean, try to make any sense of this: "TRUMP: No, he was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and, asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer! But of course not, and I said that afterwards." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defends_abortion_gaffe_with_academic_word_salad.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defe... It's like a bad Markov model. Does not reflect well on you that you ignore all of that and latch onto someone just for being "edgy" and contrarian. Sure, Trump might represent "actual human beings", but those human beings are assholes.

davesque 10y ago

But....he also doesn't mind if nuclear weapons proliferate.........and he wants to ban Muslims (1/5th the world population) from entering the country.

coderdude 10y ago
The actual discussions are more nuanced. What you have determined from what you've read or heard does not align with what I have determined. Having listened to the conversation that causes the reaction "Trump is for nuclear proliferation," I don't think that's what he was describing. What he said was that North Korea has nuclear weapons but no carrier system. That they will have a carrier system soon. That he'd rather Japan be able to defend themselves equally against NK if the need should arise, and not for the United States to be in charge of keeping Japan safe. That is what he said.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Uh, letting other countries defend themselves by having nuclear weapons is the exact definition of nuclear proliferation. The whole point is to contain as much as possible which countries have nuclear weaponry.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

I more or less agree with your characterization of the members of the media. But when I listen to Trump being interviewed, he reminds me of a stereotypical New York organized crime figure talking to a police detective, or, even worse, the lawyer representing such a crime figure. Trump tries to say things which are technically true but uninformative and non-committal, things which are mere expressions of opinion instead of fact, things which are just his best recollection or his "impressions" of people and situations. He seems evasive so often. And, of course, he's so willing to offend and treat his perceived enemies rudely and ferociously that even a lot of Republicans dislike him. How would this guy possibly collaborate and build a coalition to get anything done? How would he ever win his fellow Republicans, much less Democrats (who are all convinced he's a vile racist/sexist asshole they cannot touch with a ten-foot pole) over to his side on anything? I guess the answer is charisma?

coderdude 10y ago
You present a compelling argument. It may just be that charisma is alive and well in Trump. I can't answer those questions. I grapple with them, myself.

mistermann 10y ago

I feel very similarly, and I think a lof of the general public do (or will) as well. If you spend much time on reddit you may have seen that Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet, and a lot of examples of lying, flip-flopping, pandering, etc. So much high quality material for Trump to work with.

coderdude 10y ago
I think it goes both ways with the two candidates. I believe that Trump is also playing the political game here. I've seen examples of him saying things that are contradictory to things he has said in the past[^]. He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis. [^] Much of this information is shown by shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a show that I love to watch but have grown sick of the super obvious political slant it has. It was cool when Jon Stewart was doing it 10 years ago. That was fresh. It was funny when Colbert parodied it later but now that each of these three figures are now so obviously and unapologetically slanted toward a particular political view, it's become unappealing to me. So while I take in the facts as I can, I do have to remember that in each direction I face, I'm consuming propaganda. Edit: I hate you, markdown syntax.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis. Do you know of any specifics? I think he probably has a habit of "objectifying women" which for most people would be the death of a candidacy, but I bet Trump can just shrug his shoulders when accused and that will be the end of it. Of course this will incense young liberals, but the general public is well aware that men and women are not identical and sexual innuendo, etc are facts of life and not the end of the world. For example, a lot of regressive liberals would equate being a cocktail waitress at a Trump party as the near equivalent of rape, whereas the waitresses themselves (I'd happily bet $$ on this) are falling over themselves for the next gig as it pays well and is fun. Pure speculation on my part of course. And yes, completely agree on the John Oliver schtick....maybe its bias but I sense a change in the effectiveness of this approach, people are tired of it.

krapp 10y ago

>I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. I hope you realize that this impression has likely been conditioned into you by politicians and the media.

coderdude 10y ago
Can you explain to me why politicians and the media would want me to believe that politicians and the media are not real people? It seems like such a matter-of-fact thing to say to me but flies in the face of rationale. I'm open to your interpretation of what we're being spoon-fed.
- krapp 10y ago
  Politicians want you to believe that politicians other than themselves are not real people. It's what I call the "Mister Smith goes to Washington" syndrome. Encouraging cynicism among the electorate makes voters more malleable. Cynics can be trusted to believe or doubt statements which conform to certain biases, regardless of their actual truth, to be swayed by rhetoric, and to vote based on emotion rather than reason. I'm purposely differentiating between cynics and skeptics in this case. Yet every successful politician by definition is "fake" in the ways that politics requires. As a result, politicians who are successful at a "down to earth, anti-establishment" facade appear more sincere, despite that being a political schtick that goes back to ancient Rome. Politicians who are sincere, but don't present that facade appear fake. The fact alone that Donald Trump openly rejects appearing "presidential" while running for president should clue you in that there's a game being played. George W. Bush went to Harvard Business School and Yale, came from an elite family, and yet presented himself as a cowboy, like he'd just stumbled into the White House off of the turnip truck. And of course Obama is an example from the other side. He basically ran and won, and got a Nobel Prize, for not being George W. Bush. If we respected politics as an art, and expected politicians to be experts in their fields like doctors or scientists, and we were engaged in the political process, then politicians would have to prove their worth by the weight and value of their ideas. But, we've been trained to hate politics, despise politicians, and to have no faith in the system. They just have to ring the populist bell and we drool. Politicians also want you to believe the media is wholly bought by the other party, so that you'll dismiss criticism and attempts at in-depth interviewing as propaganda and 'hit-pieces.' If a Democrat runs, the media is a tool of the right, when a Republican runs, it's a tool of the left. Meanwhile, media companies are in competition, but they're also reporting on the same events, so to differentiate themselves they present biased reporting as unbiased and encourage people to believe that their competition can't be trusted. A belief in the fairness and sincerity of the media would mean less brand loyalty among media consumers.

ido 10y ago

Isn't his policy a lot more important than how he appears on tv? None of what you said sounds particularly important for a president (basically "seems like a dude I'd like").

yolesaber 10y ago
It's scary how many people vote that way

jimbokun 10y ago

This is a shockingly superficial and short sighted way to evaluate people. Sure, Trump doesn't say what people expect him to say. But what he actually says is usually incoherent, cruel, self serving, false, or all of the above. I mean, try to make any sense of this: "TRUMP: No, he was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and, asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer! But of course not, and I said that afterwards." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defends_abortion_gaffe_with_academic_word_salad.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defe... It's like a bad Markov model. Does not reflect well on you that you ignore all of that and latch onto someone just for being "edgy" and contrarian. Sure, Trump might represent "actual human beings", but those human beings are assholes.