4 ms·

>The more likely scenario however is that that won't happen. I put the probability precisely equal to Clinton holding the secret to politics and doing really w

>The more likely scenario however is that that won't happen. I put the probability precisely equal to Clinton holding the secret to politics and doing really well. >Getting to power and staying in power are two completely different jobs The implication here is that somehow Trump conned people into voting for him. The reality is that there are actual, real people who believe in some of the policies he's proposing. Trump is already dialling back the rhetoric regarding deportation and the wall and other things. The literal proposals are ridiculous. But I think you'll find many people will like the direction he goes, just not in Silicon Valley.

scrollaway 10y ago
> The implication here is that somehow Trump conned people into voting for him. I don't know how you're getting that implication from the sentence you quoted. > I put the probability precisely equal to Clinton holding the secret to politics and doing really well. She doesn't hold the secret to politics, she's just incredibly experienced. And, if there is a "secret to politics" it's very much the various things she was accused of: being double-faced, managing bribes, etc. Those things don't make you electable, they're just good at keeping you in power. Like I said, getting to power and staying in power are very different skillsets.
Jordrok 10y ago
> The implication here is that somehow Trump conned people into voting for him. The reality is that there are actual, real people who believe in some of the policies he's proposing. Yeah, that sounds about right. I would be extremely surprised if Trump himself actually believes even half of the things he said during his campaign and in the time leading up to it. The rest is just pandering to the Id of his base. Like you say, the literal proposals are ridiculous and he's already starting to back off on them. Saying one thing and then doing another - isn't that practically the definition of a con?

scrollaway 10y ago

> The implication here is that somehow Trump conned people into voting for him. I don't know how you're getting that implication from the sentence you quoted. > I put the probability precisely equal to Clinton holding the secret to politics and doing really well. She doesn't hold the secret to politics, she's just incredibly experienced. And, if there is a "secret to politics" it's very much the various things she was accused of: being double-faced, managing bribes, etc. Those things don't make you electable, they're just good at keeping you in power. Like I said, getting to power and staying in power are very different skillsets.

Jordrok 10y ago

> The implication here is that somehow Trump conned people into voting for him. The reality is that there are actual, real people who believe in some of the policies he's proposing. Yeah, that sounds about right. I would be extremely surprised if Trump himself actually believes even half of the things he said during his campaign and in the time leading up to it. The rest is just pandering to the Id of his base. Like you say, the literal proposals are ridiculous and he's already starting to back off on them. Saying one thing and then doing another - isn't that practically the definition of a con?