7 ms·

If Mark Zuckerberg runs for president, will Facebook help him win?

52 points by humility 9y ago

mrdoops 9y ago
I think the modern presidential role needs more technological savvy and broad-scale systems thinking than in the past. I'd put those abilities at a greater weight than typical political communication / dealing. There are tech CEO/Founders/Businessmen I would rather have in the White House than Zuckerberg, but there are very few politician/lawyer types that I would prefer over Zuckerberg. Facebook's practice of experimentation and data-driven decision making is something our country needs more of. Incentives are pretty out of wack, in many cases the only way to align incentives is with information systems regulating more complex relationships. I'd also like to see some really aggressive pushes towards infrastructure improvements in internet, education, and transportation . All of these are things I think Zuckerberg would be a good bet to organize.
jackblack8989 9y ago
I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. If anything Trump would be afraid of non-politicians, given the anti-establishment sentiments prevalent recently and fueled by Sanders. In my opinion, Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning off lights on their side. That's the votes that swung in Trump's favor. Rather than reforming themselves, they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term.
- 659087 9y ago
  > With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term. If the democrats nominate Zuckerberg, they can count me out. I might even vote for Trump to keep Zuckerberg out. He's the only possible candidate I can think of who makes me even more nauseous than Trump does. Even among friends of mine who have been life-long democrat voters, I know for a fact that I'm not alone on this.
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    Republicans said the same thing when Trump first started running. As it turns out, birtherism and his comments on Mexicans brought him a wide base in the Republican party that quite a few pundits didn't see coming. I'm sure if Zuckerberg played his cards right he could pull something off as well (albeit likely without the racism).
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  > The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive-democratic-platform-ever/2016/07/12/82525ab0-479b-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?utm_term=.340450ecbbc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive...
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  I would love Zuckerberg presidency. Get these old dinosaurs out of office and put some new blood actually in touch with modern times in office. Zuckerberg has spoken positively about basic income, about socialized education, healthcare etc. All of the things that will move our country towards the actual modern post-industrial era we live in where 'jobs' are a legacy idea being slowly phased out by technology. I think the boomers are still stuck in a post-ww2 mentality and are steering the country in a misguided direction.
  - Retra 9y ago
    How is a 33-year-old multi-billionaire in touch with anything you (or most people) care about?
    - nickthemagicman 9y ago
      How is a baby boomer that can barely attach an image to an e-mail in touch with anything in the modern world?
- mc32 9y ago
  I saw some of Hillary's ex team putting ideas out now that _Sanders_ was under Russian influence. They just can't get over the idea that she was "the senator's daughter" to turn a phrase and all but won. The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics which in turn turned off lots of people such that white women voters, Hillary's wheelhouse, voted for her opposition, and some commentators even called this a whitelash, implicitly implicating identity politics as having turned a cruel mistress.
  - jackblack8989 9y ago
    The "Sanders is soviet" propaganda was very widely spread when he was giving her a hard time. Sanders going to USSR for honeymoon decades earlier was the "basis" for that Hillary is scum. And honestly, when I want to feel less bad about the Trump presidency, I remind myself that it's at least not Hillary. I wish Sanders had attacked her hard during the primaries. He would have beaten Trump afterwards Her name should be Hillary not-my-fault Clinton.
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    > The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics Sounds like a rationalization made backwards from a premise, even though the issues raised in 2016 were basically identical to the issues raised in 2012. The only difference was, ironically, the introduction of "white identity politics" by Trump.
- jswizzy 9y ago
  I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President. As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people anymore.
  - krapp 9y ago
    You realize Trump is just leading working class people around by the nose though, right?
  - scriptkiddy 9y ago
    I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it. However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically. First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class. Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it. Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs, universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat gasp socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada. Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests. All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers. Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be a joke.
- Joeri 9y ago
  Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. As a non-american I honestly can't tell democrats and republicans apart when it comes to corruption. For me trump's win was because he was the only candidate left who promised a genuine change. The thing americans seem to want most of all is a real change away from the traditional washington politics, with it being almost irrelevant whether that change comes from the left or the right. It's why both obama and trump could sway the same electorate, despite having no politics in common.
- krapp 9y ago
  > they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. We're well past the point where it's reasonable to pretend that the Clinton campaign "concocted" the story entirely, or to dismiss the mountains of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to undermine the Clinton campaign. That seems to be passing from the realm of conspiracy theory to likely fact.
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    >I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. Yeah, the meeting where a British tabloid journalist baited Trump Jr. with a lure to give out some damaging information about the Clintons and nothing came out of it. The British journalist in question posted this photo (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldstone-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldston...) on his intagram page and has allegedly been to Russia several times. He could have easily been a Clinton plant to have something to show for when they decided to push the Russia collusion narrative if Trump happened to win (they had already been planning to "slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651)
    - akhilcacharya 9y ago
      What do you think Bob Mueller is investigating exactly?
      - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
        Some dirt they can fabricate to threaten Trump, and then get him to go to more wars so that the military industry can keep profiting?
        akhilcacharya 9y ago
        Fantastic conspiracy theory, A+ job.
- gist 9y ago
  > I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. Strategy wise there are plenty of reasons to make a candidate that you think you can beat appear to be a threat to you. Let's take a business example. Say you have 5 competitors. Do you want your customers comparing you to the strong competitor Or one with weaknesses that you think you can beat? Saying he is a serious candidate makes it likely that that will get bandied about instead of someone is actually stands a better chance of winning. (Doesn't matter if this is actually the case here I am using it to illustrate a point of how things that are said have to be taken with a grain of salt..)
- yahna 9y ago
  > Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks Trump won because people like you think that, because of a massive smear campaign.
taxicabjesus 9y ago
El Presidente (Señor Teflon Trump) has a unique set of skills that Mr. Zuckerberg probably doesn't have. These have been covered by the hypnotist cartoonist, Scott Adams: Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country. The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood? Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.) [...] - Clown Genius (August 15, 2015), http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius Two posts later was Wizard Wars [1], which discusses some of the hypnosis training that El Presidente went through. [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars Milton Erickson (the grand master) -> John Grinder -> Anthony Robbins -> Donald "Teflon" Trump The Clintons [Bill & Hillary] are also friends with Anthony Robbins. I don't know why Hillary didn't learn anything - maybe it's because she was a career politician who spent her formative years interacting with politicians, instead of with real people. Adams pointed out somewhere that Teflon Don's pastor growing up was Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote The Power of Positive Thinking and other books about effective mental habbits. Señor Trump used his persuasion training in his reality T.V. show, in building his twitter audience, and in his presidential campaign. One Saturday morning, when I was going to get the taxi, I heard a blurb on NPR about the screening of the Milton Erickson Foundation's new documentary, Wizard of the Desert [2] [3]. I called one of my "Project Passengers" [4] and let her know that we were going to this screening. Later I had a session with the president of the organization. Dr. Zeig precisely identified how I was sabotaging my efforts... [2] http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/ http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/ (auto-play video, starts with Anthony Robbins) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085 - she is doing very well now, no thanks to the State's efforts. Her family & "art therapy" & "peer support" training were much more helpful with getting her alcohol use under control than was 2 years in minimum security prison.
hellofunk 9y ago
The ol' Zuck means well and I think he'd give the go a nice solid try with proper intentions. But I do not think he would be that successful in the office, whatever "successful" means these days.
- karmacondon 9y ago
  Why not? Zuckerberg is clearly a smart man, and he seems to be as qualified as any one else. Infinitely more qualified than the current occupant of the office. Just because you don't think of him as a politician doesn't mean that he won't do a good job.
  - yummybear 9y ago
    If by "qualified" you mean not being misogynistic, racist and mentally unstable, then yes. Zuckerberg is more qualified. But being a politician is not just having an opinion about things - it's also being a strategist, and having a sound knowledge about how the political system works, ethics and being able to cooperate with people you disagree with. Traits Zuckerberg has yet to show he has.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      On the ethics front I would say there is ample evidence Zuckerberg does not have any worth mentioning.
  - nilkn 9y ago
    Why is Zuckerberg infinitely more qualified than Trump? Both came from wealthy families. Both are billionaires. Both are only capable of running due to their billionaire status. Neither has any experience of any kind in politics. Folks were worried about Trump's conflicts of interest, but Zuckerberg quite literally owns one of the nation's largest news redistributors which is already actively taking steps to control which news is shared.
    - 659087 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SubiculumCode 9y ago
I have thus far avoided any Zucker interviews, but I will say that I have had enough of presidential conflicts of interest. Facebook is too big, and he would need to completely divest.
bradleyjg 9y ago
Whenever his other merits or demerits Zuckerberg seems to have very little mass charisma (i.e. the ability to fire up a crowd or inspire people over tv). Look at some recent matchups and think about who had more mass charisma: Clinton v Trump Obama v Romney GWB v Kerry GWB v Gore Clinton v Dole Does it make any sense at all for a party to nominate a candidate with poor mass charisma?
- zghst 9y ago
  No. Especially since Trump is a master at projecting emotion on a mass scale. Zuckerberg could not rely on photo ops and videos to convey an emotional message when Trump is going to be shouting to audiences of thousands. He should just sit this one out, don't jump the gun on this one.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
DanCarvajal 9y ago
Zuckerberg is only hyping running so he looks more important to the Chinese government so he can get more leverage for getting Facebook into China. He's doing this because rolling over by creating backdoors and censorship tools to appease the Chinese Gov was apparently not enough. It's a scummy move but given our current president ......
sotojuan 9y ago
Can Zuck rise people up like Trump and Obama did? I doubt he could give a politics/"vote for me" speech without half the people falling asleep.
zghst 9y ago
I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, and also have a very powerful platform to reach out to voters directly. However, given all of this, running as a Democrat would not protect him from the same pressures and problems as Trump. It would probably exacerbate tensions, with him ending up much more isolated than Trump from the political establishment. If we think the Trump presidency and its coverage are hectic, just imagine the air when Zuckerberg blows through all of the weak political candidates. Everyone D and R will unilaterally oppose Zuckerberg, 10x as they do Trump, just because of his power. Additionally, it's dangerous gamble for Zuckerberg to run, as all Facebook products WILL face a massive exodus stoked by political enemies. The debate of him vs Trump will not please anyone. His path to the nomination will feel so forced like a repeat of Hillary's campaign without all the enthusiasm. Despite all of this, in my recommendation, it would be incredibly foolish of Zuckerberg not to run. If not in 2020, at least afterwards. 2020 is not an election anyone should want to be involved in. Ever. With the optics and warping that Trump's campaign style involves, traditional campaigns (and even with an adept tech strategy, direct messaging, etc.) do not work against Trump. Even co-opting his strategy and style (energy, heart, voice) is suicide. It would take an exceptionally practiced person to channel, reflect and amplify the frustrations of the electorate as a candidate to displace Trump.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, ..." What does this mean? Do you believe that the US government doesn't currently "embrace tech"? Look up 18F and the USDS. Do you not think that every law maker in Washington doesn't have a smart phone and an ipad? Would "embracing tech" somehow result in less pork barrel politics, partisan gridlock, deficit spending or kicking the can down the road on policy making? These are the real structural issues with Washington not the lack of tech in the workplace.
- georgeoo 9y ago
  Doesn't matter who the president is. The current election cycles and the kind of panderers that get propped up remind me more of third world democracies than anything else. The outcomes of whomever has got elected in the last 30-40 years have been so pointless that I'd be happy to have decisions be taken by a random number generators, than these time and resource wasting clowns.
659087 9y ago
Was this thread deleted because it was rising too quickly, and wasn't going as well as Mark's reputation management team was hoping it would?
amatheus 9y ago
Given the power Facebook have, does Zuckerberg even need to run for president? I think that's the problem with these huge companies.
junkculture 9y ago
There's no if about this. He's obviously gearing up for standing for election. Looking at the last two candidates, who can blame him? One a has-been with dubious morals and the other an impulsive unrealistic do-gooder. As for Facebook helping him? Duh. Anyone familiar with this guy and his company knows that he'll do literally anything to get what he wants. You think trump is bad? Wait until you see President Zuck.
gspetr 9y ago
People are seriously considering Mark "The People's Privacy Champion" Zuckerberg for president? http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims... >Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard >Zuck: Just ask. >Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS >[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? >Zuck: People just submitted it. >Zuck: I don't know why. >Zuck: They "trust me" >Zuck: Dumb fucks. I suppose the 2020 edition of this would look like this: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone in the United States Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 320,000,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: I became the president.

52 points by humility 9y ago

I think the modern presidential role needs more technological savvy and broad-scale systems thinking than in the past. I'd put those abilities at a greater weight than typical political communication / dealing. There are tech CEO/Founders/Businessmen I would rather have in the White House than Zuckerberg, but there are very few politician/lawyer types that I would prefer over Zuckerberg. Facebook's practice of experimentation and data-driven decision making is something our country needs more of. Incentives are pretty out of wack, in many cases the only way to align incentives is with information systems regulating more complex relationships. I'd also like to see some really aggressive pushes towards infrastructure improvements in internet, education, and transportation . All of these are things I think Zuckerberg would be a good bet to organize.

jackblack8989 9y ago

I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. If anything Trump would be afraid of non-politicians, given the anti-establishment sentiments prevalent recently and fueled by Sanders. In my opinion, Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning off lights on their side. That's the votes that swung in Trump's favor. Rather than reforming themselves, they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term.

659087 9y ago
> With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term. If the democrats nominate Zuckerberg, they can count me out. I might even vote for Trump to keep Zuckerberg out. He's the only possible candidate I can think of who makes me even more nauseous than Trump does. Even among friends of mine who have been life-long democrat voters, I know for a fact that I'm not alone on this.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  Republicans said the same thing when Trump first started running. As it turns out, birtherism and his comments on Mexicans brought him a wide base in the Republican party that quite a few pundits didn't see coming. I'm sure if Zuckerberg played his cards right he could pull something off as well (albeit likely without the racism).
akhilcacharya 9y ago
> The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive-democratic-platform-ever/2016/07/12/82525ab0-479b-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?utm_term=.340450ecbbc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive...
nickthemagicman 9y ago
I would love Zuckerberg presidency. Get these old dinosaurs out of office and put some new blood actually in touch with modern times in office. Zuckerberg has spoken positively about basic income, about socialized education, healthcare etc. All of the things that will move our country towards the actual modern post-industrial era we live in where 'jobs' are a legacy idea being slowly phased out by technology. I think the boomers are still stuck in a post-ww2 mentality and are steering the country in a misguided direction.
- Retra 9y ago
  How is a 33-year-old multi-billionaire in touch with anything you (or most people) care about?
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    How is a baby boomer that can barely attach an image to an e-mail in touch with anything in the modern world?
mc32 9y ago
I saw some of Hillary's ex team putting ideas out now that _Sanders_ was under Russian influence. They just can't get over the idea that she was "the senator's daughter" to turn a phrase and all but won. The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics which in turn turned off lots of people such that white women voters, Hillary's wheelhouse, voted for her opposition, and some commentators even called this a whitelash, implicitly implicating identity politics as having turned a cruel mistress.
- jackblack8989 9y ago
  The "Sanders is soviet" propaganda was very widely spread when he was giving her a hard time. Sanders going to USSR for honeymoon decades earlier was the "basis" for that Hillary is scum. And honestly, when I want to feel less bad about the Trump presidency, I remind myself that it's at least not Hillary. I wish Sanders had attacked her hard during the primaries. He would have beaten Trump afterwards Her name should be Hillary not-my-fault Clinton.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  > The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics Sounds like a rationalization made backwards from a premise, even though the issues raised in 2016 were basically identical to the issues raised in 2012. The only difference was, ironically, the introduction of "white identity politics" by Trump.
jswizzy 9y ago
I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President. As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people anymore.
- krapp 9y ago
  You realize Trump is just leading working class people around by the nose though, right?
- scriptkiddy 9y ago
  I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it. However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically. First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class. Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it. Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs, universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat gasp socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada. Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests. All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers. Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be a joke.
Joeri 9y ago
Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. As a non-american I honestly can't tell democrats and republicans apart when it comes to corruption. For me trump's win was because he was the only candidate left who promised a genuine change. The thing americans seem to want most of all is a real change away from the traditional washington politics, with it being almost irrelevant whether that change comes from the left or the right. It's why both obama and trump could sway the same electorate, despite having no politics in common.
krapp 9y ago
> they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. We're well past the point where it's reasonable to pretend that the Clinton campaign "concocted" the story entirely, or to dismiss the mountains of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to undermine the Clinton campaign. That seems to be passing from the realm of conspiracy theory to likely fact.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. Yeah, the meeting where a British tabloid journalist baited Trump Jr. with a lure to give out some damaging information about the Clintons and nothing came out of it. The British journalist in question posted this photo (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldstone-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldston...) on his intagram page and has allegedly been to Russia several times. He could have easily been a Clinton plant to have something to show for when they decided to push the Russia collusion narrative if Trump happened to win (they had already been planning to "slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651)
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    What do you think Bob Mueller is investigating exactly?
    - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
      Some dirt they can fabricate to threaten Trump, and then get him to go to more wars so that the military industry can keep profiting?
      - akhilcacharya 9y ago
        Fantastic conspiracy theory, A+ job.
gist 9y ago
> I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. Strategy wise there are plenty of reasons to make a candidate that you think you can beat appear to be a threat to you. Let's take a business example. Say you have 5 competitors. Do you want your customers comparing you to the strong competitor Or one with weaknesses that you think you can beat? Saying he is a serious candidate makes it likely that that will get bandied about instead of someone is actually stands a better chance of winning. (Doesn't matter if this is actually the case here I am using it to illustrate a point of how things that are said have to be taken with a grain of salt..)
yahna 9y ago
> Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks Trump won because people like you think that, because of a massive smear campaign.

taxicabjesus 9y ago

El Presidente (Señor Teflon Trump) has a unique set of skills that Mr. Zuckerberg probably doesn't have. These have been covered by the hypnotist cartoonist, Scott Adams: Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country. The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood? Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.) [...] - Clown Genius (August 15, 2015), http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius Two posts later was Wizard Wars [1], which discusses some of the hypnosis training that El Presidente went through. [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars Milton Erickson (the grand master) -> John Grinder -> Anthony Robbins -> Donald "Teflon" Trump The Clintons [Bill & Hillary] are also friends with Anthony Robbins. I don't know why Hillary didn't learn anything - maybe it's because she was a career politician who spent her formative years interacting with politicians, instead of with real people. Adams pointed out somewhere that Teflon Don's pastor growing up was Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote The Power of Positive Thinking and other books about effective mental habbits. Señor Trump used his persuasion training in his reality T.V. show, in building his twitter audience, and in his presidential campaign. One Saturday morning, when I was going to get the taxi, I heard a blurb on NPR about the screening of the Milton Erickson Foundation's new documentary, Wizard of the Desert [2] [3]. I called one of my "Project Passengers" [4] and let her know that we were going to this screening. Later I had a session with the president of the organization. Dr. Zeig precisely identified how I was sabotaging my efforts... [2] http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/ http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/ (auto-play video, starts with Anthony Robbins) [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085 - she is doing very well now, no thanks to the State's efforts. Her family & "art therapy" & "peer support" training were much more helpful with getting her alcohol use under control than was 2 years in minimum security prison.

hellofunk 9y ago

The ol' Zuck means well and I think he'd give the go a nice solid try with proper intentions. But I do not think he would be that successful in the office, whatever "successful" means these days.

karmacondon 9y ago
Why not? Zuckerberg is clearly a smart man, and he seems to be as qualified as any one else. Infinitely more qualified than the current occupant of the office. Just because you don't think of him as a politician doesn't mean that he won't do a good job.
- yummybear 9y ago
  If by "qualified" you mean not being misogynistic, racist and mentally unstable, then yes. Zuckerberg is more qualified. But being a politician is not just having an opinion about things - it's also being a strategist, and having a sound knowledge about how the political system works, ethics and being able to cooperate with people you disagree with. Traits Zuckerberg has yet to show he has.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    On the ethics front I would say there is ample evidence Zuckerberg does not have any worth mentioning.
- nilkn 9y ago
  Why is Zuckerberg infinitely more qualified than Trump? Both came from wealthy families. Both are billionaires. Both are only capable of running due to their billionaire status. Neither has any experience of any kind in politics. Folks were worried about Trump's conflicts of interest, but Zuckerberg quite literally owns one of the nation's largest news redistributors which is already actively taking steps to control which news is shared.
  - 659087 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SubiculumCode 9y ago

I have thus far avoided any Zucker interviews, but I will say that I have had enough of presidential conflicts of interest. Facebook is too big, and he would need to completely divest.

bradleyjg 9y ago

Whenever his other merits or demerits Zuckerberg seems to have very little mass charisma (i.e. the ability to fire up a crowd or inspire people over tv). Look at some recent matchups and think about who had more mass charisma: Clinton v Trump Obama v Romney GWB v Kerry GWB v Gore Clinton v Dole Does it make any sense at all for a party to nominate a candidate with poor mass charisma?

zghst 9y ago
No. Especially since Trump is a master at projecting emotion on a mass scale. Zuckerberg could not rely on photo ops and videos to convey an emotional message when Trump is going to be shouting to audiences of thousands. He should just sit this one out, don't jump the gun on this one.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

DanCarvajal 9y ago

Zuckerberg is only hyping running so he looks more important to the Chinese government so he can get more leverage for getting Facebook into China. He's doing this because rolling over by creating backdoors and censorship tools to appease the Chinese Gov was apparently not enough. It's a scummy move but given our current president ......

sotojuan 9y ago

Can Zuck rise people up like Trump and Obama did? I doubt he could give a politics/"vote for me" speech without half the people falling asleep.

zghst 9y ago

I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, and also have a very powerful platform to reach out to voters directly. However, given all of this, running as a Democrat would not protect him from the same pressures and problems as Trump. It would probably exacerbate tensions, with him ending up much more isolated than Trump from the political establishment. If we think the Trump presidency and its coverage are hectic, just imagine the air when Zuckerberg blows through all of the weak political candidates. Everyone D and R will unilaterally oppose Zuckerberg, 10x as they do Trump, just because of his power. Additionally, it's dangerous gamble for Zuckerberg to run, as all Facebook products WILL face a massive exodus stoked by political enemies. The debate of him vs Trump will not please anyone. His path to the nomination will feel so forced like a repeat of Hillary's campaign without all the enthusiasm. Despite all of this, in my recommendation, it would be incredibly foolish of Zuckerberg not to run. If not in 2020, at least afterwards. 2020 is not an election anyone should want to be involved in. Ever. With the optics and warping that Trump's campaign style involves, traditional campaigns (and even with an adept tech strategy, direct messaging, etc.) do not work against Trump. Even co-opting his strategy and style (energy, heart, voice) is suicide. It would take an exceptionally practiced person to channel, reflect and amplify the frustrations of the electorate as a candidate to displace Trump.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, ..." What does this mean? Do you believe that the US government doesn't currently "embrace tech"? Look up 18F and the USDS. Do you not think that every law maker in Washington doesn't have a smart phone and an ipad? Would "embracing tech" somehow result in less pork barrel politics, partisan gridlock, deficit spending or kicking the can down the road on policy making? These are the real structural issues with Washington not the lack of tech in the workplace.
georgeoo 9y ago
Doesn't matter who the president is. The current election cycles and the kind of panderers that get propped up remind me more of third world democracies than anything else. The outcomes of whomever has got elected in the last 30-40 years have been so pointless that I'd be happy to have decisions be taken by a random number generators, than these time and resource wasting clowns.

659087 9y ago

Was this thread deleted because it was rising too quickly, and wasn't going as well as Mark's reputation management team was hoping it would?

amatheus 9y ago

Given the power Facebook have, does Zuckerberg even need to run for president? I think that's the problem with these huge companies.

junkculture 9y ago

There's no if about this. He's obviously gearing up for standing for election. Looking at the last two candidates, who can blame him? One a has-been with dubious morals and the other an impulsive unrealistic do-gooder. As for Facebook helping him? Duh. Anyone familiar with this guy and his company knows that he'll do literally anything to get what he wants. You think trump is bad? Wait until you see President Zuck.

gspetr 9y ago

People are seriously considering Mark "The People's Privacy Champion" Zuckerberg for president? http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims... >Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard >Zuck: Just ask. >Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS >[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? >Zuck: People just submitted it. >Zuck: I don't know why. >Zuck: They "trust me" >Zuck: Dumb fucks. I suppose the 2020 edition of this would look like this: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone in the United States Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 320,000,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: I became the president.