5 ms·

One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that t

One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that to make a sale and it worked. That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked. The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.

heimatau 7y ago
This is a stellar summary of Trump's skills.
laichzeit0 7y ago
> So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what is "presidential" and what is not? Otherwise we descend into the domain of things being verboten and the retort of "well it's common sense" and so forth.
- eloff 7y ago
  However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.
  - jtdev 7y ago
    People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
    - krapp 7y ago
      I mean, literally more people wanted Clinton than wanted Trump, per capita. Not that it actually mattered, given the way the US electoral process works, but the premise that Clinton was overwhelmingly unpopular is an exaggeration. She just wasn't popular enough in the right states. It's true that a lot of Democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, but I suspect more of them flipped to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - jtdev 7y ago
        We’ll see how the DNC’s strategy of crapping on a giant portion of the electorate works out... once again...
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      2,868,686 more people wanted Clinton over Trump. If "people didn't want Clinton", they wanted Trump even less.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  At some point we have to be willing to be intellectually honest about who speaks and acts with respect and integrity and who does not. E.g. when Trump says there were "very fine people, on both sides" of a white supremacist rally, what should we make of that? Should we quibble over implausible re-interpretations of his words and conclude that maybe he meant something other than what's obvious? Should we say hey, okay, maybe Nazism and white supremacist movements deserve another look because, like, everything's relative, man, you know? When Trump uses racist and sexist dogwhistles (e.g. "a young woman governor") to denigrate to his political opponents, what's the takeaway there? Is that okay? Is that a man worthy of respect, of sitting in the Oval Office? When Trump suggests that we should inject ourselves with "disinfectant" to cure COVID, am I supposed to conclude that he is so smart I just can't possibly understand the genius behind his words (it's so simple!) or should I throw that on the pile of evidence that he's an ignorant person with no capability and/or inclination for understanding complex issues? If I thought everything was relative, I'd have to think nothing mattered more than anything else, and the logical next step would be to lay down in my bed and wait for the sweet release of death. We live in a world that is not black and white, but we have to do the best we can to be better people and hold our leaders to high standards. Intellectual honesty is the first step, and it's what the GOP and their more intellectually accomplished adherents lack.
clairity 7y ago
to be a good salesman requires high levels of empathy (ego, in the competitive sense, is the other requisite characteristic). perhaps relatedly, this seems to be true of sociopaths as well. note that empathy here refers to the facet that let's you tease out how people are feeling and what's causing those feelings (to your point), not the one that makes you genuinely care for other people. with that said, it's unlikely that the election tipping point was honing in on the biggest weakness of an opponent. that's incidental to his real strength in this area, which is honing in on the central fear of--let's not beat around the bush--large blocks of white people. this is how you make sense of seemingly disparate issues like immigration, nationalism, tax breaks for the wealthy, and anti-abortionism that the trump campaign championed (even if he doesn't personally care about immigration or abortion policy, for example). trump won by using his sales-honed empathy to zero in on this central fear and then beat that drum relentlessly to victory. clinton, on the other hand, empathized in the other sense of the word (to some extent), but failed at understanding the basic motivations of the populace.
arcticfox 7y ago
> He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them That was my impression before the election, when I didn't pay any attention. I thought he was a successful bully, which wouldn't necessarily be the worst combination for a President. After learning about his actual business history (Thanks, Trump Inc.! podcast) I think the 'succeeded' part is pretty arguable. He was born unbelievably wealthy, had a string of some unbelievable business failures, and was subsequently bailed out by some known (Deutsche Bank) as well as unknown shady actors and practices. Now that I understand his business history, I wouldn't consider him to have succeeded in business. He could have been vastly more wealthy today by doing nothing other than invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely unsuccessful.
- mrunkel 7y ago
  It's like the old joke. What's the easiest way to get a million dollars? ... Well you start out with 100 million!
- eloff 7y ago
  Investing the bulk of your money in index funds during the great market run-up following the second World War and having the guts to ride out the storm when the market tanks periodically, I think is not trivial. There was a secretary in NYC who did that and died with an 11M fortune. She was clearly very successful. I think Trump has been successful. Many people born into wealth lose it or at least don't grow it. So he deserves some kudos here. I think people don't like to give him credit for anything, but if you "only" grow your fortune at the rate of the market, then you're really tracking the average success of American business. That's by definition better than 50% of public companies and in the top few percent of individuals. That's successful in my books. This post is attracting quite a bit of negative attention, but I stand by my assessment as fair. If you disagree, maybe you want to point out how it's not fair? I think people just hate Trump (which I do as well, but I can separate concerns.)
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    Read up on Hudson Yards and think about it some more.
vixen99 7y ago
If he manages to get a second term (which seems not inconceivable) you'll have to redefine what you mean by 'not something that works in politics'. People who can't stand Trump have taken the bait. Deplorable is not a popular word anymore but the reaction to the President's inconsequential meandering does, happily for some, imply that Trump fans are gullible, poor and idiotic.
DevX101 7y ago
Great diagnosis, questionable conclusion. > But it's not something that works in politics The first rule of politics is to win elections. He's currently the most powerful politician in the world. Of course it works in politics. Governing on the other hand...
s1artibartfast 7y ago
>He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is. This depends on what you mean by "works in politics"? He won the presidency after all, and then went on to beat a resistant republican party into submission. He lowered taxes on the rich, packed the supreme court, and is in the process of handing out 6 trillion dollars to wall street. His approval ratings have been constant through impeachment and pandemic [1] and he still has a good shot at reelection. Assuming you aren't a supporter, I think there is a significant risk in underestimating his political successes. We shall see if Biden and the DNC can "outsmart" him in 2020. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
- eloff 7y ago
  I'm certain Trump will beat Biden. That's all on the DNC in being stupid enough to back Biden, given his questionable health and advanced age. All they had to do, arguably, is advance a viable candidate with no glaring weaknesses, and they utterly failed. It's going to be another 4 years of Trump.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    You think Trump is a viable candidate with no glaring weaknesses? The five year racist lie and conspiracy theory of birtherism he peddled before he was even a candidate? The Trump University scam before he was a candidate? The Trump Foundation fraud and scam, before he was a candidate, to which he had to admit wrongdoing in an out of court settlement with NY state, pay a fine, and accept a ten year ban on running charities? He can't even run a non-profit without incompetency and fraud, and you think this is not a glaring weakness, and can still run a country? And this doesn't at all adequately cover the pussy grabbing, and over twenty times credibly accused of sexual assault. Some people love these things about him. And some people don't care. That's why he's president. Not because he has no glaring weaknesses. A turnip has no glaring weaknesses compared to Trump. He is a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity clown act. Always has been. Always will be. For three years as president, as candidate, before he was in politics, and while he flipped multiple times between being a registered Democrat and Republican, when he wasn't in politics at all. He was always a clown act. He is the most exquisite representative for both his supporters and the people who are non-participants, and in some hilariously perverse sense he's evidence that democracy does work still in America. He properly implicates American culture. Even the fact he lost the popular vote yet still is president, is representative of American culture where you can be a dipshit loser and a bad person, but still make lots of money and be famous, and that's what makes you a winner.

heimatau 7y ago

This is a stellar summary of Trump's skills.

laichzeit0 7y ago

> So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what is "presidential" and what is not? Otherwise we descend into the domain of things being verboten and the retort of "well it's common sense" and so forth.

eloff 7y ago
However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.
- jtdev 7y ago
  People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
  - krapp 7y ago
    I mean, literally more people wanted Clinton than wanted Trump, per capita. Not that it actually mattered, given the way the US electoral process works, but the premise that Clinton was overwhelmingly unpopular is an exaggeration. She just wasn't popular enough in the right states. It's true that a lot of Democrats wanted Bernie Sanders, but I suspect more of them flipped to Hillary Clinton than to Donald Trump.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jtdev 7y ago
      We’ll see how the DNC’s strategy of crapping on a giant portion of the electorate works out... once again...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    2,868,686 more people wanted Clinton over Trump. If "people didn't want Clinton", they wanted Trump even less.
caconym_ 7y ago
At some point we have to be willing to be intellectually honest about who speaks and acts with respect and integrity and who does not. E.g. when Trump says there were "very fine people, on both sides" of a white supremacist rally, what should we make of that? Should we quibble over implausible re-interpretations of his words and conclude that maybe he meant something other than what's obvious? Should we say hey, okay, maybe Nazism and white supremacist movements deserve another look because, like, everything's relative, man, you know? When Trump uses racist and sexist dogwhistles (e.g. "a young woman governor") to denigrate to his political opponents, what's the takeaway there? Is that okay? Is that a man worthy of respect, of sitting in the Oval Office? When Trump suggests that we should inject ourselves with "disinfectant" to cure COVID, am I supposed to conclude that he is so smart I just can't possibly understand the genius behind his words (it's so simple!) or should I throw that on the pile of evidence that he's an ignorant person with no capability and/or inclination for understanding complex issues? If I thought everything was relative, I'd have to think nothing mattered more than anything else, and the logical next step would be to lay down in my bed and wait for the sweet release of death. We live in a world that is not black and white, but we have to do the best we can to be better people and hold our leaders to high standards. Intellectual honesty is the first step, and it's what the GOP and their more intellectually accomplished adherents lack.

clairity 7y ago

to be a good salesman requires high levels of empathy (ego, in the competitive sense, is the other requisite characteristic). perhaps relatedly, this seems to be true of sociopaths as well. note that empathy here refers to the facet that let's you tease out how people are feeling and what's causing those feelings (to your point), not the one that makes you genuinely care for other people. with that said, it's unlikely that the election tipping point was honing in on the biggest weakness of an opponent. that's incidental to his real strength in this area, which is honing in on the central fear of--let's not beat around the bush--large blocks of white people. this is how you make sense of seemingly disparate issues like immigration, nationalism, tax breaks for the wealthy, and anti-abortionism that the trump campaign championed (even if he doesn't personally care about immigration or abortion policy, for example). trump won by using his sales-honed empathy to zero in on this central fear and then beat that drum relentlessly to victory. clinton, on the other hand, empathized in the other sense of the word (to some extent), but failed at understanding the basic motivations of the populace.

arcticfox 7y ago

> He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them That was my impression before the election, when I didn't pay any attention. I thought he was a successful bully, which wouldn't necessarily be the worst combination for a President. After learning about his actual business history (Thanks, Trump Inc.! podcast) I think the 'succeeded' part is pretty arguable. He was born unbelievably wealthy, had a string of some unbelievable business failures, and was subsequently bailed out by some known (Deutsche Bank) as well as unknown shady actors and practices. Now that I understand his business history, I wouldn't consider him to have succeeded in business. He could have been vastly more wealthy today by doing nothing other than invest in index funds, which to me counts as largely unsuccessful.

mrunkel 7y ago
It's like the old joke. What's the easiest way to get a million dollars? ... Well you start out with 100 million!
eloff 7y ago
Investing the bulk of your money in index funds during the great market run-up following the second World War and having the guts to ride out the storm when the market tanks periodically, I think is not trivial. There was a secretary in NYC who did that and died with an 11M fortune. She was clearly very successful. I think Trump has been successful. Many people born into wealth lose it or at least don't grow it. So he deserves some kudos here. I think people don't like to give him credit for anything, but if you "only" grow your fortune at the rate of the market, then you're really tracking the average success of American business. That's by definition better than 50% of public companies and in the top few percent of individuals. That's successful in my books. This post is attracting quite a bit of negative attention, but I stand by my assessment as fair. If you disagree, maybe you want to point out how it's not fair? I think people just hate Trump (which I do as well, but I can separate concerns.)
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Read up on Hudson Yards and think about it some more.

vixen99 7y ago

If he manages to get a second term (which seems not inconceivable) you'll have to redefine what you mean by 'not something that works in politics'. People who can't stand Trump have taken the bait. Deplorable is not a popular word anymore but the reaction to the President's inconsequential meandering does, happily for some, imply that Trump fans are gullible, poor and idiotic.

DevX101 7y ago

Great diagnosis, questionable conclusion. > But it's not something that works in politics The first rule of politics is to win elections. He's currently the most powerful politician in the world. Of course it works in politics. Governing on the other hand...

s1artibartfast 7y ago

>He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is. This depends on what you mean by "works in politics"? He won the presidency after all, and then went on to beat a resistant republican party into submission. He lowered taxes on the rich, packed the supreme court, and is in the process of handing out 6 trillion dollars to wall street. His approval ratings have been constant through impeachment and pandemic [1] and he still has a good shot at reelection. Assuming you aren't a supporter, I think there is a significant risk in underestimating his political successes. We shall see if Biden and the DNC can "outsmart" him in 2020. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

eloff 7y ago
I'm certain Trump will beat Biden. That's all on the DNC in being stupid enough to back Biden, given his questionable health and advanced age. All they had to do, arguably, is advance a viable candidate with no glaring weaknesses, and they utterly failed. It's going to be another 4 years of Trump.
- cmurf 7y ago
  You think Trump is a viable candidate with no glaring weaknesses? The five year racist lie and conspiracy theory of birtherism he peddled before he was even a candidate? The Trump University scam before he was a candidate? The Trump Foundation fraud and scam, before he was a candidate, to which he had to admit wrongdoing in an out of court settlement with NY state, pay a fine, and accept a ten year ban on running charities? He can't even run a non-profit without incompetency and fraud, and you think this is not a glaring weakness, and can still run a country? And this doesn't at all adequately cover the pussy grabbing, and over twenty times credibly accused of sexual assault. Some people love these things about him. And some people don't care. That's why he's president. Not because he has no glaring weaknesses. A turnip has no glaring weaknesses compared to Trump. He is a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity clown act. Always has been. Always will be. For three years as president, as candidate, before he was in politics, and while he flipped multiple times between being a registered Democrat and Republican, when he wasn't in politics at all. He was always a clown act. He is the most exquisite representative for both his supporters and the people who are non-participants, and in some hilariously perverse sense he's evidence that democracy does work still in America. He properly implicates American culture. Even the fact he lost the popular vote yet still is president, is representative of American culture where you can be a dipshit loser and a bad person, but still make lots of money and be famous, and that's what makes you a winner.