Just spent time in Paris and London. Uniformly, folks native to those countries and every USA citizen I spoke to are incredulous that Trump is even an option.
Folks with their blinders on, thinking he's a "good" choice, don't realize what a bad choice he is - not in terms of election but just in terms showing how "Americans" think. Elected or not, just implying he's a candidate for President has done the nation horrible harm.
I think a lot of Trump's supporters view him as an intelligent, successful and decisive leader. They're attracted to his blunt, straightforward and concise analyses of major current events. They see him as a guy who can cut through the BS, foot-dragging and happy-talk of politics to get things done. From what I can remember people liked Ross Perot in '92 for the same reason. One of my co-workers at a major Washington think tank, a guy who'd graduated from Harvard Business School, suggested during that year that maybe a business leader was what Washington needed to function. Same co-worker, for what it's worth, became the director of research for Kissinger and Associates in '92, and yes he was quite bright.
Perot disappointed his followers considerably by going off the rails a bit before that election, but I suspect voters look for someone who resembles a "born leader" when they have lost their faith in Washington. Certainly a number of rotekz's statements back me up on this. My guess is that the same loss of faith and rise in frustration helped get Reagan elected in '80. Bernie is probably riding the same wave.
The problem with Trump is that he's all hat and no cattle. As far as I can tell, his businesses today are largely about licensing his name to real estate projects without becoming legally or financially involved too much. Trump won't open up very much about his businesses, wealth or taxes. But his bluster and big promises have combined with voter frustration to short-circuit people's desire to look at Trump's claims with even a little bit of skepticism.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
May 12, 2016 - 2:27pm
VV wrote:
No need for a poll. Anyone with only a handful of sense would know to pick "A".
When someone makes such huge sweeping statements about their plan to "Make America Great"... they can duck the details for only so long....
A, in a heartbeat.
Government is most often best, and frequently necessarily, planned and executed in an "unbusiness like manner". Properly so. Option B is an invitation to demagoguery. Details now provides, among other obvious factors, a) evidence that there is comprehensive knowledge of the challenge, and the strategy & tactics to meet it., and, b) demonstrates the thought process of the candidate as well as illuminate core values and principles.
Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn’t really want to be president? I don’t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. That’s one way to do it.
I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a “clown” last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesn’t seem so clownish.
Do you remember all of Trump’s vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.
Have I mentioned that when Trump was a child, his minister was the famous Norman Vincent Peale? Peale wrote a huuuuugely influential book called The Power of Positive Thinking. Critics said the book is full of unsubstantiated claims. (Sound familiar?) Critics also said the book uses well-known hypnosis techniques. Hypnosis? Hmmm. That’s the sort of skill that could turn a much-hated person into a president.
As a side note, Peale was good friends with Richard Nixon. That was probably a coincidence. It is probably also a coincidence that Nixon is credited with one of the most important hypnosis gambits of all time. The gambit was so successful that it has Nixon’s name on it. It’s called “Nixon goes to China.” Maybe you’ve heard of it. That gambit might remind you of “Trump Goes to Megyn Kelly’s Interview.” Anyway, I digress.
My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand. And if a candidate does not have sufficient policy details, it might mean that candidate is a stupid clown who is not serious about being President of the United States.
Or…
It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people don’t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact. Science knows that free will is an illusion. Trump knows it too. I say that about Trump with confidence because you can’t be a Master Persuader until you understand that people are fundamentally irrational.
So what do you do if you want to persuade voters but you don’t want to give policy details that are nothing but targets for critics? A trained persuader would create a situation in which everyone can see whatever they want to see. Trump literally takes both sides of the issues whenever he can. As a candidate, he’s a human Rorschach test. I might see in Trump a skilled persuader who always makes aggressive opening offers, and you might see a future dictator. We are looking at the same set of facts but we are primed by our experiences to interpret them differently. I study persuasion in all its forms and perhaps you watch the History Channel too much. Trump’s persuasion strategy depends on a growing number of voters finding something they like about him and fewer people reflexively making History Channel analogies. So far, it seems to be working. You’ll see Trump’s strategy fully-flowered over the summer. Watch for how many different reasons people offer for why they support him. That’s your tell.
From a business standpoint, Trump knows that Presidents make decisions based on current knowledge, not past knowledge. And by next year, a lot of what we think we know will be updated. If Trump said today exactly what he plans to do next year, it would be dumb. No CEO acts that way. No president acts that way either. It is useful to have broad policy preferences, but the details will change because of negotiations and because of newer information.
You also have to assume that a sitting President has more information than any of the candidates. At least I hope so. And that means anything the candidates say about fighting ISIS, for example, is probably under-informed. The same could be said for the economy because a president typically has more and better advisors than a candidate.
Here’s a little test you can try at home. In your mind, divide your friends and coworkers into two groups. One group understands a lot about making business decisions and one group has no business experience. Ask each of them individually this question:
How much detail should Trump provide on his policies?
A. Lots of detail so we know exactly what he plans to do.
B. We only need the big picture now because the details will be negotiated later, and the environment will change by then. Also, presidents have access to better advice and information than candidates.
I predict that your most experienced friends and coworkers will choose B. Let me know in the comments how it goes.
No need for a poll. Anyone with only a handful of sense would know to pick "A".
When someone makes such huge sweeping statements about their plan to "Make America Great"... they can duck the details for only so long....
(...) The lesson: A hollow vessel, when dipped into the toxic, sludgy river of the Internet, will quickly fill up with the worst and most destructive sentiments humanity has to offer. But then, this should be no surprise. We’ve all seen the same thing happen, in real life, and with infinitely worse consequences, very recently. We’ve entered a world in which the Republican nominee for President is Donald Trump.
Trump, too, is an empty vessel; willing to repeat anything that gets him traction, regardless of how true it is, or who he stands to hurt. And, like Tay, his descent into horrific extremes of right-wing discourse was facilitated, every step of the way, by Twitter.
In 2011, the “birther” movement—people who believed President Barack Obama was secretly a foreign citizen—was driven by conspiracy theorists and Internet weirdos like 9/11 truther Philip Berg. Trump—at the time, a reality-TV star and lifelong, registered Democrat who had claimed that “the economy does better under Democrats” as recently as 2004—seized on the movement and made it a regular, recurring part of his Twitter presence, issuing tweets challenging the president to release his long-form birth certificate.
More than this—and more significantly—Trump also explicitly extended those conspiracists the promise of mainstream validation. “I think the word ‘birther’ is a derogatory term, created by a certain group in the media,” he claimed, telling Politico that “I think there’s a large group of people that wants to hear about this. Obviously it’s a very important issue.” (...)
Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn’t really want to be president? I don’t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. That’s one way to do it.
"I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a “clown” last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesn’t seem so clownish."
This is not a normal election year. With the exception of Kasich and Bush, I'd say the GOP candidates were clownish....and Jebbers turned out to be an awful campaigner. Kasich didn't have enough money or base to become a serious candidate.
Remember that Trump has run for President before and talked about doing so many times. Oh and hey: he's also floated trial balloons about running for Governor of NY. He never attracted much serious attention or support until this election.
Check out the Mashable piece's take on the 2000 campaign: Trump thought Oprah Winfrey would be a great VP!
Also, consider this, rotekz: a crotchety old Jewish guy from a tiny state in the northeast is also making big and vague promises...and he's pushed one of the most qualified and funded candidates in modern history pretty hard. Strange times indeed.
My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand...It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people don’t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality.
Actually, people DO make decisions on policy details, logic, reason, etc. Voters, true enough, often go with their gut and rarely wade into proposed policies before choosing a candidate. But the federal government is run on a great amount of detail, logic, reason, etc. That's why people who know how the federal government actually gets things done are terrified of Trump. They know that he's making s#!^ up as he goes along and thinks he can wing his way through a presidency.
Do you seriously think that policies like the ACA or TARP or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or the bailout of the auto industry just happen because the President has a gut feeling and decides he can magically persuade people to see whatever they want to see in him? Or that the White House and its political party just whip up major policy over a weekend or two?
Trump’s persuasion strategy depends on a growing number of voters finding something they like about him and fewer people reflexively making History Channel analogies.
Trump's favorability ratings in the general population keep dropping. Trump realizes that people inclined to support him will actually vote for him only when he's opinionated and angry. He's openly disavowed moderating his words or positions. He's really not trying to give people something to like about him..,well, maybe that taco bowl stunt was an attempt to win over Hispanics.
From a business standpoint, Trump knows that Presidents make decisions based on current knowledge, not past knowledge.
"Current" and "past' knowledge are not simply and easily distinguished from each other. GHW Bush knew after Saddam Hussein pulled out of Kuwait that he might have been able to lead a military coalition into an occupation of Iraq. He refrained from invading Iraq because he knew that Iraq had a long history (past knowledge) of sectarian violence that created a habitually weak national government. Governing Iraq as a conquering invader would have caused a major insurgency and Shiite-Sunni fighting. He also knew that his military coalition at that time (current knowledge) would have splintered apart as many nations in the Middle East would not have tolerated an American-led occupation of Iraq. History and past experience play a large role in shaping current knowledge.
We only need the big picture now because the details will be negotiated later, and the environment will change by then.
A president has only a little time to turn whatever political capital he has at the beginning of his administration into policy and law. Most presidents don't get much done in their second term because that political capital is gone. That's why serious candidates have policy positions, backed by data and evidence, well in advance of the general election. You have to hit the ground running and if you're always playing current events by ear you fall behind pretty quickly.
Trump has never done anything like being president. He's either too lazy or full of himself to ask questions about how successful presidents get things done. Jimmy Carter and GW Bush were far more prepared to run the country than Forrest Gump is right now and they were awful presidents anyway—partly because they didn't have significant experience in national-level politics.
It's way, way past time for Trump to give people the details about how he plans to "fix" healthcare, end immigration, ban Muslims, get our allies to pay more for their own defense, bring back jobs that have left the country, make China do what we want, etc. Forrest Trump's promises aren't going to become reality just because he holds a rally or sends out a few tweets.
Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn’t really want to be president? I don’t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. That’s one way to do it.
I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a “clown” last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesn’t seem so clownish.
Do you remember all of Trump’s vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.
Have I mentioned that when Trump was a child, his minister was the famous Norman Vincent Peale? Peale wrote a huuuuugely influential book called The Power of Positive Thinking. Critics said the book is full of unsubstantiated claims. (Sound familiar?) Critics also said the book uses well-known hypnosis techniques. Hypnosis? Hmmm. That’s the sort of skill that could turn a much-hated person into a president.
As a side note, Peale was good friends with Richard Nixon. That was probably a coincidence. It is probably also a coincidence that Nixon is credited with one of the most important hypnosis gambits of all time. The gambit was so successful that it has Nixon’s name on it. It’s called “Nixon goes to China.” Maybe you’ve heard of it. That gambit might remind you of “Trump Goes to Megyn Kelly’s Interview.” Anyway, I digress.
My point today is that Donald Trump does not have as many policy details as his critics demand. And if a candidate does not have sufficient policy details, it might mean that candidate is a stupid clown who is not serious about being President of the United States.
Or…
It might mean that Trump is a skilled persuader who understands that people don’t make decisions based on policy details, logic, reason, common sense, or any other illusion of rationality. People are emotional creatures who rationalize their actions after the fact. Science knows that free will is an illusion. Trump knows it too. I say that about Trump with confidence because you can’t be a Master Persuader until you understand that people are fundamentally irrational.
So what do you do if you want to persuade voters but you don’t want to give policy details that are nothing but targets for critics? A trained persuader would create a situation in which everyone can see whatever they want to see. Trump literally takes both sides of the issues whenever he can. As a candidate, he’s a human Rorschach test. I might see in Trump a skilled persuader who always makes aggressive opening offers, and you might see a future dictator. We are looking at the same set of facts but we are primed by our experiences to interpret them differently. I study persuasion in all its forms and perhaps you watch the History Channel too much. Trump’s persuasion strategy depends on a growing number of voters finding something they like about him and fewer people reflexively making History Channel analogies. So far, it seems to be working. You’ll see Trump’s strategy fully-flowered over the summer. Watch for how many different reasons people offer for why they support him. That’s your tell.
From a business standpoint, Trump knows that Presidents make decisions based on current knowledge, not past knowledge. And by next year, a lot of what we think we know will be updated. If Trump said today exactly what he plans to do next year, it would be dumb. No CEO acts that way. No president acts that way either. It is useful to have broad policy preferences, but the details will change because of negotiations and because of newer information.
You also have to assume that a sitting President has more information than any of the candidates. At least I hope so. And that means anything the candidates say about fighting ISIS, for example, is probably under-informed. The same could be said for the economy because a president typically has more and better advisors than a candidate.
Here’s a little test you can try at home. In your mind, divide your friends and coworkers into two groups. One group understands a lot about making business decisions and one group has no business experience. Ask each of them individually this question:
How much detail should Trump provide on his policies?
A. Lots of detail so we know exactly what he plans to do.
B. We only need the big picture now because the details will be negotiated later, and the environment will change by then. Also, presidents have access to better advice and information than candidates.
I predict that your most experienced friends and coworkers will choose B. Let me know in the comments how it goes.
A faulty earpiece again! No, wait, a database error. Yes, that's it... Trump blames selection of white nationalist delegate on 'database error' Prominent white nationalist William Daniel Johnson was included on the official list of Trump’s California delegates to the Republican National Convention
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is blaming a “database error” for the inclusion of a prominent white nationalist on the official list of delegates to the Republican National Convention.
However, William Daniel Johnson, a Los Angeles-based corporate lawyer who once called for a constitutional amendment which would revoke citizenship from all non-white Americans, cast doubt on the claim, telling the Guardian that he was, in fact, a delegate.
“I will confirm that I am a delegate, but I won’t speak more than that because they don’t want me to,” Johnson said, referring to the Trump campaign.
Johnson said he had just been instructed by the Trump campaign to direct all inquiries to them. “That email I got from the Trump camp said to direct all communications regarding delegates to them. I don’t want to go against what they said.”
Johnson is a self-avowed white nationalist described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “an uninspiring but determined white separatist”. (...)
