Support NeoGAF

[Opto]

Trump is a great speaker. The best. The best speaker we've had in a long time. And we've had a lot of speakers, folks. We're going to rebuild this country brick by brick. It's called construction and he knows a lot about it. He's made great buildings, beautiful buildings, and he's going to make america beautiful too.


See it''s not that hard. I'm sure a college kid has already scripted a bot to build speeches

 

[BSsBrolly]

If you think that what he does isn't one type of good speaking, then you should get on a podium in front of an arena full of people without prepared comments and just wing it for an hour. Let's see how you do compared to him.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

You'll do much worse than he does.

If all I had to do was regurgitate Republican talking points, throw in a few tremendouses, and believe me's... and repeat it 10 times, I could do it. It doesn't take much to sound smart to certain people in this country, unfortunetly.

 

[DietRob]

Damn it. I wish I would have known about this before now so I could have joined the protest. I've kinda checked myself out of politics for a while. I can't believe he kicked this circus off in my god damn city.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

You've decided you would rather be fucked instead of trying to understand how he could have won the Presidency. That's your decision, and you will be solely responsible for it in the end.

What, EXACTLY, are you suggesting Democrats should take away from his performance? Use a third grade vocabulary? Lie a lot? Play to the worst, most tribalistic impulses of the crowd? Be specific.

EDIT: I mean, I'm honestly confused here. "Charisma is good at winning over crowds"? Yeah, we know that. "Telling people what they want to hear is a good way to get them to vote for you"? Yep.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Who cares? Hitler was a great speaker too. Words matter to me more than how they are said. Read a transcript of one his "great speeches", it's mostly incoherent ramblings.

Edit: and lots of lies

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

Trump is a great speaker. The best. The best speaker we've had in a long time. And we've had a lot of speakers, folks. We're going to rebuild this country brick by brick. It's called construction and he knows a lot about it. He's made great buildings, beautiful buildings, and he's going to make america beautiful too.


See it''s not that hard. I'm sure a college kid has already scripted a bot to build speeches

You forgot the "No one in the world is a better speaker than him" part. Each time I hear it, I get an urge to shut down the video.

US people have my sympathy. They voted for Clinton, and end up with this sad clown.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What, EXACTLY, are you suggesting Democrats should take away from his performance? Use a third grade vocabulary? Lie a lot? Play to the worst, most tribalistic impulses of the crowd? Be specific.

Let's start with "Do what Bernie did". Except there's a faction of Democrats who think Bernie is the devil so I know better than to think it will ever happen. Just look at how Bernie is still treated by HillGAF here.

So, I guess keep losing then. I mean, Trump beat you. If that isn't a loud warning siren to do things differently then nothing is.

EDIT: I mean, I'm honestly confused here. "Charisma is good at winning over crowds"? Yeah, we know that. "Telling people what they want to hear is a good way to get them to vote for you"? Yep.

Really? We know that? So why did the Democrats run a candidate who was a black hole of charisma that no one liked, who told people she was going to put them out of jobs and they were all deplorable? Are you sure we know that? Because from here it looks like the Democrats sure as hell didn't know that.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Let's start with "Do what Bernie did". Except there's a faction of Democrats who think Bernie is the devil so I know better than to think it will ever happen. Just look at how Bernie is still treated by HillGAF here.

Ah, so THAT'S what this is. Got it.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Let's start with "Do what Bernie did". Except there's a faction of Democrats who think Bernie is the devil so I know better than to think it will ever happen. Just look at how Bernie is still treated by HillGAF here.

So, I guess keep losing then. I mean, Trump beat you. If that isn't a loud warning siren to do things differently then nothing is.

And Trump managed to lose the popular vote by millions in the process. Do things differently means actively campaigning in just 3 more states. Not to mention all the help Trump had in the form of free media, James Comey, House Republicans, Russia, Wikileaks, and voter restrictions.

 

[Kibbles]

If he's still railing against any and all media, why the fuck are they even playing ball?

The media has been railing against themselves lately too. I constantly hear about fake news story and even clicked on some stupid click bait articles from WSJ or HuffPo saying something about how Bernie has a chance still. I lol'd at the headline but clicked it cause I thought what they hell they talking about and it was just them going in on false media. All I hear about these days is media blaming each other or doing dumb click bait shit too. Just get Facebook to crackdown on it since that's where the bullshit spreads. I don't want to see that shit plastered over all the headlines

 

[midramble]

"Do what Bernie did"...

So, I guess keep losing then.

Don't know how to take this message

 

[Unknown Soldier]

And Trump managed to lose the popular vote by millions in the process. Do things differently means actively campaigning in just 3 more states. Not to mention all the help Trump had in the form of free media, James Comey, House Republicans, Russia, Wikileaks, and voter restrictions.

The only votes that matter are the electoral votes. And unless the electors want to initiate a constitutional crisis, the winner of the electoral votes will become President in January. So the popular vote is literally irrelevant, because running up the score in California is meaningless when the state is always going to go to the Democrat anyways.

Also keep on blaming the media, Comey, the Republicans, the Russians, Wikileaks, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything else you want. It doesn't change the reality that the Democratic candidate was a bad candidate that most people didn't like and as it turned out in the important swing states, most people didn't vote for the Democrat or simply stayed home out of disgust. I mean, great, Hillary had record turnout in California and New York. Those states do not matter. The states that did matter, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary didn't show up in. She was too busy fundraising in California and New York. So here we are. Stop blaming the opposition for your defeat. The goal of your opposition is to defeat you, that's why they are the opposition. Instead look at yourselves and think about what you should have done better to ensure you could have a victory against Donald Trump, who won an election which is unarguably the biggest upset in American political history.

 

[Ozigizo]

If you think that what he does isn't one type of good speaking, then you should get on a podium in front of an arena full of people without prepared comments and just wing it for an hour. Let's see how you do compared to him.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

You'll do much worse than he does.

Film critics shouldn't criticize movies! They've never directed any of them!

 

[BSsBrolly]

The only votes that matter are the electoral votes. And unless the electors want to initiate a constitutional crisis, the winner of the electoral votes will become President in January. So the popular vote is literally irrelevant, because running up the score in California is meaningless when the state is always going to go to the Democrat anyways.

Also keep on blaming the media, Comey, the Republicans, the Russians, Wikileaks, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything else you want. It doesn't change the reality that the Democratic candidate was a bad candidate that most people didn't like and as it turned out in the important swing states, most people didn't vote for the Democrat or simply stayed home out of disgust. I mean, great, Hillary had record turnout in California and New York. Those states do not matter. The states that did matter, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary didn't show up in. She was too busy fundraising in California and New York. So here we are. Stop blaming the opposition for your defeat. The goal of your opposition is to defeat you, that's why they are the opposition. Instead look at yourselves and think about what you should have done better to ensure you could have a victory against Donald Trump, who won an election which is unarguably the biggest upset in American political history.

The bolded is exactly what I meant by actively campaigning in "just 3 more states." There is no denying that was a mistake. With that said, her unpopularity was caused by outside forces. You can see that by looking at her approval ratings. In spite of this she was still more popular than Donald Trump as well as *gasp* Bernie Sanders.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

The only votes that matter are the electoral votes. And unless the electors want to initiate a constitutional crisis, the winner of the electoral votes will become President in January. So the popular vote is literally irrelevant, because running up the score in California is meaningless when the state is always going to go to the Democrat anyways.

Also keep on blaming the media, Comey, the Republicans, the Russians, Wikileaks, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything else you want. It doesn't change the reality that the Democratic candidate was a bad candidate that most people didn't like and as it turned out in the important swing states, most people didn't vote for the Democrat or simply stayed home out of disgust. I mean, great, Hillary had record turnout in California and New York. Those states do not matter. The states that did matter, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary didn't show up in. She was too busy fundraising in California and New York. So here we are. Stop blaming the opposition for your defeat. The goal of your opposition is to defeat you, that's why they are the opposition. Instead look at yourselves and think about what you should have done better to ensure you could have a victory against Donald Trump, who won an election which is unarguably the biggest upset in American political history.

I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton isn't going to run again.

EDIT: "Stop blaming the opposition for your defeat" is a lesson to take to heart, though, for sure.

...more seriously, no one is blaming the opposition for trying to beat Clinton. They're blaming the opposition for being disgusting. There's a difference.

 

[iuxion]

Let's start with "Do what Bernie did". Except there's a faction of Democrats who think Bernie is the devil so I know better than to think it will ever happen. Just look at how Bernie is still treated by HillGAF here.

But Bernie lost to Hillary? What exactly are we supposed to learn about winning elections from him?

And there are plenty of Democrats who think Hillary is the devil too.

 

[Dartastic]

Also keep on blaming the media, Comey, the Republicans, the Russians, Wikileaks, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything else you want. It doesn't change the reality that the Democratic candidate was a bad candidate that most people didn't like and as it turned out in the important swing states, most people didn't vote for the Democrat or simply stayed home out of disgust. I mean, great, Hillary had record turnout in California and New York. Those states do not matter. The states that did matter, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary didn't show up in. She was too busy fundraising in California and New York. So here we are. Stop blaming the opposition for your defeat. The goal of your opposition is to defeat you, that's why they are the opposition. Instead look at yourselves and think about what you should have done better to ensure you could have a victory against Donald Trump, who won an election which is unarguably the biggest upset in American political history.

This post is incorrect in many ways. First it's assuming that people are blaming just one of those first things while in actuality all of those things contributed to the loss. Secondly it's assuming that we are not agreeing that she wasn't the best candidate and ignoring the fact that the margin of victory in those swing states was razor thin, and much less than the national popular vote. While technically "most" people in swing states voted for trump, significantly more people across the country voted for Clinton. You're also ignoring that blaming opposition isn't just some excuse, but rather also extremely important for pointing out specific tactics that did directly effect some of the things you said people are "blaming" such as gerrymandering, etc.

 

[GuyKazama]

Come on, how hard is that? Donald Trump is an ugly, fat, male version of Sarah Palin.

Trump is nothing like Sarah Palin.

 

[Link]

People still think Bernie would have done better than Hillary? That's cute.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Trump is nothing like Sarah Palin.

You're right... in exactly the ways I listed. He speaks like her though. Rambles incoherently, has no clue what he's talking about, and spews republican talking points.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The bolded is exactly what I meant by actively campaigning in "just 3 more states." There is no denying that was a mistake. With that said, her unpopularity was caused by outside forces. You can see that by looking at her approval ratings. In spite of this she was still more popular than Donald Trump as well as *gasp* Bernie Sanders.

Her unpopularity is not caused by outside forces. This is the thing that too many people failed to understand. Her unpopularity is an innate characteristic. Even without emails, Benghazi, Comey, Russia, Wikileaks, etc. etc. she would still be an unlikable candidate. John Kerry suffered from the same problem and there was no apparent response in his case either. All the Republicans needed was "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and that sunk him. Why? Because he wasn't likable to begin with.

You look at Bill Clinton. That guy was a walking scandal from his beginnings as the Governor of Arkansas. The Republicans threw literally everything they had at him and he laughed and left office with the highest popularity of any President in the modern era. This is not a coincidence. He had that likability and charisma that marks a great politician.

Popularity of a politician is not caused by outside forces. It's caused by the politician himself or herself. Always has been, always will be. You can't paper over the fundamental lack of charisma on an unlikable candidate, but attacks on such a candidate will be much more effective than on a likable candidate.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Her unpopularity is not caused by outside forces. This is the thing that too many people failed to understand. Her unpopularity is an innate characteristic. Even without emails, Benghazi, Comey, Russia, Wikileaks, etc. etc. she would still be an unlikable candidate. John Kerry suffered from the same problem and there was no apparent response in his case either. All the Republicans needed was "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and that sunk him. Why? Because he wasn't likable to begin with.

You look at Bill Clinton. That guy was a walking scandal from his beginnings as the Governor of Arkansas. The Republicans threw literally everything they had at him and he laughed and left office with the highest popularity of any President in the modern era. This is not a coincidence. He had that likability and charisma that marks a great politician.

Popularity of a politician is not caused by outside forces. It's caused by the politician himself or herself. Always has been, always will be. You can't paper over the fundamental lack of charisma on an unlikable candidate, but attacks on such a candidate will be much more effective than on a likable candidate.

That's where you're wrong she was extremely popular up until outside forces converged on her.

 

[xxracerxx]

Her unpopularity is not caused by outside forces. This is the thing that too many people failed to understand. Her unpopularity is an innate characteristic. Even without emails, Benghazi, Comey, Russia, Wikileaks, etc. etc. she would still be an unlikable candidate. John Kerry suffered from the same problem and there was no apparent response in his case either. All the Republicans needed was "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and that sunk him. Why? Because he wasn't likable to begin with.

You look at Bill Clinton. That guy was a walking scandal from his beginnings as the Governor of Arkansas. The Republicans threw literally everything they had at him and he laughed and left office with the highest popularity of any President in the modern era. This is not a coincidence. He had that likability and charisma that marks a great politician.

Popularity of a politician is not caused by outside forces. It's caused by the politician himself or herself. Always has been, always will be. You can't paper over the fundamental lack of charisma on an unlikable candidate, but attacks on such a candidate will be much more effective than on a likable candidate.

This is a huge pile of crap, right here. Like seriously...wow.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This post is incorrect in many ways. First it's assuming that people are blaming just one of those first things while in actuality all of those things contributed to the loss. Secondly it's assuming that we are not agreeing that she wasn't the best candidate and ignoring the fact that the margin of victory in those swing states was razor thin, and much less than the national popular vote. While technically "most" people in swing states voted for trump, significantly more people across the country voted for Clinton. You're also ignoring that blaming opposition isn't just some excuse, but rather also extremely important for pointing out specific tactics that did directly effect some of the things you said people are "blaming" such as gerrymandering, etc.

But unless you are the ones who have power, you cannot stop the opposition from doing those things. So it's better to focus on regaining power rather than blaming the opposition. There's no point in blaming the opposition for doing what they had to do in order to win, because once they've won you can't do anything about it. This is a two-party, first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system. So it's better to run better candidates, have better messages, say things the people want to hear, and actually be out there saying the things instead of fundraising rather than look around for someone to blame for losing.

Like I said: You guys lost to Trump. I mean, it's like Michigan losing to Appalachian State. At some point you need to look at yourselves and ask, how did we manage to lose this? And what will we do to fix it? Remember: you can't change what the opposition does. They're going to do what they're going to do. You can only change what you do.

 

[mollipen]

If you think that what he does isn't one type of good speaking, then you should get on a podium in front of an arena full of people without prepared comments and just wing it for an hour. Let's see how you do compared to him.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

You'll do much worse than he does.

I'd take that bet, because I can and have done exactly that. I'm not saying everyone can do it, but I don't find doing it hard in the least.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's where you're wrong she was extremely popular up until outside forces converged on her.

I'll simply challenge this by again reiterating: Bill Clinton. Explain why outside forces were so ineffective against him.

Furthermore: Barack Obama. Same deal. Explain why he was also so immune to outside forces.

 

[GuyKazama]

That's where you're wrong she was extremely popular up until outside forces converged on her.

She's popular when she isn't running for President.

 

[BSsBrolly]

I'll simply challenge this by again reiterating: Bill Clinton. Explain why outside forces were so ineffective against him.

Because his outside forces weren't a partisan FBI, Wikileaks, voter ID laws, republian investigations, the media, and the country of Russia. He only had to deal with a Republican house and investigations.

I mean, my god the FBI interfered 11 days before the election. Unpresidented doesn't even begin to describe this...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Because his outside forces weren't a partisan FBI, Wikileaks, voter ID laws, republian investigations, the media, and the country of Russia. He only had to deal with a Republican house and investigations.

I mean, my god the FBI interfered 11 days before the election. Unpresidented doesn't even begin to describe this...

You would put all that above impeachment? He only had to deal with impeachment, as opposed to all these other things? I mean, come on, you can't win this argument. They literally impeached Bill Clinton. There's nothing more unprecedented than that.

 

[Neoweee]

That's cuz you are listening already prepared to hate. Trump is a great talker.

Most of his transcripts wouldn't pass the Turing test.

 

[BocoDragon]

That's cuz you are listening already prepared to hate. Trump is a great talker.

I'll be perfectly elitist and say he only appeals to people with low intelligence and low education. He isn't a smart guy. But if you aren't into book learnin' I bet he makes some appealing noises.

 

[BSsBrolly]

You would put all that above impeachment? He only had to deal with impeachment, as opposed to all these other things? I mean, come on, you can't win this argument. They literally impeached Bill Clinton. There's nothing more unprecedented than that.

Bill Clinton didn't have to run with impeachment over his head... nor did it happen right before an election. Come on now.

 

[digdug2k]

I'll simply challenge this by again reiterating: Bill Clinton. Explain why outside forces were so ineffective against him.

Furthermore: Barack Obama. Same deal. Explain why he was also so immune to outside forces.

Donald Trump has the highest unfavorability ratings of... anyone in politics I know of. But literally nothing sticks to the man. It has nothing to do with likability or popularity. His unfavorability ratings were consistently 20 points lower than Clintons through the entire election. They'll likely go even lower now that he's in office. He's not anywhere close to popular. You can show that statistically, scientifically, the majority of the people who voted for him don't like him. I think this is probably more complex than just "he's charismatic". People ignore scandals when its helpful to reinforce a worldview. I'm still amazed/ashamed that the Democrats defended Bill Clinton getting blowjobs from an intern in the WhiteHouse so vehemently in the 90's.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Bill Clinton didn't have to run with impeachment over his head... nor did it happen right before an election. Come on now.

But we're talking about his popularity ratings here, that's what the chart you showed me was about. Which were more or less unaffected by his impeachment. If anything, he became more popular after he survived it.

You're saying, she was popular when outside forces weren't acting against her. So I said, here's someone whose popularity wasn't affected by outside forces.

Donald Trump has the highest unfavorability ratings of... anyone in politics I know of. But literally nothing sticks to the man. It has nothing to do with likability or popularity. His unfavorability ratings were consistently 20 points lower than Clintons through the entire election. They'll likely go even lower now that he's in office. He's not anywhere close to popular. You can show that statistically, scientifically, the majority of the people who voted for him don't like him. I think this is probably more complex than just "he's charismatic". People ignore scandals when its helpful to reinforce a worldview. I'm still amazed/ashamed that the Democrats defended Bill Clinton getting blowjobs from an intern in the WhiteHouse so vehemently in the 90's.

You're absolutely correct, it's not just because "he's charismatic". He was also running as a populist in what was unarguably a populist election, against a candidate who was unabashedly establishment. As Michael Moore correctly observed, a lot of people in the "Blue Firewall" states which flipped and became the "Brexit States" this election probably voted to give the middle finger to the establishment. It's not clear at all that they cared who it was, just that it wasn't the establishment. Only one candidate this election was a populist, because the populist on the other side was defeated in the primary.

 

[BSsBrolly]

But we're talking about his popularity ratings here, that's what the chart you showed me was about. Which were more or less unaffected by his impeachment. If anything, he became more popular after he survived it.

You're saying, she was popular when outside forces weren't acting against her. So I said, here's someone whose popularity wasn't affected by outside forces.

Completely different scenarios. People rallied around Clinton when they realized the people prosecuting him had done the same things. In some cases, multiple times.

Republicans shifted the blame for Benghazi from Obama to Clinton and stuck with it for almost 4 years. They had a media empire on their side to inflate it and a house committee to "investigate" it 13 different times. That was only the beginning as you should know. Many more "scandals" popped up. There is a massive difference which culminated in a "re-opening" of an FBI investigation 11 days before the election.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If you think that what he does isn't one type of good speaking, then you should get on a podium in front of an arena full of people without prepared comments and just wing it for an hour. Let's see how you do compared to him.

Spoiler: You'll do much worse than he does.

That actually requires very little skill, even less if you enjoy being the center of attention like he does.

Tired of people grading Trump on a curve

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Completely different scenarios. People rallied around Clinton when they realized the people prosecuting him had done the same things. In some cases, multiple times.

Republicans shifted the blame for Benghazi from Obama to Clinton and stuck with it for almost 4 years. They had a media empire on their side to inflate it and a house committee to "investigate" it 13 different times. That was only the beginning as you should know. Many more "scandals" popped up. There is a massive difference which culminated in a "re-opening" of an FBI investigation 11 days before the election.

You actually are agreeing with me here, so let's go back to the beginning of the debate.

Why did people rally around Bill and Barack, but not Kerry and Hillary?

Why was it that blame for Benghazi failed to "stick" to Obama, yet was so effective when shifted against Hillary?

What was special about Bill and Barack, that people would rally to their defense, that they would shrug off these attacks and maintain high popularity? Especially in the case of Barack, who faced the same withering media empire that Hillary did. The Republicans spent 8 years saying that Obama wasn't even born in the United States and that he was secretly a Muslim, among other things.

There's no tangible reason why some politicians are truly Teflon and others aren't, unless we go back to my argument that likability is an innate characteristic. You can try to disprove my argument, but you will not succeed.

 

[GaimeGuy]

He has a talent for speaking off the cuff which is very uncommon among politicians. Because he isn't a politician.

Traditional politicians are great at memorizing and giving pre-written speeches. Obama was one of the greatest deliverers of that kind of speech in living memory, one of the greatest natural politicians of the modern era. Bill Clinton was another example of this. (Conversely, his wife was one of the worst traditional politicians of the modern era.)

But Trump isn't anything resembling a traditional politician. He's more like the guy who's running for high-school president. He's a political neophyte and he acts like one, but he has a natural gift for reading crowds and responding to them. It's why he became such a successful reality TV personality, I don't know many other businessmen who could have been the host of the The Apprentice. He has the right mix of charisma, bombast, and explosive charm to be a great TV personality, and that was exactly the kind of person who would make an effective populist political candidate.

It sounds like he's rambling but he's actually up at that podium listening and reacting and feeling the mood of the crowd that surrounds him and he adjusts what he's saying in real-time based on the rise and fall of their energy. It's such a natural instinct that he makes it look completely effortless but it is a very powerful innate talent and it's something that has made it possible to get him elected to the Presidency of the United States without any prior experience of any kind in politics. People like him wield incredible power over hearts and minds and people have already been underestimating him for this long and still don't get it. He was elected President. It's time to give him credit for who he is and respect his ability because otherwise I'm going to be frank, you're all fucked if you keep underestimating him.

The End.

I don't respect a damn thing about him. He's a piece of shit, and the world will be better off without him.

 

[nuttyevans]

Sad!

 

[Aaronology]

Let's start with "Do what Bernie did".

Bernie did what Bernie did and he couldn't make it through a primary, nevermind the general election. If losing a political contest is absolutely indicative of a bad candidacy and the reason Democrats should now reject any and everything Clinton, Unknown, why the hell are you still worshipping Sanders given he didn't even make it that far?

Or perhaps you believe it's possible that Sanders's failure to garner votes and his failures as a politician and the massive failures of his campaign do not invalidate his message? Because those failures are facts, as real as Clinton's loss against Trump. Every Sanders supporter now has that experience of loss in common with everyone who backed Clinton, and it fucking sucks when you deeply believe a bunch of other people have made a horrible choice. I get it. But instead of this being in any way a unifying point for the Left, all I'm seeing is a group of people armed with Outcome Bias and the Hindsight Infinity Gem going on smug victory tours every bit as aggravating and pointless as the one our President Elect is engaged in at this moment.

"Trump beat you" is an extremely telling remark the displays the sort of backward ass mentality that contributes to the left tripping over itself. Can we wake the fuck up? He beat all of us. Are we still going to be litigating the Democratic Primary in two years or in four when he's up for another term?

 

[NyMartin90]

That actually requires very little skill, even less if you enjoy being the center of attention like he does.

Speaking to a crowd doesn't require a lot of skill, but to keep a crowd is another skill.
I don't think we can underestimate that people do go to his rallies because of his persona, he is Donald Trump. Right now he's someone who beat the odds against him. He beat the media, elitism (even though his cabinet may mirror that), the "unbeatable" Democrats, and really many things that were not in his favor. His persona other than the win in the election is just simply one of a symbol of success regardless of the bankruptcies or any other trouble. People are drawn to him specifically not only for his skills as a speaker.

 

[Polioliolio]

"Victory tour"?
What the fuck is this shit.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

"Victory tour"?
What the fuck is this shit.

Rallies for his 2020 campaign

 

[Par Score]

Rallies for his 2020 campaign

Exactly. The 2020 campaign has already started and Trump is winning, bigly.

 

[Boylamite]

Really? We know that? So why did the Democrats run a candidate who was a black hole of charisma that no one liked, who told people she was going to put them out of jobs and they were all deplorable? Are you sure we know that?

He was willing to lie about the situation. She wasn't.

She took the high road in this regard but no one wants to hear the truth. Even if Trump can buy some manufacturing jobs back with some tax incentives, it's a very temporary solution. The west needs huge, sweeping changes to adapt to the times if we want to keep our standard of living. But we know that will never happen, not with education going down the toilet. Not with a culture where socialism is a taboo concept. Not in a nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

This election has kicked this can down the road. Meanwhile, watch as the Republicans continue to chip away at worker's rights. The end game is we are as cheap as the folks who are getting the outsourced work.

 

[Kaiterra]

This election has kicked this can down the road. Meanwhile, watch as the Republicans continue to chip away at worker's rights. The end game is we are as cheap as the folks who are getting the outsourced work.

And that those jobs still won't come back anyway.

 

[archreaper93]

I hope he gets egged.

 

[Keasar]

That's cuz you are listening already prepared to hate. Trump is a great talker.

No he isn't. He is awful at speeches that makes me wanna fucking slap him with a giant English dictionary and grammar book so he will stop saying his insanely annoying sentences that drives me slowly mad. Try reading the transcript of any of his speeches. Any speech. Whatever speech he does.

It's like listening to a 7 year old with a speech impediment. There are repeats all of the goddamn place. There are shit that doesn't make sense. He has a tendency to get off topic often when he is supposed to devote maybe a minute to something, which he then stretches out to 10 because he wanna fucking rant about everything.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

If all I had to do was regurgitate Republican talking points, throw in a few tremendouses, and believe me's... and repeat it 10 times, I could do it. It doesn't take much to sound smart to certain people in this country, unfortunetly.

Trump definitely has unique political talent. Like I've said before his skillset will probably make him a better politician vs. a businessman in the end. His ability to manipulate people and frame the conversation with rhetoric is impressive. His excellent salesman skills are what separates him from the mediocre politician.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Trump definitely has unique politcal talent. Like I've said before his skillset will probably make him a better politician vs. a businessman in the end. His ability to manipulate people and frame the conversation with rhetoric is impressive. His excellent salesman skills are what separates him from the mediocre politician.

Yea those excellent salesman skills he used with Carrier 🌚