What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Malthus]

A gossip reporter getting access to White House and even Trump himself is not as odd as it appears.  Trump craves these people's approval.  At Trump's core is still the young man from Queens who wants the respect of the Manhattan elite.  What Trump isn't, is self-aware.  He really doesn't understand how other people see him.  I think these two strands of his personality explain much of his behavior.

That's certainly possible.

[Malthus]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

[mongers]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

He clearly he has certain skills, can manipulate a crowd playing on their base prejudices etc. I just don't see him ranking as an "arch-manipulator', less a Richelieu, more of a Oswald Mosley. 

[DGuller]

I've made this analogy before, but now with a year under Trump's belt, I feel way more confident in it.  Trump is like Jerry Yang at 2007 World Series of Poker Main Event. 

Jerry Yang made it to the final table of a tournament with 5000+ people, so it would be reasonable to assume that he understood something about poker.  When the final table started, he was playing extremely crazy and making all sorts of unconventional (and theoretically stupid) moves, which coupled with incredible luck got him a big chip lead and knocked off his most dangerous opponent. 

It seemed like he picked the right gear to play against other players, and that he expertly kept them off-balance for the duration of the match, but the explanation was much simpler.  He was an awful player who was so unpredictably crazy, and incredibly lucky, that he caught everyone else off-guard.  Confronting him would require taking a huge risk in one hand, and being certain that Yang was as clueless as it seemed.  The other players couldn't imagine the truth to be what it was until it was too late, for that tournament at least.  He was probably the most baffling winner of the Main Event in the history of the tournament.

Eventually people understood what kind of poker player Jerry Yang was, and once you do, it's not hard to play against someone like him.  Despite winning millions in the Main Event, he went bankrupt and in debt to IRS.

[Malthus]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

He clearly he has certain skills, can manipulate a crowd playing on their base prejudices etc. I just don't see him ranking as an "arch-manipulator', less a Richelieu, more of a Oswald Mosley.

'I can't be a criminal, because I'm too much of a moron to be one' isn't exactly the height of Richelieu-like fiendish cleverness. 

[The Brain]

From the depths of America a cry rose up for a complete retard to take over the White House. And who is more retarded than Trump? It was stupid at first sight. Destiny.

[derspiess]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

Or he was just running against a terrible candidate.

[Malthus]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

Or he was just running against a terrible candidate.

As an explanation, this just moves the problem down a rung.

The Republicans fielded a large number of presidential hopefuls. Trump defeated the lot. Were they all also 'terrible candidates'? If so, what is wrong with the party, that it can only attract terrible candidates?

Ditto with the Democrats, of course.

[Grey Fox]

Because all the good candidates are not in Politics anymore.

We have the same problem in Canada.

[DGuller]

Because all the good candidates are not in Politics anymore.

We have the same problem in Canada.

I think part of the problem is unhelpful and undiscriminating cynicism most people have towards politicians.  It's a mark of a very naive person to not think that all politicians are crooks and can't be trusted, but the problem with this wise cynicism is that good people are discouraged from entering politics, and better politicians are not sufficiently rewarded for being better than their loathsome colleagues.

[Grey Fox]

Yes, how do we fix that?

[garbon]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

Or he was just running against a terrible candidate.

As an explanation, this just moves the problem down a rung.

The Republicans fielded a large number of presidential hopefuls. Trump defeated the lot. Were they all also 'terrible candidates'? If so, what is wrong with the party, that it can only attract terrible candidates?

Ditto with the Democrats, of course.

It also seems a bit odd to describe someone as 'possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.' and then styling them the least terrible of the terrible candidates...by sole virtue of the fact that they won. Not that you've done that but what seems to in general be shaping up when we are post facto determining who was a 'good candidate.'

[Eddie Teach]

Indeed, I favour your interpretation, rather than Trump as the arch-manipulator.

The man did manage to finagle his way into the White House somehow, despite possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.

Either he has some skill at manipulation of the media and the public - or he's just amazingly lucky. Or, more probably, a bit of both.

Or he was just running against a terrible candidate.

As an explanation, this just moves the problem down a rung.

The Republicans fielded a large number of presidential hopefuls. Trump defeated the lot. Were they all also 'terrible candidates'? If so, what is wrong with the party, that it can only attract terrible candidates?

Whether because of Democrat bias or ratings bias, the media was on Trump's side during the primaries. Lots of stories about his momentum, little in depth probing, and they never mentioned his opponents without smearing them with the "E" word.

[DGuller]

Yes, how do we fix that?

People have to dial down cynicism, on everything.  Cynicism is not a sign of wisdom, it's a cheap substitute.  Cynicism is toxic to free society.

[Eddie Teach]

Anyone else wondering what Gullers agenda is here?