[Going strong]

If you were to talk to D. Trump before the final presidential duel (against Hillary , probably), what advice would you give him? What can he still improve in his (already very good) game and strategy? Specifically, how would you help him "win" the presidential debate(s) against Hillary?

(Disclaimer: Yeah, I know that D. Trump has lots of talented advisers, but let's do this just for the fun of it... and who knows, maybe his advisers are afraid of criticizing him face to face...)

Ok, I'll go first:

Having noted the (very) negative impact a certain, quick radio interview by D. Trump just had on American voters of Argentinian origin (I know, not very numerous, but still...), I would (respectfully, and if the opportunity was given to me), strongly advise him to brush up on his "non-essential" geopolitical knowledge base.

By "non-essential geopolitical knowledge base", I mean:

of course Trump perfectly understands and analyses the main issues of current geopolitics. Like, the war against ISIS, the necessity of protecting international borders, etc... But, being a businessman and not a professional politician, I think he might lack knowledge on some minute, not-essential geopolitical points. Like, yesterday he sort of seemed not totally up-to-date on the political alignment of the Argentinian supreme court...

So, anyway, one could object that a candidate for the US presidency does not need to be a specialist on low-priority issues like the Argentinian supreme court, but... I disagree. In order to beat Hillary, Trump I think would be well-inspired to learn a maximum of very detailed, particular, geopolitical issues, even non-essential ones.

Because, during a debate with Hillary, make no mistake: the only (relatively) weak angle she might find to attack Trump, is, that she has traveled more than him, and has probably more knowledge on foreign stuff (granted, she applied her knowledge to do evil things...). I mean, on American politics and economics issues, Trump will blow Hillary out of the water , and humiliate her, it's a given. But, on foreign small details, Hillary could try to pass as more knowledgeable. I mean, what if Hillary were to ask him live: Mister Trump, can you tell us what is the political alignment of Argentina's Supreme Court, which you seemed to refer to, during a past interview? Or were you referring to Venezuela only?... and Trump would have a hard time answering, probably.

So, well, to sum it up, I'd respectfully advise, should the opportunity arise, D. Trump to spend one hour per day learning foreign geopolitical data and trivia: I don't know, for example, the name of the new "capital" of Myanmar, the name of the (destined to greatness) mayor of Davao (but I bet Trump knows him already), the number of Azeri troops in Nagoya-Karabaxh, the French army involvement in Niger, stuff like that, just in case Hillary asks him a question like that during the debates.

Ok, this is the only advice I could think of proposing to D. Trump, given that he's so strong and knowledgeable on all other issues: Spend as much time as possible with geopolitical advisers and learn apparently-useless foreign facts and trivia. Just to deny Hillary an opportunity to bother him during the debate.

(Edit: it should be moved to the Politics and War thread)

[Going strong]

This thread remains... low-energy : sad!

Let's give it some high-energy influx:

[The Beast1]

Nothing, he knows what he is doing

[Going strong]

(05-07-2016 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Nothing, he knows what he is doing

I dare say, he 100% knows what he is doing on all things American, but probably only is 95% knowledgeable on specific, "low-priority" foreign issues. Which is normal, nobody can know everything on anything.

Well, anyway, I don't want to quote his actual words - apparently referring to the supreme courts of Argentina and Venezuela -, but they did cause a huge uproar in Argentina. Looks like Trump, in this quick radio interview, forgot to add the words "of last ten years", or "pre-Macri", before the word Argentina, and it is indeed a mistake. It will cost him some "white-latino" votes (unless he posts a clarification, which he probably should)...

So, my point is, D. Trump is obviously a very good, experienced, truthful and inspired, candidate, but there are still a few things he could do better. Nobody's perfect, even the emperor himself

And I'm quite sure that Hillary will attack him during the debates on some complicated, little-known foreign issues, so Trump should be ready for that.

[Requiem]

Don't take money from wealthy donors. It's one of your best punches against Hillary and can make a large number of Berniepeople vote for you. Self-funding the primaries and after being nominated changing tactics to getting bought will make a lot of voters feel betrayed.

[Going strong]

(05-07-2016 10:46 AM)Requiem Wrote:  

Don't take money from wealthy donors. It's one of your best punches against Hillary and can make a large number of Berniepeople vote for you. Self-funding the primaries and after being nominated changing tactics to getting bought will make a lot of voters feel betrayed.

On the principle, I'd agree with you, but thing is, Hillary C will probably get one billion usd from various globalist donors. One billion ... No way Trump can spend this kind of money himself... Therefore, he has to get some help and some money from other people, but important thing is, from the right, honest people (this way he can differentiate himself from Hillary: she gets money from globalist crooks, whereas he gets money from good conservative people...)

[SlickyBoy]

(05-06-2016 09:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

I mean, what if Hillary were to ask him live: Mister Trump, can you tell us what is the political alignment of Argentina's Supreme Court, which you seemed to refer to, during a past interview? Or were you referring to Venezuela only?... and Trump would have a hard time answering, probably.

Trump more or less knows this, but the first rule of politics is you never answer the question you are asked, you answer the question that you want to answer.

Let her bring up foreign policy - her record on that is a disaster and Trump's already been sharpshooting it left and right. But I agree it wouldn't be bad to brush up on areas where she might think she has an edge, particularly if he can come back at her and her Ivy League advisors with a business angle none of those quiche-eaters would ever think about. He did this once when Jeb Bush tried to brag about Boeing building a plant in China. Trump essentially said "Jeb, you stupid fuck, don't you realize the Chinese are allowing that so they can rip off all of the intellectual property from Boeing and use it to build their own jets?"

Trump is a master of media and can throw off even the most liberally rabid dogs from their political agendas by giving them an irresistible story. Watch for more of this distraction and baiting maneuver from him - it's a work of art.

[911]

(05-07-2016 10:46 AM)Requiem Wrote:  

Don't take money from wealthy donors. It's one of your best punches against Hillary and can make a large number of Berniepeople vote for you. Self-funding the primaries and after being nominated changing tactics to getting bought will make a lot of voters feel betrayed.

Yeah this is critical. One of Pantsuit's most vulnerable points is her bankster links, CGI corruption, and lack of transparency, as epitomized by her Goldman Sachs private speech. By hiring a GS guy to run his fundraising, Trump is making a tactical error.

The most important thing for Trump is to let Hillary hurt herself, with this hire he is undermining his most important anti-Hillary card.

[Requiem]

1) if Hillary has one billion that doesn't mean he needs an equal amount of money. Thus far he usually spent way less than his competitors but still won big. He knows how to play the MSM, how to use social media to his advantage and how to win debates. While "his internet people" AKA 4chan, reddit and the likes would continue to support him with meme-magic and troll-operations, Hillary - as opposed to Bernie - won't have that many enthusiastic young people that see her as worthy of dedicating hours upon hours of their life's towards meming her into office.

2) he could try to crowd-fund part of it. He has so many enthusiastic supporters who are probably willing to put in the money.

3) he could add to it by selling one of his buildings to get several millions. I know he's already sacrificed a lot but this would not only help keep up his image of the underdog who can't be bought but also make it really clear to everyone who still doubted him that he is dedicated to really being independent and doing everything he can for the betterment of the country.

4) IF all this wasn't enough, he could selectively choose who to take money from and try to make the sources be at least somewhat acceptable. Meaning at least don't take money from people or companies who are obviously corrupt in the eyes of semi informed people. Thinking about Koch, Soros, GS and other big banks, etc.

I know this is a lot to ask but I'll admit the moment I heard he'll be taking big money, I lost a lot of confidence in whether he'll actually go through with his promises if the donors later tell him not to. The negatives I see in him are well worth accepting for all the good he promises to do. But if the donors make him go off path, then this won't be any different from what any other Republican candidate would have done.
I can still see him taking their millions, winning and then saying "thanks for your input but I'll do this my way". Let's hope this is how it'll go. If not, the West is fucked either way so it would just be a bit disappointing.

[911]

Roger Stone just addressed some of our concerns about Trump's fundraising coordinator hire. Stone echoed what some said on the main thread: he is skillfully playing the banksters and will take their money without being subject to their agenda. I found Stone's response very reassuring.

As far as the main topic of this thread, I think Trump needs to put together a public PR team to get his messages through different channels. Take for example the Clintons serial rapist past: he needs to have a woman champion to deliver this message. Maybe an actress who is fairly trusted by the public. The problem is that when Trump conveys the message, it doesn't get through to the target audience regardless of that message's validity, because many of them are too conditioned and will instinctively mistrust and dismiss everything Trump says.

[GlobalMan]

Trump spending hundreds of millions, possibly up to or more than a billion dollars, of his own money would be foolish any way you look at it. He wouldn't do it, and neither would I in his position. Thats crazy money, and it evaporates into thin air.

I would be surprised if he even has $500 mil in liquid assets anyway, probably much less. And having a fire sale of properties is not wise, and not something he would do. He has a family empire that has been built over decades, and his children are continuing it. He wouldn't put that in jeopardy, nor should he.

Hillary will get hundreds of millions from the party and PACs, Trump shouldn't play with one hand tied behind back by refusing money.

Selectively choosing donors and carefully sticking to his agenda is the way to go.

Hillary is corrupt because the Clintons are corrupt and have been since they came to power in Arkansas. If she refused to take money this cycle, would you see her as untainted and pure? No.

On the other hand, Trump isn't corrupt and never has been, and doesn't need to add to his personal wealth or need promises of cushy gigs and perks once he's out of office. Taking donor money won't suddenly turn him into a corrupt puppet, and shouldn't alter your perception of him, just like you wouldn't change your perception of Hillary if she changed course on donors.

[Anabasis to Desta]

No need to over-analyze this. A black VP would seal the election.

15-18% of the black vote would have turned Florida, Ohio and Virginia red even back in 2012 when the Republican turnout was super low which would have won the election. This time around, a black VP along with the increased turnout might turn PA red as well.

I can't believe how many people suggested some lily white "Marine" or Jon Huntsman as VP in the other thread. The VP has no power and in an election this crucial ... one that literally will determine the future of the planet, we can't afford to gamble that way.

Most of you guys don't understand how the majority of AA vote. Slap on a black face as VP and two million black people will hop on the Trump train overnight in support of a brotha'.

[Praetor Lupus]

For me, this question - when applied to Trump, not any of the other candidates - isn't "What could he improve?" but "What else do I want him to address that speaks to me personally?". Trump's approach has been utterly unconventional but so successful that onlookers are now, to quote scorpion, in a state of stunned awe.

How could you advise such a candidate when everything you thought you knew, thought would work (and should work in a conventional setting) has been torn up to the point where Hillary's perceived destiny to become President is now looking shakier by the day? Everything that comes from the Trump camp that seems like a mis-step turns out to be part of the man's frame that his opponents fall blindly into, sucked under like quicksand.

Milo pointed out that Trump rose to where he is thanks in no small part to the Intranet warriors, with their arsenals of gifs and memes. I'm not so sure; the Intranet was around in the last two elections, and as has been pointed out here, the support for Trump on alt media platforms such as RvF and InfoWars isn't necessarily representative of the country as a whole.

Trump is the figurehead of a larger movement that is waking up around the world - he is the right man for the right time. It becomes clear now that his earlier abortive attempts were the result of reading the mood of the people and realising that then was simply not the time.

2016 is shaping up to be an extraordinary year.

[Going strong]

(05-08-2016 12:23 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Trump spending hundreds of millions, possibly up to or more than a billion dollars, of his own money would be foolish any way you look at it. He wouldn't do it, and neither would I in his position. That's crazy money, and it evaporates into thin air.

I would be surprised if he even has $500 mil in liquid assets anyway, probably much less. And having a fire sale of properties is not wise, and not something he would do. He has a family empire that has been built over decades, and his children are continuing it. He wouldn't put that in jeopardy, nor should he.

Hillary will get hundreds of millions from the party and PACs, Trump shouldn't play with one hand tied behind back by refusing money.

Selectively choosing donors and carefully sticking to his agenda is the way to go.

I agree with your post (especially bolded parts), and also with this Requiem quote:

4) If all this wasn't enough, he could selectively choose who to take money from and try to make the sources be at least somewhat acceptable. Meaning at least don't take money from people or companies who are obviously corrupt in the eyes of semi informed people. Thinking about ..., Soros, GS and other big banks, etc.

I also think that, for Trump, hurriedly selling a building of his or taking a lot of his own money, would convey a kind of frailty, of despair even. He would appear cornered and without allies. And indeed it's money invested in thin air, bad image for a builder.

So, way to go is, take money from non-corrupt, acceptable people, as you both advised.

One funny detail: each time I read here, "let's not take money from evil GS", I'm like, what the fuck, why the hate? Then I remember GS is Goldman Sachs, not Going Strong ...

To Anabasis to desta, I agree with you, I think a Black VP would clinch the general election, but one has to find the right Conservative Black man for this, and much as I like Ben Carson, I am not sure he has the depth, the drive, for such a responsibility. Surgeon general, yes.

[Krivo]

Maybe Trump could recruit Colin Powell for VP.

[JacksonRev]

(05-08-2016 01:40 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

No need to over-analyze this. A black VP would seal the election.

15-18% of the black vote would have turned Florida, Ohio and Virginia red even back in 2012 when the Republican turnout was super low which would have won the election. This time around, a black VP along with the increased turnout might turn PA red as well.

I can't believe how many people suggested some lily white "Marine" or Jon Huntsman as VP in the other thread. The VP has no power and in an election this crucial ... one that literally will determine the future of the planet, we can't afford to gamble that way.

Most of you guys don't understand how the majority of AA vote. Slap on a black face as VP and two million black people will hop on the Trump train overnight in support of a brotha'.

You don't understand one of the main reasons why Trump is popular with white people, which is that white people are tired of all this pandering racist bullshit. If Trump picks a black person just to get votes, just like the Dems and all the rest of the establishment whores, then his white support drops like a rock. And since that's by far the largest voting bloc in the US, he loses the election.

[Going strong]

(05-08-2016 11:15 AM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 01:40 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

No need to over-analyze this. A black VP would seal the election.

15-18% of the black vote would have turned Florida, Ohio and Virginia red even back in 2012 when the Republican turnout was super low which would have won the election. This time around, a black VP along with the increased turnout might turn PA red as well.

I can't believe how many people suggested some lily white "Marine" or Jon Huntsman as VP in the other thread. The VP has no power and in an election this crucial ... one that literally will determine the future of the planet, we can't afford to gamble that way.

Most of you guys don't understand how the majority of AA vote. Slap on a black face as VP and two million black people will hop on the Trump train overnight in support of a brotha'.

You don't understand one of the main reasons why Trump is popular with white people, which is that white people are tired of all this pandering racist bullshit. If Trump picks a black person just to get votes, just like the Dems and all the rest of the establishment whores, then his white support drops like a rock. And since that's by far the largest voting bloc in the US, he loses the election.

One solution then could be, picking a (Black) VP who's genuinely competent and deserving of the post, a (Black) man who's successful in business and politics, through his own merits, and not through affirmative action per se.

But, you might be right, and a woman VP might be most "productive" (vote-inducing) for Trump, eventually. Anyway, there is a general feeling that if Trump picks the right VP candidate, he might all but secure the presidency at that very moment (given the moral and professional weaknesses and legal vulnerabilities of unlikable Hillary).

[All or Nothing]

(05-08-2016 11:53 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 11:15 AM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 01:40 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

No need to over-analyze this. A black VP would seal the election.

15-18% of the black vote would have turned Florida, Ohio and Virginia red even back in 2012 when the Republican turnout was super low which would have won the election. This time around, a black VP along with the increased turnout might turn PA red as well.

I can't believe how many people suggested some lily white "Marine" or Jon Huntsman as VP in the other thread. The VP has no power and in an election this crucial ... one that literally will determine the future of the planet, we can't afford to gamble that way.

Most of you guys don't understand how the majority of AA vote. Slap on a black face as VP and two million black people will hop on the Trump train overnight in support of a brotha'.

You don't understand one of the main reasons why Trump is popular with white people, which is that white people are tired of all this pandering racist bullshit. If Trump picks a black person just to get votes, just like the Dems and all the rest of the establishment whores, then his white support drops like a rock. And since that's by far the largest voting bloc in the US, he loses the election.

One solution then could be, picking a (Black) VP who's genuinely competent and deserving of the post, a (Black) man who's successful in business and politics, through his own merits, and not through affirmative action per se.

But, you might be right, and a woman VP might be most "productive" (vote-inducing) for Trump, eventually. Anyway, there is a general feeling that if Trump picks the right VP candidate, he might all but secure the presidency at that very moment (given the moral and professional weaknesses and legal vulnerabilities of unlikable Hillary).

Yes, it all depends on why he picks a black VP. It has to be because he is the best man for the job.

For example, Ben Carson being picked as the Surgeon General makes sense because he is a brilliant neurosurgeon who revolutionized certain aspects of the medical industry.

[RaccoonFace]

(05-08-2016 10:04 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:23 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Trump spending hundreds of millions, possibly up to or more than a billion dollars, of his own money would be foolish any way you look at it. He wouldn't do it, and neither would I in his position. That's crazy money, and it evaporates into thin air.

I would be surprised if he even has $500 mil in liquid assets anyway, probably much less. And having a fire sale of properties is not wise, and not something he would do. He has a family empire that has been built over decades, and his children are continuing it. He wouldn't put that in jeopardy, nor should he.

Hillary will get hundreds of millions from the party and PACs, Trump shouldn't play with one hand tied behind back by refusing money.

Selectively choosing donors and carefully sticking to his agenda is the way to go.

I agree with your post (especially bolded parts), and also with this Requiem quote:

4) If all this wasn't enough, he could selectively choose who to take money from and try to make the sources be at least somewhat acceptable. Meaning at least don't take money from people or companies who are obviously corrupt in the eyes of semi informed people. Thinking about ..., Soros, GS and other big banks, etc.

I also think that, for Trump, hurriedly selling a building of his or taking a lot of his own money, would convey a kind of frailty, of despair even. He would appear cornered and without allies. And indeed it's money invested in thin air, bad image for a builder.

So, way to go is, take money from non-corrupt, acceptable people, as you both advised.

One funny detail: each time I read here, "let's not take money from evil GS", I'm like, what the fuck, why the hate? Then I remember GS is Goldman Sachs, not Going Strong ...

To Anabasis to desta, I agree with you, I think a Black VP would clinch the general election, but one has to find the right Conservative Black man for this, and much as I like Ben Carson, I am not sure he has the depth, the drive, for such a responsibility. Surgeon general, yes.

Maybe Herman Cain? He has Tea Party tendencies, I think, and he regularly appears on Fox News to show his support for Trump.

One problem with Cain is that he called the Koch brothers 'brothers from another mother'.

[911]

Yeah, he is a Kuck Brothers mole.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

I'm drinking right now, so take my rhetorical point with a grain of salt.

Maybe Trump should make a point to use more $7 words when he speaks, so the intellectuals know that his paradigm accommodates the gestalt of this modern age. After all, it's the current year. He needs to show he's a proper latte-sipping, NPR-listening bien-pensant.

Edit: added hyphens and commas for intellectual credibility

[Going strong]

Difficult indeed to find things that Trump could still improve, as this thread proved... Obviously Trump is already on top of the game, winning and winning big!
Anyway, what do you think of this possibility: learn a good bit of Spanish language.

Because, a surprising and brilliant move by Trump would be, for example during a debate with Hillary, when she will undoubtedly ask him about his supposed "animosity" towards Mexicans, to answer, "Hey, I love Mexican people, I have great friends in Mexico", and then add just a few words in perfect Spanish (Hillary would not even understand, as I think she does not speak Spanish - she only knows one Spanish word, basta).

I mean, it would be great: showing that Hillary at, how old is she, 99 years old it seems, has not learned Spanish or any other language, even though she claims to be the candidate of Latinos, whereas Trump, unbeknownst to all, would've been studying Spanish, and mastering it, like he masters everything...

[Requiem]

Holy shit all that required minjority pandering is fucking sad.
Gotta choose a brotha for VP so dem blacks get their act together and vote for the ebil whitey.
Sure gotta learn dat Spanish and speak it during the presidential debate on national TV to get all these lovely Mexicans to vote for the ebil rich white man. Just make sure though to not fuck up the pronunciation otherwise all the HISPANICS™ will realize you're just doing this to get their darn vote. - What a surprise! You're NOT GENUINE. You DON'T APPRECIATE THEM the way they DESERVE.

What's next? Gotta go visit the mosque some time and bow before your new overlords.
Put some toilet paper on your fucking head and start singing hare krishna - gotta get dat Indian vote if you really wanna be POTUS. - We melting pot now!
"Melting" indeed. The culture is melting. Society is melting. My brain is melting.

Oh and definitely don't forget about the chosen people. Sure won't make it without them. The chosen ones are the ones that choose the one who'll make it to the top.

I don't think I'll be able to stomach the race for the general election. The pandering will be humiliating to watch if he actually does it. Goddamn I want off this ride. Let me back to the 50s or at least the 80s. This world sucks worse than a crack hoe.

[Going strong]

(05-09-2016 06:10 AM)Requiem Wrote:  

Sure gotta learn dat Spanish and speak it during the presidential debate on national TV to get all these lovely Mexicans to vote for the ebil rich white man. Just make sure though to not fuck up the pronunciation otherwise all the HISPANICS™ will realize you're just doing this to get their darn vote. - What a surprise! You're NOT GENUINE. You DON'T APPRECIATE THEM the way they DESERVE.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with learning Spanish. May I remind you that Spain is one of the most glorious countries and civilizations ever? The language of (war hero, ex-White slave and martyr) Cervantes is one of the oldest and most gracious in History.

I mean, please stop equating Spanish language with Azteco-Mexican illegals...

Anyway, learning (good) Spanish would prove Trump is high-energy and unpredictable, whereas in her 666 years of life, Hillary only learned one word of Spanish (basta)... Trump could suddenly drop some Spanish words in a good-humored way, joking in Spanish, and Hillary would be stuck open-mouthed and wordless during a debate... then Trump would ask her, "wait, you claim to be the candidates of the Latinos and don't even speak five words of Spanish...?" Game over!

By the way, it'd be a good joke from Trump, saying, Hillary looks so tired, it's like she's 666 years old...

[DJ-Matt]

I'd like to see Trump take money from the bad guys, then turn around and screw them after he's elected.