[Truth Teller]

Socio-sexual hierarchy tends to be a fairly good indicator of electoral success. Zuckerberg is textbook gamma. Trump, well, I think everyone knows what Trump is.

Trump eviscerated Jeb very swiftly. Zuckerberg would be even more bloody.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

(05-28-2017 10:42 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Zuck would be funny to watch trying to run for president. The cringe worthy pics that would be sure to happen would make it worth watching.

The biggest challenger I see in either 2020 or 2024 is The Rock

- Super Charismatic
- High level of Game awareness
- Huge celebrity with very few haters
- Actor
- Excellent Voice Control
- Not a fucking white male

- If The Rock came out and ran on a centrist ideology, a mix of progressive and conservative positions, then I think he would be a serious contender.

Watch this video and tell me he couldn't make dangerously good political commercials.

The Rock would demolish The Zuck

The Establishment is in a pickle. Trump upset their grip on politics by blowing away the notion that only an experienced politico should be President. Now it looks like they're looking for a celebrity that can appear to be an outsider to run against him.

It's not going to work. Trump got elected because of the issue of immigration. Once Trump made his comments about illegal Mexicans he went to Number One and stayed there throughout the primaries. Sure he has a strong personality that helped, however it was his positions on the issues that got him elected.

Getting The Rock to say the same platitudes that sunk John Ellis Bush and Hillary is going to have the same effect, with the only difference being that those that vote against him won't do so out of spite for an entrenched political class.

[Menace]

Zuckerberg has the charisma of a dead fish. In tightly controlled atmosphere he may be tolerable, but in the dirty world of American politics he will be crushed. Meanwhile, the Rock has more charisma than almost anyone else alive today that I know of. Not sure he harbors any political ambitions...he might try the Governor thing first to see if he truly likes it.

[captain_shane]

(05-29-2017 03:21 PM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 10:42 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Zuck would be funny to watch trying to run for president. The cringe worthy pics that would be sure to happen would make it worth watching.

The biggest challenger I see in either 2020 or 2024 is The Rock

- Super Charismatic
- High level of Game awareness
- Huge celebrity with very few haters
- Actor
- Excellent Voice Control
- Not a fucking white male

- If The Rock came out and ran on a centrist ideology, a mix of progressive and conservative positions, then I think he would be a serious contender.

Watch this video and tell me he couldn't make dangerously good political commercials.

The Rock would demolish The Zuck

The Establishment is in a pickle. Trump upset their grip on politics by blowing away the notion that only an experienced politico should be President. Now it looks like they're looking for a celebrity that can appear to be an outsider to run against him.

It's not going to work. Trump got elected because of the issue of immigration. Once Trump made his comments about illegal Mexicans he went to Number One and stayed there throughout the primaries. Sure he has a strong personality that helped, however it was his positions on the issues that got him elected.

Getting The Rock to say the same platitudes that sunk John Ellis Bush and Hillary is going to have the same effect, with the only difference being that those that vote against him won't do so out of spite for an entrenched political class.

Trump won because of his personality. Give Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, whoever his exact same views and they lose. Why?

Because Trump dominates the room. He know's frame control, RAS, game, all of it.

"Do you hate all women Mr Trump.?" "No, just Rosie O'donnell."

Why does that work? Because Trump owns the field of view. He was the "amog" of every debate, every rally, every interaction.

Politicians like Cruz, Rubio and Bush are like the old school PUA's. They rely on game tactics. "Hey, I'm gonna open this HB8 and drop a few negs and get her laughing at my DHV stories bro". While Trump has been running inner game his entire life. "Just grab em' by the pussy, they love it."

Outer game tactics will never beat the inner game rock. Trump could've won being a social justice warrior. It was never his words that won the election, it was him.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

(05-29-2017 08:35 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Trump won because of his personality. Give Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, whoever his exact same views and they lose. Why?

I completely disagree. If you recall, as soon as Trump established himself in the lead after his illegal immigration comments, Ted Cruz started making similar comments and began positioning himself in alignment with Trump's views. After doing this El Rato's poll numbers shot up. Stopping illegal immigration was a winning issue with voters. If Trump had any other view, nobody would've tolerated his boorish schtick.

Yes, boorish. When Trump stuck to the issues (and maintained frame in doing so) his numbers went up. When he got involved in the celebrity trash-talk gossip shit, he tanked.

(05-29-2017 08:35 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Trump could've won being a social justice warrior. It was never his words that won the election, it was him.

Once again, disagree. Trump had to separate himself from 16 other candidates that were all in agreement on the issues. If he ran on Jeb's platform nobody would've cared. He would just be a loudmouth Jeb. However, when he put that loudmouth in service of raising issues that voters cared about, people responded favorably.

People tolerated his personality because he was right on the issues, not the other way around.

Just being outrageous doesn't get you anywhere in Presidential elections. The failed campaigns of Alan Keyes and Lyndon LaRouche are perfect examples.

[911]

The Rock sounds like an another Arnold, opportunist masculine icon. I guess he would run as a Democrat in 2020? Better him than a pedo like Biden, but what does he really stand for?

I could be wrong about him, but I don't think you be a major Hollywood star if you're not totally part of the system. At least Jesse Ventura had an anti-establishment streak, along with real political experience.

[captain_shane]

(05-29-2017 09:10 PM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 08:35 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Trump won because of his personality. Give Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, whoever his exact same views and they lose. Why?

I completely disagree. If you recall, as soon as Trump established himself in the lead after his illegal immigration comments, Ted Cruz started making similar comments and began positioning himself in alignment with Trump's views. After doing this El Rato's poll numbers shot up. Stopping illegal immigration was a winning issue with voters. If Trump had any other view, nobody would've tolerated his boorish schtick.

Yes, boorish. When Trump stuck to the issues (and maintained frame in doing so) his numbers went up. When he got involved in the celebrity trash-talk gossip shit, he tanked.

(05-29-2017 08:35 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Trump could've won being a social justice warrior. It was never his words that won the election, it was him.

Once again, disagree. Trump had to separate himself from 16 other candidates that were all in agreement on the issues. If he ran on Jeb's platform nobody would've cared. He would just be a loudmouth Jeb. However, when he put that loudmouth in service of raising issues that voters cared about, people responded favorably.

People tolerated his personality because he was right on the issues, not the other way around.

Just being outrageous doesn't get you anywhere in Presidential elections. The failed campaigns of Alan Keyes and Lyndon LaRouche are perfect examples.

People cared the min Trump stepped out and announced he was running. "Build that Wall" was just a sort of "ping" that he could go back to and get people on reacting. Trump schooled everyone on game this past 2 years in a number of things. Jeb with his reacting came off weak as fuck. Why do you think people Still make fun of him because of his please clap thing? Because he was being emotional and trying to get reactions from his audience. This is the same behavior an old school pick up artist goes through when his opener doesn't work, or his joke doesn't work. Please clap.

Trump didn't give a fuck if anyone laughed, he made himself laugh. He was always the center of his own universe. People reacted off of him. Blonde bimbo reacted off of his rosie comment, Jeb reacted off of his "low energy" comments, Cruz reacted off of everything, rubio acted tough. They all bought into Trump's superior frame of reality.

Trump is the ultimate salesman. How do you sell someone? By telling them all the features and benefits of what you're selling (wall, taxes, etc) or letting the other person project on to you what they want you to be?

Let's take the beta male with oneitis. He see's a girl that's super fuckin hot 9/10, smoking bad bitch. She gives him a few twinkles of hope, a flicker of the eyelashes, a brush of the hair, laugh at his jokes, whatever. What does the beta do? He now paints a picture in his head that this woman is perfect, she's wholesome, kind, virgin, great mother material, etc.

Why does the beta male project his image upon the woman?

Why does america project their image upon the person running for office?

Answer those, and you can see why someone like The Rock would have a good chance of winning, and why The Donald did.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

(05-29-2017 09:26 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

People cared the min Trump stepped out and announced he was running.

Provibly false. In the two weeks he announced his campaign and the illegal alien comments, he went nowhere. It was only after he announced a hard-line on illegal immigration and "Build the Wall" that his campaign took off, not before.

(05-29-2017 09:26 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Let's take the beta male with oneitis. He see's a girl that's super fuckin hot 9/10, smoking bad bitch. She gives him a few twinkles of hope, a flicker of the eyelashes, a brush of the hair, laugh at his jokes, whatever. What does the beta do? He now paints a picture in his head that this woman is perfect, she's wholesome, kind, virgin, great mother material, etc.

Nobody I know who supports Trump was/is under any delusions of his perfection. We are all aware of his limitations and that he's going to have to compromise on some issues to make headway on others. I fail to see how that maps over onto oneitis.

Frankly the only people who keep pointing out his compromises as evidence of sellout are snarky gamma anklebiters that never understood his appeal to begin with.

(05-29-2017 09:26 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Answer those, and you can see why someone like The Rock would have a good chance of winning, and why The Donald did.

Donald Trump addressed issues that Americans cared about, and that the political class refused to discuss. That's why he got elected. Tucker Carlson made a great speech about it here:

Dwayne Johnson is a hairstyle that the Establishment is trying to use to make their agenda seem "cool" and it's fucking obvious. The fact that all of the tone-deaf cucks who got the election completely wrong support this dude makes him all the more lame.

[SamuelBRoberts]

To the average American, Donald Trump looks like a guy who might stiff his doorman on his way to his gold-plated apartment.

Zuckerberg looks like the kind of guy who would force his doorman to eat a diet of nothing but partially hydrogenated slurry because a 12-person study in Sweden found that it improves alertness on the job by 17.8%.

[Truth Teller]

(05-29-2017 10:01 PM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  

Nobody I know who supports Trump was/is under any delusions of his perfection. We are all aware of his limitations and that he's going to have to compromise on some issues to make headway on others. I fail to see how that maps over onto oneitis.

Frankly the only people who keep pointing out his compromises as evidence of sellout are snarky gamma anklebiters that never understood his appeal to begin with.

Absolutely. I didn't vote for Trump out of any special love for him. I voted for him because of two major reasons:

1. I have friends who would've certainly been killed in some Godforsaken hellhole had Hillary won the presidency.

2. For all his flaws, all his problems, he said things that needed to be said. The US has borders for a reason. The government should look after its citizens first and everyone else second.

In 1992, James Carville had three keystones for Bill Clinton. The most notable was "it's the economy, stupid." Trump ran a campaign much closer to that of Bill Clinton; he talked to real people about real problems. Hillary tried to rely on Hollywood star power and identity politics.

If I work in a steel mill in Ohio that closed down because NAFTA helped relocate my mill to Mexico, I don't give a fuck whether or not Tranny Bruce can go to the bathroom where he wants. I don't care that Lena Fucking Dunham rants about equal pay and abortion. I don't care that Crazy Bernie thinks some loser wrapping burgers deserves $15/hr minimum wage. I care that I'm unemployed because my country didn't put my interests first. This is basic electoral strategy, and the fact that Hillary couldn't or wouldn't figure it out cost her an election that, frankly, the Democrats had a very good chance of winning.

Look even at the campaign slogans that were used. Let's ignore MAGA for a minute.

Trump: I'm with YOU!

Hillary: I'm with her.

This is pretty basic stuff. The fact that Hillary's campaign couldn't figure it out is a testament to it's incompetence and its general underestimation of Donald Trump. Trump doesn't play 4D/12D/whatever-D chess. He makes mistakes. That being said, he knew (and knows) how to appeal to the common man far better than Hillary ever did or ever will.

Prior to 2016, the fake news networks said that the GOP needed an Obama, a token minority candidate. The GOP found its Bill Clinton, instead.

[loremipsum]

(05-29-2017 04:43 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Zuckerberg has the charisma of a dead fish. In tightly controlled atmosphere he may be tolerable, but in the dirty world of American politics he will be crushed. Meanwhile, the Rock has more charisma than almost anyone else alive today that I know of. Not sure he harbors any political ambitions...he might try the Governor thing first to see if he truly likes it.

I could count on the fact that they are trained to act like such a pussies to be nonthreatening to modern "males".

Just look at how much they hate Trump's assertiveness which for some reason is considered an abnormality nowadays.

[Transsimian]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ction.html

Battle of the Billionaires: Poll reveals Zuckerberg would TIE with Trump if he ran for 2020 election as speculation mounts he will run for president after his heavily-publicized tour of the USA

[Paracelsus]

(07-21-2017 09:06 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ction.html

Battle of the Billionaires: Poll reveals Zuckerberg would TIE with Trump if he ran for 2020 election as speculation mounts he will run for president after his heavily-publicized tour of the USA

The poll having been conducted by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling company coming off complete polling accuracy in the last Presidential election...

Quote:

In the 2016 Presidential Election, PPP's final polls widely missed the mark in several key swing states, including New Hampshire,[25] North Carolina,[26] Pennsylvania,[27] and Wisconsin.[28] Their polls also significantly underestimated President Trump's lead in Ohio,[29] and incorrectly predicted Hillary Clinton to win Florida.

...oh.

Why the fuck are we even listening to pollsters anymore? The Suck likely paid for the fucking results of that poll, and even then they still don't make him more popular than Trump, because nobody in their right mind would believe it.

[Truth Teller]

Can you see Zuckerberg having a tantrum on stage because Evil Donnie Trump said something negative about immigrants and Facebook's H1-B usage?

He'd completely melt down.

[El Chinito loco]

Zuckerbucks is a complete joke. He did a recent highly publicized "tour" of the heartland of America talking with the average people about their daily grind. He tried to come off as understanding and sympathetic but mostly he just sounded like an out of touch billionaire talking down to hardworking blue collar men.

Would he be able to become president? Highly unlikely but the establishment is out for blood now and they want a new fresh scion and face for the dim masses.

If you have been paying attention they have also been pushing Chelsea Clinton hard. Chelsea gets sweetheart coverage on politico and shit rags like Vanity Fair. The mainstream media is shilling for her hard except she's like gonorrhea when it comes to the public with even less charisma than her evil baba yaga mom.

[wi30]

He'd be what, 35 or 36 during the campaign? The youngest president at inauguration was Teddy at 42.

[Enoch]

(07-22-2017 08:48 PM)wi30 Wrote:  

He'd be what, 35 or 36 during the campaign? The youngest president at inauguration was Teddy at 42.

The rock is 45. If that's not inspiration to get and stay fit I dont know what is.

Edit, just realized you meant Zuck. Can you imagine Zuck vs the Rock onstage? The tingle would put the Rock on the top of the ticket, 100%. Maybe Zuck as #2.

[Transsimian]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/214...n-election
First proof that Facebook dark ads could swing an election

[Genghis Khan]

That's not really proof, at best it's circumstantial evidence you can maybe convince some people to change their minds.

Facebook needs to be careful how they approach this - like Fake News, it could all blow up in their face. All you need is Trump sending out one tweet accusing Zuck/FB of manipulation or commenting about it on the debate stage, Fake News making a spectacle of something Trump said that was offensive to FB and have his entire base consolidate more.

Facebook can rapidly become as suspicious as Fake News is to the average Trump voter. Gen Z is especially savvy regarding the internet and /pol may end up mocking FB so badly it wrecks their profits hard.

The Rock is actually a far greater threat. Dude is charismatic as hell and as far as I can tell is really clean in terms of his personal life. The question is whether the Democratic party would actually field him. A successful cis man with a normal family life?

Also incumbents are hard to beat if they're doing reasonably well on their agenda, especially in recent history with Bush Sr. being the one exception of a president not being re-elected. Then again, he was riding on the coat tails of 2 term Reagan. If Trump gets even parts of his agenda completed: job creation and reduction of immigration, he'll be very tough to beat, even by someone as charismatic as The Rock.

[scorpion]

The Rock is not going to run for President any time soon. He's in his prime earning years in Hollywood. He's got a lot of money left to make over the next decade. We're talking several hundred million dollars all told. He's also extremely well-liked across the political spectrum. Once he enters politics he'll become basically hated by half the country, which will irreversibly damage his brand. He's a smart enough guy to realize that, and he's very careful and protective as far as his career goes. If he has political ambitions once he starts winding down his acting career I could see him running for Governor of Florida or California and then maybe taking a swing at the Presidency after that. Basically pulling an Arnold (who would have ran for President if he was eligible). But The Rock vs. Trump in 2020 is pure Democrat fantasy. The timing isn't right for The Rock and he's smart enough to know that. Zuckerberg on the other hand, is rich enough and delusional enough to actually pull the trigger.

[monster]

Looking aside of his liberal leaning, the nice thing Zuck could bring to the government is AI and data mining to eliminate LOTS of waste. So much of the government is wrapped up in bad data, no data, or computer systems from 30 years ago that if we implemented high-tech we could really really jump leaps and bounds ahead.

Even if it weren't Zuck - in fact, I could care less WHO it is - I wish the govt would really get some top notch AI/data-analysis to run that bitch.

[monster]

(05-29-2017 02:54 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Trump eviscerated Jeb very swiftly. Zuckerberg would be even more bloody.

Not at all. This is very myopic. Part of the reason Trump has been largely maligned and hated now is because the media hates him. The single-most largest error he made during his campaign, career, and now is not befriending the media as he should have. Oddly enough, 5 years ago he could have BOUGHT one or more major media outlets.

Let this be a huge lesson for any renegade going forward: don't make the entire media your enemy.

Why do you think all these rich folk buy money losing newspapers (WaPo, NYT, etc)? They could give two fucks that it's losing money. They instead want the media on their side!!!!

Zuckerberg with Facebook is essentially the single-most important media magnate alive in the world today - in the WORLD, not just he US. No one else has that far reach of being in every nook and cranny in the world. And all the lesser media outlets NEED the exposure in FB news feeds for their revenue and therefore will NOT upset FB.

[Chewbacon]

I really, really, really want Mark Cuban to run at some point in the near future.

[weambulance]

(07-30-2017 10:52 PM)monster Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 02:54 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Trump eviscerated Jeb very swiftly. Zuckerberg would be even more bloody.

Not at all. This is very myopic. Part of the reason Trump has been largely maligned and hated now is because the media hates him. The single-most largest error he made during his campaign, career, and now is not befriending the media as he should have. Oddly enough, 5 years ago he could have BOUGHT one or more major media outlets.

Let this be a huge lesson for any renegade going forward: don't make the entire media your enemy.

Why do you think all these rich folk buy money losing newspapers (WaPo, NYT, etc)? They could give two fucks that it's losing money. They instead want the media on their side!!!!

Zuckerberg with Facebook is essentially the single-most important media magnate alive in the world today - in the WORLD, not just he US. No one else has that far reach of being in every nook and cranny in the world. And all the lesser media outlets NEED the exposure in FB news feeds for their revenue and therefore will NOT upset FB.

Or we could just work toward neutering the old media so we don't have to worry about it.

Why does President Trump use twitter so much? Because it cuts out the middleman. Why does the media cry about his tweets so much? Because he is speaking directly to the people.

There is no "winning over the (old) media". It's ridiculous to suggest anyone on the right should even try; they are not salvageable. Route around, build parallel infrastructure, move forward.

Also, President Trump is not maligned and hated except by:

1. Cucks
2. Old media
3. Liberal whackjobs

So, who cares? They were never our allies.

[monster]

The media landscape is definitely changing, but I think you're greatly overestimating the change and where people get their news from.

Twitter won't be around in ten years. WaPo, WaPo, CNN, ABC, will be. They're all evolving into media conglomerates with arms in all sorts of channels. They're run by some very, very smart business people.

It's not "speaking directly to the people" that makes news. It's conflict that makes for exposure and news. The middlemen will keep on growing and growing.