• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    You’re absolutely right that he’s offering people the image they’re looking for. But speaking as someone with a few years training and experience in stage acting - nothing bigtime but legit, I’m not talking high school play - Trump has always been generally quite a good performer. He’s been called a “consummate liar” but it’s the same thing. He understands nuances of character and uses them consistently - a set of voices, facial expressions, head tilts, etc, that communicate sincerity. One of his bits is a straightforward tone that exudes honesty and gets people to remember stuff. He’ll say like, “Listen to me now…” and then repeat something he just said in this very “I’m leveling with you” tone. Sometimes he pauses to let it sink in and then repeats it again. Very effective way to get people to believe and remember a message. He has all kinds of little tricks to sound more believable to people who already want to believe him.

    To me it all looks like well practiced technique but there’s probably also some natural talent. I bet he was super good at lying to his parents as a kid. His skillset is actually pretty rare, and is a hallmark of a really effective salesman (or actor). His other talent, which is really the con man part, is picking the right audience. On some level he does understand them and how to push their buttons. With a vastly different character he could have been a fantastic therapist - although the rapist part probably would have ruined that.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Regardless of whatever skills he may have, material conditions are the primary reason for his relevance and success. This is generally how the world works. People say the same thing about Hitler, that he was so charismatic that he just hoodwinked the German people, but it was really the declining material conditions that allowed him to come to power. Trump is merely a symptom of a larger disease, and even when he’s gone the disease will remain, the conditions that created him will still be there waiting for another person to take advantage of the same things in the same ways.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Harris tried to address our material conditions too, just different ones. At this point I think a major reason Harris failed is that she’s a woman and mainstream America still isn’t ready for that, amazingly.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          That’s completely false. Tammy Baldwin won in WI, Elissa Slotkin won in MI. It’s completely incoherent to blame the fact that she’s a woman.

          Harris’ message did not resonate with people struggling to pay their bills. She completely attached herself to the policies of the Biden administration and the broader status quo.

          • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Yes there have been women in Congress for many years. In fact if you wanted to make that point better you could have referred to Jeannette Rankin, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1916 and again in 1940. It’s not “incoherent” to point out the fact that many people are still against having a woman as President. When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 it came up a lot. And don’t take my mention of it as agreement - I voted for Harris.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              Right, but this is literally the same election we’re talking about, in the same states that she needed to win, that two women got elected. If the majority of voters are willing to vote for a woman for senate, then it’s pretty ridiculous to suggest that they’re specifically only opposed to a woman being president. There is not a significant voter bloc that is specifically opposed to a woman being president but is fine with women in any other position.

              Your speculation is not “fact.” Clinton and Harris are a grand total of two data points that you’re using to draw this conclusion, and they were both deeply flawed candidates. Blaming their gender is just a deflection from their actual faults and strategic blunders, of which there were many.

              • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                I’m saying Americans will elect women for CONGRESS, but many of them still don’t feel good about a woman PRESIDENT. I don’t really care if you believe that or not.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  I understand what you’re saying, what I’m saying is that it’s wrong, makes little sense, and is almost completely baseless.