Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I agree re him not being a major TV star. He had a reality TV show, no talent was needed since he played himself.

I will not bend on the salesmanship debate. Trump is a good conman and not a good salesman. Good salesmanship implies information and tactics used to hook the customer will also lead to benefits for said customer - they get a functioning product, a high quality service, etc.. A conman often uses info and tactics that harm the customer. Conmen only want personal gain. For example, lying to a customer about a car repair that is completely unnecessary. Telling citizens you will do everything in their best interest when you intend to only do what's in your interest. Fear mongering, intimidation, extortion are all conman tactics.

Trump is a conman.

this is all semantics.

I'm using the term 'good salesman' to mean 'can sell lots of stuff'

not judging the truth or morals of the thing.

trump clearly, indisputably can sell lots of stuff.

There is no honest way for any of you to deny that. He's sold billions and billions and billions of stuff. He's really good at it.

1101 wrote:

agip wrote:

this is all semantics.

I'm using the term 'good salesman' to mean 'can sell lots of stuff'

not judging the truth or morals of the thing.

trump clearly, indisputably can sell lots of stuff.

There is no honest way for any of you to deny that. He's sold billions and billions and billions of stuff. He's really good at it.

Mostly fair. But I am not sure that you get to set the definition of "good salesman" any more than Trollminator does.

If "good salesman" is defined as being able to sell lots of stuff for a lot or money (or other valuable considerations) then Trump is a good salesman.

If "good salesman" is defined as being able to sell lots of stuff with said sales providing substantial benefits to both the selling person or organization AND the buying person or organization then not so much.

So, yes semantics.

Trollminator wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I don't know about him being one of the biggest T.V. stars in the world. The show was based on a false image of a flamboyant, genious businessman and its success was not a result of any talents possesed by Trump. It had run its course by the time Trump declared his candidacy and the story was that running for president was an attempt to build back up his brand.

I agree re him not being a major TV star. He had a reality TV show, no talent was needed since he played himself.

I will not bend on the salesmanship debate. Trump is a good conman and not a good salesman. Good salesmanship implies information and tactics used to hook the customer will also lead to benefits for said customer - they get a functioning product, a high quality service, etc.. A conman often uses info and tactics that harm the customer. Conmen only want personal gain. For example, lying to a customer about a car repair that is completely unnecessary. Telling citizens you will do everything in their best interest when you intend to only do what's in your interest. Fear mongering, intimidation, extortion are all conman tactics.

Trump is a conman.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I agree re him not being a major TV star. He had a reality TV show, no talent was needed since he played himself.

I will not bend on the salesmanship debate. Trump is a good conman and not a good salesman. Good salesmanship implies information and tactics used to hook the customer will also lead to benefits for said customer - they get a functioning product, a high quality service, etc.. A conman often uses info and tactics that harm the customer. Conmen only want personal gain. For example, lying to a customer about a car repair that is completely unnecessary. Telling citizens you will do everything in their best interest when you intend to only do what's in your interest. Fear mongering, intimidation, extortion are all conman tactics.

Trump is a conman.

Trump's world-class salesmanship skills are only useful for things like used cars and himself to a certain class of voters. He never had the intelligence to be a successful salesman in the business world and marketing was merely putting his name on something.

Trump failed miserably in trying to sell the building of his wall. Instead of presenting some type cost/benifit analysis, he tried to support it with nonsense like "the Wheel" still worked and claiming that Obama had a wall around his house. He ultimately had to steal funds from the military.

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I agree re him not being a major TV star. He had a reality TV show, no talent was needed since he played himself.

I will not bend on the salesmanship debate. Trump is a good conman and not a good salesman. Good salesmanship implies information and tactics used to hook the customer will also lead to benefits for said customer - they get a functioning product, a high quality service, etc.. A conman often uses info and tactics that harm the customer. Conmen only want personal gain. For example, lying to a customer about a car repair that is completely unnecessary. Telling citizens you will do everything in their best interest when you intend to only do what's in your interest. Fear mongering, intimidation, extortion are all conman tactics.

Trump is a conman.

this is all semantics.

I'm using the term 'good salesman' to mean 'can sell lots of stuff'

not judging the truth or morals of the thing.

trump clearly, indisputably can sell lots of stuff.

There is no honest way for any of you to deny that. He's sold billions and billions and billions of stuff. He's really good at it.

welp wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Trump's world-class salesmanship skills are only useful for things like used cars and himself to a certain class of voters. He never had the intelligence to be a successful salesman in the business world and marketing was merely putting his name on something.

Trump failed miserably in trying to sell the building of his wall. Instead of presenting some type cost/benifit analysis, he tried to support it with nonsense like "the Wheel" still worked and claiming that Obama had a wall around his house. He ultimately had to steal funds from the military.

The man screams incompetence. But what I can't wrap my mind around is how he still convinced so many people that he was the better choice to lead this country (not just in 2016 when it was obvious he was unqualified but after the last 4 years which couldn't have gone any worse).

Calamity Joe wrote:

Ivyguy wrote:

"On Sunday, The New York Times ran a bombshell report, which levels that 21 young men have accused Weaver of sexually charged online messages, including one who was 14 years old at the time the longtime GOP operative began their exchange."

1) Usually you would describe the NYT's coverage (or lack thereof) of a topic as a failure by the "Dem-led MSM." But this time the Times was the one releasing the report. Do "Dems" not include the Times anymore?

2) And ABC *did* cover the story--though of course not to the extent that Fox would. Is ABC no longer a part of the Dem-led MSM?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/young-men-accuse-lincoln-project-founder-harassment-75598948

3) A "Lincoln Project co-founder" would be a Republican--which you would (or should) know.

4) So is that how GOPers roll?

Anti-trumper. I salute the Times for the story. People like Weaver, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Bill Cristol, Et al. are no longer part of the GOP or even conservative. They are were anti-Trumpers but are now anti-everything having to do with the Republican party. Everything they spew just trashes the Repblican party. Add Michael Steele and everyone else on The Lincoln Project. They proclaim they never knew about the Weaver allegations but that is a huge lie. Karl Rove said he knew way back in 1988. They just didn't care that Weaver was sexually assaulting little boys. Hope they all go to prison.

Calamity Joe wrote:

Ivyguy wrote:

"On Sunday, The New York Times ran a bombshell report, which levels that 21 young men have accused Weaver of sexually charged online messages, including one who was 14 years old at the time the longtime GOP operative began their exchange."

1) Usually you would describe the NYT's coverage (or lack thereof) of a topic as a failure by the "Dem-led MSM." But this time the Times was the one releasing the report. Do "Dems" not include the Times anymore?

2) And ABC *did* cover the story--though of course not to the extent that Fox would. Is ABC no longer a part of the Dem-led MSM?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/young-men-accuse-lincoln-project-founder-harassment-75598948

3) A "Lincoln Project co-founder" would be a Republican--which you would (or should) know.

4) So is that how GOPers roll?

Anti-trumper. I salute the Times for the story. People like Weaver, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Bill Cristol, Et al. are no longer part of the GOP or even conservative. They are were anti-Trumpers but are now anti-everything having to do with the Republican party. Everything they spew just trashes the Repblican party. Add Michael Steele and everyone else on The Lincoln Project. They proclaim they never knew about the Weaver allegations but that is a huge lie. Karl Rove said he knew way back in 1988. They just didn't care that Weaver was sexually assaulting little boys. Hope they all go to prison.