You don't need charisma when you can insert yourself into people's notifications, Facebook and Instagram feeds, have a near-live overview of the majority of the voting population, know their political bias, cultural heritage, and much, much more.
Do you believe that Zuckerberg would be allowed to use Facebook to push his presidential campaign? I feel like he would have to divest himself of the company entirely first. Then again, that's maybe too much of an expectation, given our current political situation.
Yeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following.
I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?
Zuckerberg couldn't run as anything but a democrat either. Cambridge Analytica and the like ensured that, but his beliefs (as far as he has shown any) are leaning democrat with libertarian tendencies at best. His lack of moral spine is compatible with both parties (not equating said parties to be clear).
You see, this is why discussing politics here gets a bad rap. You are operating in a partisan manner and effectively trolling now.
If you were actually interested in dialog, I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power, as well as multiple prominent republicans who today are aghast at what he's done and is continuing to do.
I'm against political parties (Washington warned us way back when), and I associate with the party that you clearly don't belong to. My association is made under duress, in that I have to pick one in order for my voice to be heard.
I can have civil and adult conversations about the merits and failures of both parties and of individuals within them.
I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise.
Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe your political opponents better, or don't feel you do; but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting to it. This kind of thing leads to its destruction, so please don't.
> I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise.
I was with you up until this ass-hattery.
Experience has taught me that any moderate / conservative opinion is going to get downvoted through the floor no matter how well you back it up. It's easier to just burn karma with short comments.
> I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power
Yes. It's well known. Established politicians despise Trump. No contest there.
> I associate with the party that you clearly don't belong to
I identify as a "not-Democrat". It's true that I tend to vote Republican lately, but there is plenty that they do that I don't agree with. It's just that Democrats seem to do a more effective job of making me not want to vote for them. I may just go back to not voting in future elections.
Trump's main sin, besides being a member of the wrong party, is that he is the most transparent President in history. He has no qualms airing his dirty laundry and it drives people nuts.
But back to my original comment, the majority of the media is objectively left-leaning, which means they will see anything and everything Trump does in a negative light.
You can still glean useful information from their reporting, but I don't think anyone can pretend networks and individual reporters don't come pre-equipped with a heavy dose of bias.
Fox leans heavily right, no one disputes that. Somehow pointing out other outlets lean left has become controversial.
What if one had the money to hire a bunch of people who understand why Trump one and had no moral code? Bloomberg had the money. He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.
Let's be very clear. Bloomberg has a lot more charisma in public than Zuckerberg. And so does Hillary Clinton! That's not saying much! Any elected official above a certain level has some amount of charm.
Did Hillary Clinton learn it? Of all the people in the world, she's probably the one who had the most incentive and motivation to "learn" charisma, if it was possible.
I always got the impression from her public persona that she thought she didn't need charisma, that she had "earned it", and that the power she had accrued over the years should be enough to deliver the victory to her.
I think it's possible to learn it, but a lot of charisma comes from empathy and focus on others. Awkward people can be very charismatic if they give the vibe they care about you. True selflessness isn't something most politicians are really known for..