Since then, Obama beat McCain and Romney and Trump beat Clinton.
While it's hard on the ears to hear that Trump is charismatic, the reality is that his social intelligence is off the charts. That's why Scott Adams predicted early that he would win (as did I and I won some money betting on it even while I voted against him).
I don't see president-level charisma in Zuckerberg, although I'm not sure because i haven't watched him that much. I know at least one person who is really fascinated by him so maybe it's worth a second look.
Trump is dynamic and loves attention. He is energized by the audience. When attacked in debate he goes offense.
His message has little coherence or intelligent content, but that's not the point. It's not what he says. It's feeling he evokes: hate and anger. He was constant center of attention from left and right. MSNBC might have been supporting Clinton, but they could not avoid flying into the flame of Trump. He was the center of the every media.
Populist politicians talk directly to the 'Id' and Trump is instinctively doing that. He is "the Id". His campaign was like David Lynch movie. Messaging directly into the unconsciousness.
He must've known that he would have been marginalized as a candidate if he didn't continue to project brazenly offensive gaffes into the political arena.
He reminds me of a male Hilary. I think we've been reduced to(maybe we've always been this) just quick reactions for Elections, and my immediate reaction even from the start was I don't like this guy, even before I knew about the "stupid fuckers are trusting me" and sweatgate. He just repulses me, in the same way Hillary physically repulsed me on an evolutionary level. And I think if America is filled with morons like me, he won't win.
Both Hil and Zuck are not genuine. That's not going to resonate, unless in the next 3 years we swing to the opposite end from Trump's uncesnsored raw bullshit and go full American Psycho Plasticity
Well, they're genuine in one way: they're both classic, technocratic neoliberals. Trump v. Zuck would be a disaster for one of the vain billionaires, and probably not the old one.
"A study published earlier this year by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that heavy social media users were, on average, more isolated than their peers. Zuckerberg doesn’t see it that way, arguing that the best way to a better society is more Facebook."
"Zuckerberg sometimes talks about the promise of brain implants, which he believes will one day convey the entirety of one’s mental state to another human being"
Perhaps I have been watching too much Star Trek, but he is sounding just like the Borg.
I welcome the onslaught of Zuckerburg in politics. He will get chewed up and spit out as he openly advocates for illegal immigration amnesty, universal basic income, and whatever else the socialist utopians envision. He will get raked over the coals with these ideologies in the states he has to win (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida). That is assuming the Clinton Machine doesn't destroy him first. He's way out of his league here and better stick to Facebook.
Question for anyone who is knowledgeable about California elections: If Mark wanted to run for governor 2018, when would he have to take an observable action? (i.e. register as a candidate or similar.) At what point would we know for sure? And would winning Governor block a presidential run in 2020? And would losing it would indicate a candidate too weak to win POTUS 2020?
I think a key factor has to be whether Trump will survive through 2020. If Trump is weak in 2020 that is the best time to run, because if a Democrat beats Trump is 2020 and it isn't Mark, he'd have to wait until 2028, and he'd be running for re-election after 8 years of a Dem executive. It will partly depend on the who is the challenger in 2020 was well. I wonder if there is a chance Hillary takes another shot?
He'll probably have to run as an independent. Don't think Dems will let him usurp their system. And then he'll end up bring a Perot. This time he'll likely suck more voters from the Dems than Reps.
I'm not sure what Zuckerberg can do to combat the virality of Trump, I have some suggestions, which he may not like but he'll need to do:
* Ban Trump from Facebook (co-op with Twitter to ban him there also)
* Flood Facebook with ads of people helping others, doing good, committing selfless acts
* Forgo the traditional presidential campaign, instead of rallies do an eye-catching Apple-style presentation of people, their situations and solutions.
* Stick to an optimistic message no. matter. what. Do not get in the mud.
* Do not mention your competitor by name
* Every week ask open ended policy/progress questions to an audience on FB (for instance, What would the year 2030 look like? Mars for humanity?)
* Every week also feature an interview with an activist, about their mission, how they're changing the world and how the audience can help.
* The people who helped build Facebook who are still around must absolutely be involved in the campaign as a testament to Zuckerberg's character and perseverance.
* As campaign items distribute and sell posters of great SV pioneers and leaders. Beautiful ones of Jobs, Gates, even social justice and advocacy leaders in the world like Yousafzai, etc. And obviously past leaders like Obama, Hillary, Bill, etc. Don't make it about you, but about visionaries who push the boundaries and change things.
Zuckerberg has a significant chance to not end up like Hillary, but honestly, I would not dare to campaign in 2020; however I would be more than happy to get Zuckerberg across 270 with a campaign the world will remember.
> Ban Trump from Facebook (co-op with Twitter to ban him there also)
So, what exactly do you think would happen if they did that? I'll tell you: Facebook will start having some serious conversations with government regulators about all kinds of fun things like antitrust, telecommunications regulations, etc.
Facebook's threat is that politicians have little control over it and it is not limited to just one country in scope. I don't use facebook but I like that it exist. the only regulation of such an entity is to keep it non discriminatory because if it were to start picking winners and losers it probably could have undue influence.
One can be an Atheist and believe religion to be important at the same time. One has to believe religion to be important for certain, if one was to run for POTUS.
Is it only me or this looks like a Macron-effect? I mean, President Macron did show to the world it was possible for a young fellow to hijack the elections, even in a (relatively) stable democracy. Actually, if you think about it, it seems not that hard to be (or look) much less repugnant than the old comical zombies and rotten clowns we get proposed.
He's essentially the french version of Rubio, not in the "minority candidate" sense, but in the "fallback establishment candidate" sense.
The only difference was that French elites learned from the US Republican elites, avoided internal discord and obliterated the opposition with "timely" scandals.
The only scandal was against Fillon, the candidate that was much more like traditional establishment. There was no scandal at all among the left side of the spectrum, there just could not agree on anything.
Without the scandal, it could have been Fillon president, so even more establishment, with corruption as an added bonus. I fail to see how it was an operation of the "elites".
>'“Wouldn’t it be better,” he asks with a sly smile, “if it was actually an accepted thing for people to want to go understand how other people were living?”'
Hey Mark, here in the "normal regular person world" that's actually already accepted. There's a name for it, its called empathy, its a basic human trait. The fact that you perceive that as somehow "unaccepted" shows just how disconnected from reality and clueless you actually are.
The fact that you see going on a road trip as something extraordinary and worthy of your vast PR machinery is nothing short of a joke.
Also I'm sure that embarking on a road trip while being surrounded by security detail and a team of PR flaks is creating an authentic experience for all involved.
Which is more likely, that Mark is experiencing a genuine, and highly publicized, spiritual awakening, or that he's meticulously crafting his public persona based on unprecedented troves of information about modern society?
Zuckerberg has done all these things within a relatively short period of time:
* Says he’s no longer an atheist, "questioned" religious matters, he broke through his skepticism and now believes religion to be “very important.”
* Restructuring of Facebook stock trough the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. In the SEC filing it says that he can take a leave of absence from Facebook and still retain voting control of the company if he goes to work for the government.
* Hired a top Democratic campaign manager David Plouffe into the iniative. Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.
* Hired top Republican campaign manager Ken Mehlman into the iniative. Mehlman is a former George W. Bush campaign manager and RNC chairman.
* Promised to visit all 50 states and meet people.
* Hires a former top adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
This is not PR as usual for CEO. He is into something big.
> Restructuring of Facebook stock trough the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. In the SEC filing it says that he can take a leave of absence from Facebook and still retain voting control of the company if he goes to work for the government.
It can't possibly be kosher for him to be President with this arrangement, can it? If Carter had to divest his peanut farm, why would we let a President retain a massive interest in the biggest media/marketing/surveillance platform in the country? It would make Berlusconi look like an amateur.
Just a year ago I'd have thought it'd obviously land him in hot water, and probably get him impeached in short order if he refused to divest.
I no longer think that. Even massive, wholly overt corruption is apparently fine now. Along with a bunch of other stuff. There are no rules now as long as you can get elected, you're useful to one party or the other, and that party retains enough seats to block impeachment.
Berlusconi is precisely the kind of person who's in power now, and it's taking months of slow, grinding work to maybe, maybe catch him on something bad enough he can't ignore it, while he's plainly profiting from the office and hasn't attempted to avoid actual conflicts of interest, let alone the appearance of them, and that's not even the thing we're trying to throw him out over.
At the highest levels of American power, you can now openly be as corrupt as Berlusconi and... no one cares enough to do anything about it.
So yes, Zuck totally can. Which makes the prospect of his presidency all the more worrisome.
Yeah and Zuckerberg pays himself every time he uses Facebook, so are we going to make him delete his account?
If he were to win I think he would be pressured to structure some kind of trust that prevents him from leveraging Facebook's political power in conjunction with the government.
> Yeah and Zuckerberg pays himself every time he uses Facebook, so are we going to make him delete his account?
> If he were to win I think he would be pressured to structure some kind of trust that prevents him from leveraging Facebook's political power in conjunction with the government.
That's the point, isn't it? It's happening right now without consequence, so why should it be different then?
IIRC, there is a law/policy that the Secret Service has to pay the going rate for any accommodations or services they consume from businesses (which Trump's properties are).
It is normal for a President to own a hotel chain. I didn't realize he's breaking some long-standing rule with that. Just because no previous President happened to own a hotel chain doesn't make it abnormal.
The holiday thing is something to complain over.
But...
Since the original statement of the Secret Service paying for property they make use of has absolutely nothing to do with either of your questions, I believe you are a bit misguided.
It is completely normal for the Secret Service to pay for usage of property and/or services during their duty. It has been in place for some time and payments have been made to numerous persons of both parties for years.
The complaint is not about the Secret Service paying for what they use. Of course they have to pay to stay in a hotel room.
The complaint is that money is going into Trump's bank account. It directly benefits him financially to go on vacations as often as possible when he stays at his own resorts, because he makes a cut off the tax dollars used to pay for his vacations.
Again, this is a long-standing protocol that many people over the years have benefited from within both parties. It is nothing new. People complaining about it today should be willing to condemn every single one of those that benefited from it. Of which, I never hear anyone doing that.
That is by far the biggest red flag for his political aspirations. I cannot even fathom the conflicts of interest, the potential to misuse/abuse Facebooks front page rankings, and the massive data and insight he would have access to.
The President and Vice President are exempted from conflict of interest laws. The reason for this is interesting -- the Constitution sets out the requirements for being president, so the concern was that the laws would be challenged as unconstitutional and invalidated entirely if they applied to POTUS.
Of course, at the time presidents were in the habit of divesting themselves of their conflicts.
Agreed, and he'd be a fool if he wasted his position on trying to be the President. He has a real capability to become akin to a modern day emperor if he does it right.
> This country worships success. That's the reason Trump won.
While the former is true, that's not why Trump won.
> Zuckerberg is not only ridiculously successful but touches everyone's life everyday and people may feel an intimacy that doesn't exist.
That same intimacy throws off a significant percentage of the population.
> Without being judgmental just looking at the dynamics he is going to win.
My analysis is that he doesn't have a chance. Assuming he runs as a Democrat, I think it'd be difficult to win the nomination and if he does, he'd get crushed in the general against Trump.
> This country worships success. That's the reason Trump won.
If I had a dime for every reason given for Trump's win, I could dive into a pool of them like Scrooge McDuck.
I think it's certainly a factor which made Trump seem credible as long as you didn't scrutinize his self-made mythology too hard, but it's not primarily why Trump won. If it were that simple, Mitt Romney would have won as well.
What scares me about Zuckerberg vs. Trump is how much more of a cypher Zuckerberg is. Trump's motivations are pretty clear: money, fame, and his own ego. These aren't noble causes but they're easy to understand and it's possible to predict what trump will do from these. What motivates Zuckerberg? The mealy-mouthed, 5000 word manifesto [1] from Facebook this year certainly doesn't shed any light on this question. Nor does he have a track record in politics to point to.
From his unscripted words [2], actions [3], and the company he keeps [4] I suspect his vision is some kind of techno-libertarian utopia where anything is legal as long as it's in the TOS - unless it's the bad thing and must be therefore be purged from the internet.
But considering Facebook's weird puritanical streak [5], and their recent refusal to reveal political ad information [6]. I'm left with this quote from Alpha Centauri:
> "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
"Zuckerberg sometimes talks about the promise of brain implants, which he believes will one day convey the entirety of one’s mental state to another human being"
Those who join us need only give up only half of their humanity - the illogical, ill-tempered, and disordered half, commonly thought of as 'right-brain' functioning. In exchange, the 'left-brain' capacities are increased to undreamed potentials. The tendency of Biologicals to cling instead to their individual personalities can only be attributed to archaic evolutionary tendencies.
Say what you will about Trump, but you have to admit he's charismatic...in a bad sense. Republican primaries were all about him being the center of attention with the remarks and banter that caught everyone off-guard.
Trump's vengeful, bilious and vulgar behavior appeals to the American anti-establishment zeitgeist. People like it because Trump gives voice to the contempt they feel for modern culture, political correctness and the "status quo."
Zuckerberg, on the other hand, may not be able to spin his negatives into positives quite as handily.
nothing screams "disconnected coastal elite" more than a young hip billionaire who thinks that his 50-state "poverty safari" trip resonates with voters
Watch any video of him presenting, Mark has the charisma of a potted plant. This guy doesn't stand a chance of winning ANY election without increasing his social skills at least tenfold.
Not if people really mean it when they say they are upset by the Russia news manipulation or Trump's incomplete withdrawal from ownership where conflict of interest could be perceived an issue.
It depends on if people have convictions against those complaints or they were simply "not our candidate" excuses.
He and Andreessen specifically colluded to restructure Facebook stock so that he could take a LOA and work for the government while maintaining voting control over Facebook.
That's not something you do when you plan to divest.
I for one would welcome the scenario that someone who is smart, ambitious and genuinely concerned about poverty becomes president of the USA. He embodies the things I aspire to - entrepreneurial drive, smarts and philanthropy.
I do not oppose this ambition. If 45 can be POTUS and the world is not collapsing then I have a feeling that we will be fine with Mark Zuckerberg as well.
In other words now it's a race to the botttom for President. Or we have already reached the point where there is absolutely nothing left to lose. Serious question: would you vote for Kim Kardashian or Trump in the next election if it came to that?
You couldn't source all these bullet points, could you? I'm not saying that they're not true, I'd just like a bit of confirmation to what you're saying without searching for 20 minutes.
Great read, at first I thought it was just a puff piece but the ending is a great insight into the filter bubble that folks with that amount of money and power live in. He can't handle any criticism or line of questioning that dares to peek behind the curtain, it's something that just never happens in his world.
I'm not sure what level of power he's going to buy next, but everyone should be trying to peek behind the curtain. And deleting their Facebook.
Zuckerberg wants to fully combine his wealth and access to information about us into a presidency and then what? If you say the wrong thing about him on Facebook the IRS suddenly audits you? Criticism of Zuckerberg flags you in government databases as well?
Trump owns a chain of hotels and sells ties and hats, but doesn't operate what could largely be seen as the most expansive and intimate database about every American ever made.
http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html
Since then, Obama beat McCain and Romney and Trump beat Clinton.
While it's hard on the ears to hear that Trump is charismatic, the reality is that his social intelligence is off the charts. That's why Scott Adams predicted early that he would win (as did I and I won some money betting on it even while I voted against him).
I don't see president-level charisma in Zuckerberg, although I'm not sure because i haven't watched him that much. I know at least one person who is really fascinated by him so maybe it's worth a second look.