Campaigning Trump eats liberal hosts and critics for breakfast.

And while this article draws from the latest CNN Town Hall, that was just a single instance of a more general tendency.

So, what is it that gives Trump an unfair advantage over all those liberals?

Well, in short, it’s power:

She looks at him and rotates towards him, he doesn’t do the same toward her. Her words are angry, but her body langauge betrays low power (including a powerless “please” type of hand gesture)

But there is also strategies, Machiavellianism, and frame control.

Let’s see:

Liberals Have Naive Expectations of Truth & Fairness

This is one of the cruxes of the issue:

While liberal interviewers are chainbound by expectations of fairness, truth, and honesty, unbound Trump flogs them at the more primal power level

In many ways, this is the issue of good people losing against not-so-good people.
And it’s is why this website exists.

One of the obvious examples of liberals’ chains of morality is their obsession with the “it wasn’t a rigged election”.

Liberals keep harping about it as if they didn’t expect Trump was going to make up lies about unfair elections -and try to strongarm his way to power-.
Or as if they expected Trump to finally “admit” defeat.
And as if they expected Trump’s continuous refusal to admit defeat would handicap him.

None of the above is unexpected.

Trump refusing to admit defeat despite the obvious defeat is totally normal for his personality profile.
What would be surprising instead would be Trump admitting defeat.

And Trump’s behavior doesn’t cost him politically because, in the meanwhile, he’s making up huge points in other areas -power being one of the most important of them all-.

Liberal’s Fixation With The Rigged Election: Example

COLLINS: (in the beginning of the interview) And it’s been nearly two-and-a-half years. Can you publicly acknowledge that you did lose the 2020 election?
(…)
COLLINS: (at the end of the interview) But no commitment there on the – accepting the results regardless of the outcome?
TRUMP: It’s – if it’s an honest election, correct, I would.
COLLINS: OK, so not committing to accepting the 2020 election results or acknowledging what happened in 2020. (<—– SHE goes back to that old beaten horse)
TRUMP: Go ahead.

How does that look?
It looks like:

• The interviewer “just can’t let go”
• The interviewer is wasting time
• The interviewer is over-investing
• The interviewer chases for a “fair admission of loss” (without getting it)
• The interviewer needs Trump to “admit” loss, as if she needed “closure” from her breakup or unloving daddy (and Trump doesn’t give it to her)

From a power dynamics point of view, Trump is still the ultimate power and the “sun” around which the interviewer revolves.

And Trump’s icing on the cake, the “go ahead” tasking power move.

Naive “Good People” Fail To Bring The Fight To Power-Skilled Narcissists

At the core, the issue is what this website wants to fix.

It’s naive people who fail and lose against more power-aware ones (who are often not so good).

Take for example the famous trope of the left:

Fact-checking.

Example: The Inherent Powerlessness of Fact-Checking

This whole concept of “fact-checking” is ludicrous.

And it denotes the ultimate liberal misunderstanding of how to handle dark triad men like Trump.

It’s not like most people don’t know Trump makes a mockery of truth and facts.
Everyone knows that.
Adding more “data” to it doesn’t make it better.
If anything, it makes it worse because it thread-expands on your powerlessness -your powerlessness to capitalize on Trump’s BS, your powerlessness do anything about it in real-time, and your powerlessness to provide a better leadership example-.

Plus, guess what: people don’t want to waste their time reading your “fact-checking reports” (and it’s only getting worse with the Tik-Tok generations).
Only a few low-power geeks do that -not exactly the type of people who can amass a big follower base-.

Instead, from a power perspective, liberals who run around “fact-checking” are like little failed dogs trying to pick up the pieces of the alpha dog who smashes reality as he pleases.

Albeit “unfair”, with those dynamics the ass*ole alpha male is still in charge -no matter how ass*ole he may be-.
And people don’t want to vote or support the bitter, overburdened loser-minions.
People want powerful leaders.

Town Hall: A Power Dynamics Perspective

Let’s see now some practical examples of that power contest:

1. Trump Picks The Topics, She Reacts & Chases

The general rule is:

Lower-value people chase higher-value people.

And there’s a ton of these little moments all over the CNN Town Hall interview:

TRUMP: (…) If you look at the FBI…
COLLINS: But, Mr. President…
TRUMP: If you look at the FBI and Twitter – they call it Twitter Files – made a big difference.

How does that sound?

Like Trump makes the rules and creates the frames, and Collins chases and reacts to them.

“But, Mr….” is the keyword of the person who hopes they will be listened to -but have no confidence to make statetements themselves, and no power to be listened-.

She tries to get in a word but ultimately fails.

She Moves On, Trump Re-Opens Topics, She Gets Dragged Back In

COLLINS: I should note that your campaign paid for a recount that happened in Wisconsin and actually had more votes for President Biden by the end of it.
But I want to move on to Wayne Beyer. He’s a retired attorney for North Conway – (<—– the interviewer is trying to change topic here)
TRUMP: By the way, so many illegal votes were cast in Wisconsin. And if you look in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they had so many legal – illegal votes, they didn’t even know what to do with them. You’re absolutely wrong about that. (<—– But Trump reopens the first topic)
COLLINS: Mr. President, there weren’t any fraudulent votes in Wisconsin. (<—– And the interviewer follows, and is dragged again into Trump’s choice of topic)

In this case, it wasn’t too bad actually because the interviewer moved away from that topic right after, so it was a way to put in the last word.
However, it’s a small tactical mistake because she should have done what she did, but with a smaller investment, and without repeating Trump’s words (which gives a feeling of “following”).

For example, she could have said “not true”, and moved on.
Much higher power, persuasive, and effective.

2. Trump Makes Up Facts, She Defends And Looks In The Wrong

COLLINS: Well, Chris Miller was your acting defense secretary. He says you never gave that order.
But back to what happened on that day, he said you weren’t…
TRUMP: He did not say that.
COLLINS: You – he has testified that, Mr. President.
TRUMP: He did not say that.
COLLINS: But you said you weren’t very involved that day.

Again the “but” format that self-frames her as the lower power party who’s trying to get Trump to agree with her (fat chance!).

You know what turns funny about this?

Liberals are all talking about fact-checking, but when they discuss Trump live, it feels the opposite.
It feels like Trump is spouting facts, and liberals are going into overdrive to make up arguments to justify their claims.

In Power University we dig deeper on how to handle it, but the result is this:

When you explain it feels like your arguments are weak.
Not only what’s true get lost in the gaslighting mix, but it also looks like you are in the wrong.

3. She Attacks, Trump Makes Her Look Nasty

And here we go again with the “nasty woman” power move.

Trying to make Trump “confess” and “play it fair”, something he will never do, liberals end up becoming too aggressive themselves (also see “calibration“).

Then Trump calls them out on it -“you’re so nasty”-, and people cannot help but agree because liberals do look nasty when they turn bitter and aggressive -which they often do, since they get much more emotionally invested than Trump does-.

COLLINS: But that’s the question that investigators have (…)
TRUMP: Are you ready? Are you ready? Can I talk?
COLLINS: Yes. What’s the answer? (<—– the interviewer is trying to go power up, but she does it with visible bitterness and people don’t like that)
TRUMP: Do you mind?
TRUMP: Can I – do you mind? (<—– Trump thread-expands to surface the nastiness to take maximum advantage of it)
COLLINS: I would like for you to answer the question.
TRUMP: OK. It’s very simple to answer.
COLLINS: That’s why I asked it.
TRUMP: It’s very simple to – you’re a nasty person, I will tell you. (<—– Now he calls it out, and he’s right because she became too bitter and aggressive, so that’s exactly how it looks like)
(audience cheers)

Result:

It looks like the too angry interviewer was overly biased.
And “poor” Trump wasn’t given a fair chance.

Also, people don’t like bullies.
And that’s all the truer for liberals who are supposed to stand with the common people.
So when liberals get too angry or aggressive they automatically end up looking like hypocrites who profess to be “on the side of the people” but who are instead just bitter and angry at those who are more successufl than they are.

Trump took great advantage of that and effectively framed her as a bitter and angry woman.

I can tell you that as an independent: when I see the bitterness and bias in some liberals, I can’t help but sympathize with Trump.

4. Trump Attacks, She Proves Herself To Him

Look who’s proving herself to whom:

COLLINS: Mr. President, I looked at the same timeline that you did. Once it was clear…
TRUMP: No, I know, but you didn’t report that. You know why? Because it was taken down.
COLLINS: We did report it. I was reporting that day.

“We did report it, (please) trust me, I was there!”.
And again, she looks reacting to Trump’s statements, and like she needs to add more and more evidence to prove her case (which makes her case sound even more dubious).

5. She Over-Invests, Trump Puts In The Last Word

99% of the times it’s Trump who puts in the last word:

TRUMP: Kaitlan, why did they change the law then saying that you can’t do it? (<—– the question by itself already sets up his gaslighting frame)
COLLINS: They didn’t change the law. They strengthened the law because they are worried about a president exploiting – (<—– falls for it)
TRUMP: Oh, they strengthened it, meaning you could do it. Thank you. (<—– reframes to snatch victory and “closing the argument” power move)
COLLINS: That’s not what it means.
TRUMP: Thank you.

Again, Trump sets the original frame, and the interview over-invests with her explanations -something she should have avoided in the first place-.
Then, Trump reframes all her effort as proving his own point, and closes it with a dominant “thank you”.

6. She Get Manipulative… Trump Busts Her

This is what’s truly bonehead:

Trump is a candidate with low morals and ethics.
Not the type of leader you’d look up.

Since people DO prefer leaders of better characters, a smart opposition must exploit Trump’s low morals by behaving and displaying the opposite qualities.

If instead the opposition tries to play the same manipulative game and loses, THEN people prefer the higher power manipulator, to the lower power one. (Low-power manipulators look sneaky and people are disgusted by them).

So when liberals try the same manipulative / political games, they lose that chance of being those upstanding and prestigious leaders we truly wish for
Plus, they even get spanked at the power game because they’re not nearly as good.

See here:

COLLINS: A Manhattan jury found – that you sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll and defamed her.
You’ve denied this.
But what do you say to voters who say it disqualifies you from being president?
TRUMP: Well, there weren’t too many of them because my poll numbers just came out. They went up, okay?

What are the issues with it?

1. It’s well-known that famous people are targets of potentially false lawsuits. When you try to use a lawsuit that didn’t seem very credible for political gains, you sound nasty, biased and unfair
2. To take for granted that Trump did it, feels like “legal scalping”, or taking advantage of a legal case, to (unfairly) ruin someone’s reputation
3. Trump is indeed winning the polls for the Republican nomination, so that felt like a manipulative frame to disguise the truth that she didn’t want to face

It’s ineffective because there is SO much ethical ground to attack Trump on, that you really don’t need to play that (manipulative) game.

And finally, trying to indirectly and covertly imply that Trump is losing political capital for that legal case when it’s patently not true feels like a manipulative lie (see “covert power moves“).

7. She Chases His Attention, Trump Ignores Her

Now think, how does this feel to you?

COLLINS: Mr. President, can I – can I ask you this?
TRUMP: Think of it, think of this –
(…)
COLLINS: But, Mr. President, can I – can I ask you given your recounting and your version –
TRUMP: I don’t know who – and I tell you this. Are you ready?
COLLINS: But, Mr. President, can I – can I ask you because –

It feels like the class pupil who’s a bit too eager to get the higher-power teacher’s attention.

Mr. President, can I pleae for the love of God get some of your attention?

Result: Trump looks like high power.
And people want high power people as leaders.

8. She Virtue Signals, Trump Comes Across More Honest 😲

This is another major thorn in the liberal’s side:

Political correctness as a virtue-signaling tool has gone so far that it lost touch with reality.
So whenever any dark triad who is willing to share some “harsh truth” comes in, the left looks like a naive pollyanna who does not have the brainpower -or courage- to understand and admit how things truly are.

The virtue-signaling liberals look stupid, biased, and unable to do well in a world where, to be effective, you must first acknowledge truth and reality.

For example, on the (in)famous “Access Hollywood” tape recording:

COLLINS: There was a taped deposition of you from October, and in it, you defended the comments that you made on that “Access Hollywood” tape about being able to grab women how you want. Do you stand by those comments? (<—– Again back to beaten horses people are tired of. An opportunity loss, and a proven bad strategy since Trump already won an election in spite of it)
TRUMP: I said if you’re famous and rich or whatever, I said women let you. I didn’t say you grab. I said women let. You know you didn’t use that word, but if you look, women let you.
(…)
But if you’re a famous person, if you’re a star – and I’m not referring to myself. I’m saying people that are famous, people that are stars.
(…)
People that are rich, people that are powerful, they tend to do pretty well in a lot of different ways, okay?
And you would like me to take that back. I can’t take it back because it happens to be true. I’ve said it’s been true for one million years, approximately a million years, perhaps a little bit longer than that.
(…)
I don’t want to lie. Oh, here’s what – here’s what she wants me to say. (<—– Effective frames her as a virtue signaler who’s out of touch with reality and who’d want him to play by the same distorted virtue-signaling rules)
(…)
A rich and famous person has no advantage over anyone else. Well, you do have an advantage, and I say unfortunately, but that’s the way it is. (<—– By adding “unfortunately” he manages to come across as both realistic, and human)

Trump is saying that the rules are different for the rich and famous.
And that there are plenty of women, groupies, who throw themselves at those men.
It’s true, it’s how things are.
To deny it, it makes the interviewer look daft.

I can tell you that as an independent: when I hear this stuff, I can’t help but sympathize with Trump.

9. She Moralizes Wars, Trump Slam Dunks It With “Saving Money & Lives“

COLLINS: Mr. President, can I just follow up on that? Because that’s a really important statement that you just made there.
TRUMP: Excuse me, let me just follow up.
COLLINS: Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to win this war?
TRUMP: I want everybody to stop dying. They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying.
(…) And I’ll have that done – I’ll have that done in 24 hours. fn

Liberals are assigning right and wrong to the war.

However, Trump brings a more Machiavellian approach to it.
It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about doing what’s effective -save money and save lives, who can disagree with that?-.
And especially for the US which lies so far from the conflict, the “end the conflict independently of who wins and save our money” can be more appealing.

But because of the interviewer’s almost childish question of “who should win”, Trump even ends up sounding more ethical and human.
“F*ck winning or losing”, he says, “it’s all about lives”.

And people LOVED it.
Here just some of the top comments on that video:

Commenter 1: Best thing I’ve heard thus from from a politician
Commenter 2: He answered the qustion so well. I think it was his best moment of the night

Question:

How bad must your approach be to make a potentially malignant narcissist sound like the most humanitarian man in the room?

Answer:

A lot.

Different Questions For Trump

These are a few ideas on some questions one may ask Trump:

Mr. Trump (<—- don’t call him “president”, he ain’t no president)
There was a book published by no less than X mental health experts.
They say that you’re a malignant narcissist, and a ton of evidence shows that narcissists make for poor leaders since they manipulate a lot, cannot negotiate with political opponents, and look after themselves only

Or:

Mr. Trump, past events showed that you seemed to have a weak ego, thin skin, and overreact to any criticism. That doesn’t make for a good leader

What makes that potentially effective is that Trump will likely defend and start bragging there, and that thread expands and confirms the original statements.

Or:

Mr. Trump, you often say you will fix major world problems in no time. For example, you just said you’d solve the Ukrainian conflict in less than 24h.
But how can we trust you when you give no details and history showed you didn’t always deliver. For example, you met with North Korean dictator, and the guy kept right on with his nuclear plan. It felt like a big inconclusive show, all sizzle and no steak…

Whatever he says, you now brought to light a proven fact and failure.
All his following easy solutions to complex problems will sound like BS.

SUMMARY

There truly are many reasons why Trump dominates debates.

One of them is that Trump is good at arguing.
If he can make it about “him VS you”, you’ll have a tough opponent.

Unluckily, liberals are giving him just that.
They are giving him the opposition that Trump derives power from.

Another reason Trump wins is that most interviewers are “normal people” with some aspiration for morals and fairness ingrained into them.
Trump does not.
So these “normal people” aren’t equipped to fight against a dominant and power-hungry opponent that is unbound by rules of truth, fairness, or ethics.

CNN Machiavellian Plot?

Please note this is no criticism of Collins.

She didn’t even have a 100th of Trump’s experience and was up against one of the toughest possible opponents.

In that sense, she actually did OK.

To truly think Machiavellian, this may all have been a ploy from CNN higher executives.
Invite Trump, get a ton of views, match him with a less experienced journalist, help Trump win the presidency… And enjoy higher ratings for the whole time.

---

Note:
We used the official transcript from CNN.
For ease of reading, we sometimes cut out repetitions or filler words, and we sometimes replaced non-significant paragraphs with “(…)”.
Overall, we left the general meaning intact.