I was watching George Stephanopoulos on ABCnews.com this morning pretend to challenge Donald Trump after asking “The Donald” his thoughts on Mitt Romney’s speech in which Mitt calls Trump “a fraud” and “a phoney“.
I’ve been saying for some time now, that Donald Trump is a con man and as a professional sales trainer I can assure you that the threshold dividing a “professional salesperson” from a “con artist” is almost indiscernible!
It takes a trained eye as con artists and professional salespeople possess the exact same “skill set“.
So, how can you tell the difference?
You can only rely on identifying one’s “intent” which, unfortunately is closest aligned to “know them by their fruits“.
I’ve been looking into the fruit basket of Mr. Trump lately (I’ve actually known that he’s a con artist for decades) and I can say, quite objectively, that that is one decaying and/or seriously blemished basketful!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for professional salespeople using all of the tactics and techniques needed to enable them to “meet the objections of their prospects while working on turning them into buyers“.
Donald Trump is very good at executing the skill set, but I can assure you, he comes up a con artist when put under minimal professional sales scrutiny.
Here’s what I’m saying:
This morning Stephanopoulos brought up the Trump University scandal. He put up what on the surface appeared to be a challenge but ultimately allowed Trump to shut down the dialogue by “taking it to the ridiculous“, lying that “it is an isolated frivolous law suit that I could settle if I wanted to but I just don’t want to“.
In professional sales when a prospect says “your price is too high” (for example) the professional “takes the cost to the ridiculous” by responding, “for basically the price of a cup of coffee a day (or whatever) would you not want to protect the future of your children (in the case of selling life insurance for example)?
Doesn’t taking it to the ridiculous “put this issue away“? Not always but it is a step in the right direction by addressing the objection of your prospect and presenting it in its most minimal possible (cost justifiable) terms.
I can’t help but wonder what “The Donald” would have done if it were me interviewing him and I took the logical initiative to take the issue to the next step.
It is NOT as Trump falsely stated, an “isolated frivolous law suit“!
There are actually THREE (3) separate law suits, two “class action” law suits each with multiple Plaintiff’s and another by the Attorney General for the State of New York.
In my understanding, that there is no precedent of an American Attorney General (of any State) “actively trying to extort money from taxpayers” as Mr. Trump alleges in this matter.
What infuriates me is Stephanopoulos’ collusion in perpetuating “the myth of Donald Trump“.
And this is not unique to George Stephanopoulos or ABC News!
The entire media is complicit in this.
Why, because they sell advertising.
I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Stephanopoulos was being fearful that The Donald would not come back onto his show, thus ABC would lose advertising revenues.
Our society as a whole, in my opinion, has sold itself out to a concept that allows companies to sell cable services, DSL, phone, etc. to consumers at outrageous fees to the consumers, TO SERVE AS THE MEDIUM ON WHICH THEY CAN SELL ADVERTISING.
And they then jam all these adds down the cable that consumers are required to pay for!
I wanted to comment directly on ABC’s web site but when I did, I had to subscribe to be able to comment which I usually do not do, but I was so put off by Mr. Stephanopoulos’ absolute failure to fulfill his duties as a journalist by asking the follow-up questions, that I decided to subscribe (and then have to unsubscribe hopefully before a whole new deluge of advertising gets stuffed into my face!
So, my thoughts on the day are that I find the entire advertising fiasco of today extremely distasteful and, as you might guess I, as a professional salesperson and trainer, also find Mr. Trump professionally distasteful.