How to Use Donald Trump-Style Persuasion | Girls Chase

How to Use Donald Trump-Style Persuasion

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.


Donald Trump persuasion
Donald Trump used masterful persuasion in his dark horse candidacy for U.S. President. Six (6) powerful persuasion tactics underpin his success.

A reader asks:

it’s been a year now since donald trump has been succesfully running his campaign.

Love him or hate him, the guy is a master persuader, really alpha, entertaining and never boring. He’s also extremely concise and repetitive in the way he speaks.

Exactly what robert greene would define as charismatic in his art of seduction

The funny thing though is I’ve noticed that he does a lot of things that you advocate not too do. ( explicit qualifying is the bread and butter of his persuasive effectiveness and constant repetition is another one. Plus, he’s got this essential quality of being brutal and effective when being under attack – an approach that is probably going to revolutionize politics world forever. )

Love him or not, what’s obvious is that he CAN persuade

Can u deconstruct his main strenghts and maybe reccomend some sources to how one can master verbal attack and , mainly, DEFENSE, like he does? I guess you could call that frame control.

Donald Trump is a persuasion phenomenon the likes of which the U.S. presidential election has not seen before. There are Donald Trump parallels in other civilizations and other eras; for instance, quite possibly ancient Rome’s Cato the Elder. But we haven’t seen a Donald Trump in the American presidential elections before.

In this article, I’m going to break down some of Donald Trump’s most oft-used persuasion techniques. I’ll point out what they are to you, show you how to use them, and give you plenty of examples.

If you’re reading this and you’re already bristling for political bias, I should note that I won’t be voting in this election (because I’m outside the U.S. with a Nevada citizenship, a Pennsylvania address, and a California driver license; I have no way to receive a mail-in ballot). I do not agree with all of any of the candidates’ policies, although I am a white male small business owner high in what psychologists call Traditional Masculinity Ideology, so that will necessarily bias me toward candidates offering some solutions over others. This article will be about tactics and strategies, not politics, but we’re all men and all men are inherently biased, so take that as you may. If any of my own bias leaks through, my apologies in advance; I am a (flawed) human, like you.

Disclaimers aside, let’s peel back the skin on Donald Trump-style persuasion... and see what we’ve got underneath.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.



stef's picture

i needed to read this! great Chase thank you!

ece80316's picture

Unbelievable and thorough.

Anonymous 's picture

Great article Chase!

Reading this article has given me some insight...

When you're the good guy in the public eye but then you slip and say something that is considered 'offensive' (thus the labeling begins), you become more concerned with getting those label stigmas removed by trying to convince everyone you're STILL the good guy, even though the tide of public perception about you may have already changed for the worse. In short, now you've potentially become a martyr.

With that said , would you agree that the best mentality to have in this case is to be an anti hero (or a villain/asshole an with a heart of gold)? In this case it seems like the labels would bounce off of you, and you wouldn't pay much attention to them because you already know you're not necessarily liked by everyone ... in this case you always have the option to do some decent acts without compromising your status.

Anyway, those are my thoughts... what do you think?

Chase Amante's picture


The 'Good Guy' persona isn't helpful unless the opinion makers are interested in helping you maintain it. Bill Clinton vs. Tiger Woods, for instance. Clinton's scandals included rape allegations, affairs, etc., but the media said, "Oh, posh!" and dismissed everything as no big deal, so in this case, the 'Good Guy' label stuck and he could continue to play the role of 'Good Guy'. But when Tiger Woods had far less serious allegations levied against him, the media went nuts shaming and ridiculing him, and his prior use of the 'Good Guy' persona made him look like a charlatan, and turned him into persona non grata.

There are a few other reasons 'Good Guy' was better able to weather a scandal storm for Clinton than it was for Woods. For one, Clinton's persona was tied more to his policies as president, while Woods's was tied to his wholesome family values. It seemed less incongruent for Clinton to be accused of sexual indiscretions ("Well, that's what powerful men do") than it did for Woods to be accused of these ("But he's a wholesome family man!"). For another, Clinton shrugged the accusations off himself, and so made himself a hard target to go after; Woods immediately appeared blubbering and conciliatory and came out as 'Guilty as Charged', which makes it easy to attack him and a lot harder for the opinion makers to say, "Oh, it's no big deal."

Even still, the #2 and #1 most important considerations if you'll go for the 'Good Guy' persona is:

  • 2nd most important: Are the opinion makers on your side, and
  • 1st most important: How bad do the opinion makers need you to win?

The worse they need you to win, the worse your scandals can be and still have them cover for you. The more expendable you are, the faster they will be to throw you under the bus if you at all present a risk to the success of the opinion makers' agenda.

If you're going to take on the system, unless you're taking on aspects that the opinion makers want taken on, you need to run as the anti-hero to some degree. In Trump's case, he took on many of the aspects of the system that the establishment held up as their core achievements over the past 50 years. If he tried to be the 'Good Guy' - as many politicians with far milder 'take on the system' attempts than Trump's attempted to do - he would've been skewered as soon as they found even a speck of dirt on him, and there is always a speck of dirt somewhere. If they can't find one, they'll make one up. But if you're the anti-hero, everyone expects you to be dirty, so the media digging up dirt just zings off you.

In seduction, it works the same way. You can't be the pure 'Good Guy' and go for fast sex, because it's not expected of you. She'll be offended if you try. But if you're the anti-hero, she can laugh about this and say, "What a cad he is!" and you can continue to persist until she gives in.

Doing good / decent acts gives your audience the chance to say, "Well, he's not as bad as they say he is - it's all just an act. See, look - here's the REAL him." And it allows the people who agree with your positions to view you not as an anti-hero, but as a legitimate hero. All while protecting you from the attacks of the party that wants to see you fall.

Generally speaking, anti-hero is the best path to victory, if your victory revolves around flying in the face of expectations and upsetting established norms. Of course, you need a certain degree of pluck to pull this role off, and if you're not used to controversy, it can take some time to get used to weathering it without breaking.


Michael Boggs's picture

It helps too that when youre president you can rig the media to say whatever you want. Christopher Hitchens talked about how Bill made the papers chastise Monica Lewinsky for admitting whatever she did

SZ's picture

I agree that Trump is one funny motherfucka. He is so full of what he says and blames all of the bad things going on on hillary. What's even funnier is that he really made it this far, who would have thought?

So in short, Donald can persuade people because he basically believes everything he says is correct no matter what, you can't get him to admit a mistake.

My question is with him defending himself,

you never heard the saying of if you are defending yourself so hard it must be true?

I have always heard that.

I think I have read it on this site as well that it's best to brush negative comments about you away

but instead trump fights them negative comments about him back saying they're wrong and trying to prove so

so should we defend ourselves very strongly or should we just try to brush it off like it's not true?

Chase Amante's picture


See Point #2 in the above article, "Defense, Then Attack."

Much of the time in seduction, defensiveness will get you killed. See this article.

However, if there's a group present, subtle subcommunication is lost and you can't rely on nonverbals, delivery, reading between the lines, etc., getting the message across, as you can when you're one-on-one with someone.

It's even worse when you're up against 'the system', where the entire establishment is in agreement that your opponent is the credible one and you are the ridiculous one. If Clinton and Trump sparred, and both shrugged off one another's attacks and did not engage, the media would say, "Clinton was right and did not even need to respond to Trump's baseless attacks. But then Clinton attacked Trump, and Trump did not have an answer." Clinton had the benefit of the entire institution of the mainstream media defending her; Trump just had himself to rely on.

In this case, where it's to a large audience and the people interpreting the fracas are in-arms against him, he absolutely needed highly visible soundbites shooting down her attacks that the media could repeat (i.e., "You'd be in jail" or "Then why didn't you do it?") and supporters could latch onto.


Carlos's picture


Been watching some films of:

-Cary Grant
-James Garner
-Gary Cooper
-Sean Connery

Amazing. They're impeccable. But, I got to ask you something.

It seems like Sean Connery, at least in James Bond, is, the most stoic of them all.

Then comes Gary Cooper.

And then comes Cary Grant.

James Garner is a little different I noticed.
I watched him in The Rockford Files. And, James is a very lovable guy.

He's still very masculine. But he's seems like a very caring guy.

Is James, compared to Connery, lower in value? Because of the level of stillness and stoicness?

I've also noticed James isn't as physically forward with women as Connery is.

Also, could you explain a little better how to be wry? What exactly does it mean?

Last thing. When you say Harrison Ford growls his way through.

Do you mean his style is a little more aggressive and confrontational? As opposed to the smoother Connery?


Chase Amante's picture


Glad you're enjoying them!

I would not peg James Garner lower in value than Sean Connery. His is simply a different type of persona, that's going to appeal to a different sort of person. Some women much prefer a Sean Connery over a James Garner. Others prefer a Garner over a Connery.

I think you'd likely find more women that go for a Connery over a Garner overall. But it's going to depend on what type of woman you're going for. If you want, say, dynamic go-getter type girls, you'll do better as a Garner and have a harder time getting them as a Connery, for instance.

'Wry' humor is clever humor (sometimes humor that takes the listener a moment to grasp - you know, the kind where you go, "Huh? Oh... haha!"). It can be ironic, or sarcastic. Often subtle.

As for Ford - yes. He's angrier, more confrontational. Less verbal. Whereas Connery has similar intensity but is more likely to explain something to someone than just scowl at him.


Vegeta's picture
It's Dickless Dennis!

Chase Amante's picture

Not having seen the show (though it looks hilarious), I take it from the comments below the video the nickname is apt!

Funny clip.


Vegeta's picture

Haha oh man if you have the time watch the season 5 episode The D.E.N.N.I.S. system. Hands down one of the best episodes and it's seduction related ;). Hell, you might even starting teaching US how to D.E.N.N.I.S. some girls. That would make for a killer April fool's article!

Vidal 's picture

IMO, the Republicans should have gotten behind Rubio and let him be himself more, I think Rubio did get the better of Trump in all of the debates and had him on the fence with healthcare.

Just looking at this election, I realize why Trump didn't run in 2012 even though he showed a clear interest in it and waited until 2016. I see a parallel between how Hillary goes after him compared to how Obama and even Biden do it. A good example is establishment vs anti-establishment when Hillary replied saying she is a "woman in politics" so that makes her anti-establishment while Obama criticized Trump in a more effective way by saying it's not cool to not know what you're talking about and ignorance not being a virtue:

Democrats always do well when they have younger charismatic guys like JFK, a young Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. I think a young Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would have run well against Trump, Hillary just seems to lack that charisma.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, the Hillary Clinton campaign specifically ignored Bill Clinton's advice to focus on the white working class voters this election cycle. Instead they ran on a combination of girl power + #BlackLivesMatter + "Trump is Literally Hitler", which still was effective, but not effective enough. Trump had command of the zeitgeist this election cycle, because Clinton completely completely ceded all the issues the electorate was most fired up about to him.

2012 was not the right time for Trump to run. There was some anger against the establishment already - the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left had both been around for a while - but the electorate was still mostly okay with Obama and he was still sticking more or less to the center at that point. I think Trump would've had Romney-ish numbers (or worse) had he run in 2012. Then again, impossible to know - he's a good persuader, and he may well have been able to convince the nation Obama's first four years were awful and about to get worse. And he certainly showed an ability to get under Obama's skin and get Obama to show it, perhaps even better than he got under Hillary Clinton's skin (at least to the extent she showed it):

Trump still might've had a chance against Obama, simply because it would've been "we're already great and going to get better" with an incumbent Obama, vs. "things are bad now, but we're going to right the ship" with a challenger Trump. The electorate was pretty 'meh' in 2012, so Trump may have been able to stir up enough angst against Obama. Impossible to know.

In a head-to-head match of Bill Clinton vs. Donald Trump though, I think Bill Clinton eats Donald Trump's lunch. Bill Clinton was as issues-focused as Trump was, and he was as good at recognizing the zeitgeist and tapping into it. Add to that that any issues Trump was winning on Clinton would immediately have co-opted as his own, and done so in a smooth way that appealed to his base and took the teeth out of Trump's base. You'd have had a situation where Trump was the bad guy fighting the media and Clinton had stolen all his issues right out from under him. Bill Clinton I suspect would've beat Trump handily in either a fresh race or with Clinton as incumbent.

Fortunately for Trump, I suppose, he didn't have to run against Bill Clinton - and Hillary Clinton did not take Bill's advice.

Chase's picture

Dear Chase,

First, I want to thank you for the e-book "How to Make Girls Chase". I have 5 chapters left and still digesting the info of your e-book. Nice article on Donald Trump! I am just curious can you write an article on how to prevent Sexual Harassment Accusation since this is what the scandals of Donald Trump right now. The reason why I want to ask you for help on this one is because I have a very personal experience on this issue as well.

Let me introduce myself: I am age 27, still a virgin, new to pick up that's why I bought your e-book. I am currently doing my Master Degree in Chemical Engineering. I am the typical STEM guy who suck at getting women. You have another article on explaining why STEM guys suck at pickup & I think that hit the nail on the head. I applied some of the techniques you taught from your e-book and I started to see a lot of progress. However, recently I hit some wall in pickup (which I don’t mind because I know that is part of the learning process).

I went to a Single Night’s Dance Event (which is a College Campus’s Event that held by my university). During the Single Night, I used some of your techniques written in your dance floor article and just hug & kissed multiple random girls. I only hug & kiss them when I see a genuine smile on their face, I pay attention on body language, facial expression, and indication of interest. So if a girl say “I am not comfortable verbally” or her body language shows it, I will not do it.

After one week of the Single’s Night Dance, I received a call from University Police & they ask me to have a meeting with an Academic Affair Staff. They said I violated the “student’s Code of Conduct”. Some female school staffs saw it, didn’t like it, thus report it. It is ironic that the girl I kissed or hug did not report me but those social police in academic setting did. Thus, if I am register classes in that semester, I will need to go see the Academic Affair Staff. If I am NOT registered classes, then I will receive a warning/notice of trespass & not allow to step back in university properties UNLESS I talk to some Academic Affair Staffs & the University Police first.

I am glad that I did not get into legal issue. Like by reading between the lines, I know I am NOT getting misdemeanor which could jeopardize one’s chance of job hunting after college graduation. However, this personal experience is definitely discouraging. I don’t understand why female school staffs in a university are such cock-blockers or assholes. Like if you crack a joke about guys can get rape in the butt hole they will report you on that one too. So ridiculous!! My roommate had that experience. He cracked a joke on guys can get rape too & then he told the school staff he disagree on feminism and the female school staff in academic setting reported him. I was like WTF!!!

Anyway, this personal experience of mine taught me a lesson of empathy on Donald Trump. I no longer think all these sexual harassment on Donald Trump are 100% genuine anymore. It seems like feminists (A lot of female school staffs in university are feminists) like to social police others. Additionally, if some girls see you hit on another girls after you hit on her, she will cause revenge or drama too. I try to look at some of your articles for reference. I think the “How to Avoid False Rape Accusation” article is the closest & more severe case of mine.

Article on Avoiding False Rape Accusation:

Thank you very much, Chase! You will always be my teacher. Hope I can digest all your e-book by the end of November. I am busy on my school works & research. Doesn’t have much time to digest & read.

Danny, your student

Chase Amante's picture


Glad you enjoying the book!

You cannot 100% avoid sexual harassment claims, outside of living alone on a mountain with only the bears and goats for company. Among the sexual harassment claims against Donald Trump, for instance, was a woman who'd seen him on an airplane and never interacted with him. Another was a pornography actress he'd apparently never met. If there are enough incentives (as there were in Trump's case, with a member of Clinton's campaign offering to pay for the legal fees of any woman who wanted to accuse him, and an accusation essentially being an unlimited upside [millions in settlements as a possibility], zero downside [with a press united against Trump, any accusations proved untrue don't come down on the accuser, they just get swept under the rug]), accusers will crawl out of the woodwork.

Further, people are going to perceive 'harassment' where there may not be any, or where it isn't intended. I had a female employee a number of years ago claim to someone she 'felt uncomfortable' when I talked to her in my office. This was an unattractive girl and I think it was my eye contact that I guess set her off - the same eye contact I use with every woman I interact with. The only way I could've avoided this was to never allow female employees into my office, or perhaps not hire female employees. I've seen reports of gay men getting accused of sexual harassment by women in their offices.

So, sometimes it's due to a girl looking for advancement in her career, or money from a lawsuit. Sometimes it's done because she has a beef with the guy she's accusing. But sometimes it's just because she misinterprets how you're looking at her or how you interact with her or she's been primed by a leftist university education to interpret male authority figures as sexual oppressors, etc., and no matter what you do she'll think you're harassing her.

That said... Hugging and kissing random girls on the dance floor is not something I recommend. I specifically state in my article on dance floor game to NOT kiss girls on the dance floor. Primarily because it doesn't lead you anywhere (here's the article for reference).

But in your case, it sounds like you went to a social circle (university) dance, where reputation concerns are going to be higher, and then started hugging and kissing multiple girls, which is going to make them feel like sluts if they see it, and in front of their friends, to boot. Perfect recipe for making yourself look like the creepy guy and putting girls in a position where they have to throw you under the bus to preserve their reputations.

For the level you're at, I highly recommend you DO NOT hug and kiss random girls in public.

Focus on harmless touch first, and develop social calibration. Get used to talking to people. Get phone numbers from girls and ask them on dates. Later into the date, or after you invite them home with you, THEN you may go for the kiss. Kissing in public is not something to do when you're a beginner. Come back to it later when you're more intermediate and have a better-developed sense of social awareness. For now, focus on dates, not public make-outs, and you should avoid any future situations like this.


Lawliet's picture

Hey Chase,

I sorta knew I won't be the only one speculating Trump Tactics ;)
Especially the defend then attack one in his second debate!

Re: Compliance
When we give others compliance, does that increase their compliance in us?
In social situations with friends? with meeting girls also?
What about in sales?
I notice some salesmen help clients do things.

If normally not (ex. Sad shopping guy, helpful guy, horny guy), is there a way to leverage it so it does?
Which I somehow suspect it can (why else would so many guys use it as flirting?), but have not decrypt the key yet (they use it in the wrong way).

Some examples would be great! (love to hear your ancedotals stories)

Just my theory,

Chase Amante's picture


New article up here in answer to your question:

Tactics Tuesdays: Giving Gifts and Offering Compliance


nolimits's picture

Hey Chase,


Can you use 'defend, then attack' each time your boss - or whomever has some kind of power over you in an organization - attacks you?

If they imply you aren't professional or aren't putting in the effort - and you know for sure that this isn't true - can you use ' defend, then attack' ?

For instance: they imply you're not a good salesman, but you're actually a very good one.

Boss/person who has some power over you:  'you're not putting in the effort, you're not focused/you're unprofessional (anything aimed at undermining your credibility)

You: (defense) NO, I'm the best salesman here, and my numbers are showing it, and everybody here knows I'm making YOU a ton of money. (then attack) You didn't hire enough sales people in the company and are blaming me for something you are responsible for. I don't blame you for your mistakes, but at least, don't try to moralize on me because that's simply ridiculous. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a client to focus on.


Can this work or does this get you fired?

According to the article 'anytime someone who has an important role in your life tries to undermine your credibility', this should work right?

Plus, I'm guessing that's how Trump would handle it.


What do you think?

Add new comment

The Latest from