Donald Trump and US politics

This may not be in order - I kind of worked at it in between other stuff,

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Firstly, a mechanic or a programmer would be working on something that is very mechanical -- something that doesn't really require emotional interaction, engagement or reaction. That was a poor analogy and you know it.

It is still valid. I would primarily be choosing someone for a job based on key skills necessary. Personality can be a negative or a positive, but it isn't the primary factor for being a good president. Abe Lincoln was not well loved, and hated by many, yet was very effective. Bob Dole - who didn't get elected because he had the public perception of no personality was extremely effective at getting both sides to work together and get things accomplished.

The ability to acquire, retain and motivate key people with the knowledge and skill sets to make things happen IS a key factor. Without that, we might as well be playing Path of Exile on Windows 95 with 2 megs of Ram. The ability to make a decent snap judgment call in the heat of the moment, and have that call turn out to be usually a good one is a CRITICAL leadership skill. I don't mean talking points, but decisions.

So far, Trump has failed one test of that - his rollout of the travel ban. I won't disagree with the need (if the security risk was imminent) to have it immediately in place, but he should have arranged to meet with key members of congress, and potentially the Supreme Court and vet the details before rolling it out.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

As someone who has had three personal surgeons for the past two years, I can actually tell you that the eloquence of the doctor is VERY important. It indicates a lot: a willingness to explain things to the patient in a language they'll understand; a grasp of the complexities of their task beyond the basic operation (of, say, the human body), such as emotional repercussion, financial consequences and the like; and, perhaps most importantly, it establishes a very necessary rapport between the person being cut and the person cutting. If you're going to discount eloquence from that equation, that's entirely your choice. For me, it was the difference between being permanently crippled and, after a lot of treatment and procedures, returning to a relatively normal state of being with maintenance medication. So do yourself a favourite, DalaiLama -- if you ever find yourself in a state where you do need to work with a surgeon or specialist long term, take their eloquence into account.

I don't disagree with the essence of this part. Communication is key, and some physicians are not good at it at all. It's not so much a matter of eloquence of language used as it is desire to communicate, willingness to put in the effort and time to really listen to the patient, to make sure the Dr understands what is important to them, and the ability of the doctor to put their own ego on the shelf. The doctor still needs an expert knowledge of what they are doing. Eloquence can make it easier for some doctors, but can make it difficult for some patients when the doctor isn't good at scaling the communications to the patient's level of understanding. (hah - wrote that in response to your first sentence, and see it echoes much of what you are saying.)

"

鬼殺し wrote:

How does one go about choosing? I'd say personality's a pretty big factor. You're trying to divorce personality from occupation here, but there are few jobs in the world that should factor personality in as much as being the leader of a country. Despite the degree, politics is not a science. It's an art, art of the possible some say, and art is emotional expression. Every gesture, every facial tic, every word will be analysed for meaning, because if there's one thing politicians generally don't do, it's say what they mean. This is part of the art. Even someone who wants to be seen as blunt and straightforward is playing another game. Let's not pretend otherwise here. He's a canny, cunning businessman who has made his entire career on gaming others.

And you want to pretend he'd not gaming the American population now? Okay.

You don't have to game others to make a lot of money. Having start up capitol, and being in the right place at the right time is enough for those that can resist the temptation to start pulling their profits out too soon. I'm not disputing that non verbal language, or personality isn't a big part of getting elected. I am disputing that it is essential to the task at hand. For instance, I don't know if the person that draws the PoE comics is grumpy or happy, but I do know they can draw. They might not get hired if they were excessively grumpy (or insanely happy) but that doesn't mean it is criteria for the job. As the public face of the government, yes it matters to a degree. If Trump persists in being an ass at times, eventually everyone else will just let him flounder. Like any bad boss, people will just punch the clock and do the minimum to comply.

He'll have to find a way to dispute media accuracy without mocking them. He'll have to find a way to be "disappointed" in Senators and judicial decisions that don't go his way.
Like Hillary's persona, that can be crafted. Donald will have to accept being tamed, and it will have to be a handler/speech writer that fits in with Donald's mannerisms.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Now, you said you wouldn't look at the 'social media' of others when selecting them for a job. I'm fairly sure you know that scouring social media is a BIG part of employment selection these days. Again, well-known. This is why I query the sudden request to make the POTUS exempt from this. When you have so much evidence of his character, why not include it in your judgment? It strikes me as willingly ignorant to do otherwise.

I don't expect him to be exempt. Anything he says and does is in the public eye. If he named his dog Hillary, the public would naturally be in an uproar for the lack of respect. Look back at what you posted about Donald being canny and gaming people. Con men don't let their game down. It wouldn't be hard to craft a fake persona online. Once someone is in that mindset, I imagine it would be easy to maintain. I wouldn't not hire a good programmer because they were anti-Trump, and I wouldn't hire a sloppy programmer because they supported Trump. If someone is tweeting that they are going to physically hurt someone, or such, then I would pay attention to that and not hire them.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

And let me put this to you, because the GF and I often discuss it. I believe it is possible for Trump to tweet something that could sink him. That could turn his supporters against him.

Absolutely it is. Trump lives by the twitter sword and can impale himself easily. If his heart is truly in a good place, that is far less likely. If he's the dastard many think he is, then it is just a matter of time before he slips up and does so.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

She doesn't. She thinks, as it seems you also feel, that the man's social media is largely irrelevant to his role, although she thinks this because of a very different reason to you. Obviously. So...to the point.

What if Trump tweeted the N word? Or the F word (not fuck, of course -- the worse one)? He has already been openly racist on there, and openly misogynistic.

I've known people who use more swear words than no swear words. Most were not worth knowing. If a term was used for every person - and not personally directed towards their identity, I'd tell them not to use that term in front me.

An example of what I mean was (might still be?) 4chan (as a lurker) where that F term was given to every person along with a tag of new/old, ameri, Euro etc. I'm sure the shock value of it was a big part, and there's certain amount of people pretending to be tough because no one knows who they are.

If Trump directed either of those terms toward someone intentionally, I would lose any respect for him, and expect Congress to begin working on ways to get him out of office. During the campaign there were rumors of both Trump and Hillary having used some offensive term, and I expected either or both of them to be gone if it were true.

About the only time those terms are acceptable (and unlike Maya Angelou I don't subscribe to the theory people of those groups being able to use them toward each other) is when a child who is too young to have any clue what they mean or how hurtful they are uses them. (which is often because they are just repeating an adult) - or if someone has immediately harmed you or someone you love, like trying to rape or kill them.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

He's also widely recognised as very educated, eloquent (we're not going to have a problem with this word, are we?), forward-thinking and motivated.

No disagreement there.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

And what's so wrong with community organisation? I'd say that would give a person MUCH more experience in dealing well with others than making a career of fucking them over by trying to get the absolute best deal regardless of morals or even legal ramifications.

Nothing is wrong with community organization. It usually means you aren't as responsible for the outcomes and that decisions are made more collaboratively. That aspect can be a good thing, especially for learning to work with others, but a large part of being the top leader of any large organization is making the tough choices. Even indecisiveness can sink the team's confidence in their leader.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

We both know pre-President Trump was sued more times than any other president before their term, right?

As Johnny Carson quoted (not sure who the originator was) you aren't really famous or rich until you've been sued. The more money and more fame, the more potential lawsuits.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

He had already made clear his stance regarding the law, regarding others. He is ruthless. You can't deny that. You have a ruthless leader. He will take others to the top with him as long as it serves his ascent. As long as they are sufficiently obsequious. You've seen enough times, haven't you, what happens when an ally of his loses their utility or shows any sign of dissent. He drops them like a sack of shit. Publicly.

Absolutely. I may not have stated the same way you did, but that was my point when I talked about Trump expecting loyalty, and that the loyalty was as much a factor in choosing someone as anything else. Without trust a leader's whole effort crumples. If CEOs were allowed to shoot employees for defecting or mutiny, many would. I am probably more jaded to this your IN, and now you're OUT aspect. I don't think it is any more moral because I have witnessed it at some high levels, but I do recognize that it comes with the territory.

Other presidents may have been more discreet about it. Depending on the situation, the discretion can backfire and sometimes make it look like someone was fired for unjustifiable reasons. I've watched some leaders thrash around in a death spiral when they were too secretive, and I've seen some spend all their energy in court because they weren't clear what they were doing and why. Corporate America is not a pretty place. The Act IV belly of the beast is a nice warm comforting environment by comparison. Unfortunately (bah, I know my paragraphs are getting mangled here- sorry), the government bureaucracy is very similar, with the exception that employee turnover is much much lower.

Oh, and more people end up dead when the governments plays its power games, rather than just careers ended and assets being taken.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

We know he's filed for bankruptcy multiple times.

My understanding (not a business lawyer or CPA) is that the number of bankruptcies (4 or 6?) is actually well below the average for the number of businesses. His largest flops (Casinos) were questionable at the outset when he picked them up. In terms of bankruptcies to success, his record looks very good -BUT a part of that is not because of what he does, but how he initiates the business. Specifically, some are set up where he gets a profit for attaching his name to the venture and takes little or no investment risk. I'd be very certain that a big chunk of his business acumen is really that of his accountants, lawyers and managerial employees expertise. That is to be expected and commended in a CEO of a large organization. If he suddenly decides to open Trump Consol ARPG gaming, then he isn't going to become an expert at games. He will find expertise and help them get connected and funded. Finding good experts requires a lot of intuition ( half good recruiting, half people assessment and empathy skills) and good instincts (which looks like luck from the outside).

Instinct and track record are the big factors here. I can see where you are questioning his track record, and that's a legitimate area to look at.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Either way, there's plenty of evidence he was not, in fact, a very good businessman in the legitimate, clean sense. What he was, and is, is very good at bullying people into getting what he wants.

A business person won't get too far past the mom and pop stage without having some thick skin. By the time you have a couple hundred employees, you've gotten used to ups and downs, setbacks and people who are trying to take advantage of you with every dirty trick they can. They aren't easily bullied. The exception of course is through our cheesy legal system. Amazingly enough, the weak link is judges, specifically so many cases of summary judgment that should never have been granted. Find the right (or wrong in terms of morals) judge and with some wrangling, businesses can be pressured.

A lot of people have claimed this about Trump to one degree or another. It might be true. I haven't looked at the case records or the trial discovery (which is often more telling because you can see things the jurty never hears) to see what the background is. What I do know from professional experience, is that people who try to get ahead of other companies by primarily using legal games don't have any long term staying power. It is too easy for a company to fail. Imagine having to compete in three different pro sports teams every year. So many companies go under. It is possible to successfully run a company without cheating. It just takes patience and following the basics. There is no get rich quick scenario, but someone with hard work and 20-30 years can turn ~50,000 into a few million, for example.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Trump has shown absolutely no fiscal brilliance in his term so far

His rudimentary budget has been proposed, but I've yet to see a detailed breakdown. Part of the "brilliance" will simply be getting the government out of the way of companies succeeding. There is the potential danger of under regulating, but right now small and medium sized companies are being strangled.

The very large surge in the stock market is specifically because business thinks the government will support growth and investment rather than penalize them for it. The large hedge funds are always shifting money around to where they think it will generate the most payback. When money is being shifted away from development and expansion, the economy is not in a good place. When money is actively coming back to those areas, the outlook for the economy is very good. The potential downfalls are inflation (which can be devastating for those at lower income level) and bank implosion-where they start lending money as if they can't fail - again.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Okay. No, neither are dolts. But as you said, intelligence comes in flavours. I posit that Obama's intelligence is very socially agreeable and amenable; he was and is charming, which is something the American people tend to value in their leaders, and I see nothing inherently wrong with that. But it's easy to read 'charming' as 'deceptive', which is why Trump's sort of intelligence, predatory cunning, can appear to be preferable and read as 'telling it how it is'...but that's like saying you admire a shark for its straightforward way of killing its prey, but condemn the jellyfish for being pretty but necessarily armed to feed and protect itself

While I can admire the efficiency of the Sea Wasp, I don't know of any sports teams named after jellyfish, while there are plenty of "Shark" teams. Jellyfish sneakiness and being indiscriminate doesn't endear them to people either. Yeah, sure mostly dried up dead jellyfish on the beach - go ahead and sting me. Specifically, both styles have their strengths and their admirers and detractors. Trump is far more of a populist than Obama, while Obama is a far better orator. (no chuckling, I didn't claim Trump could orate)

"

鬼殺し wrote:

If the ultimate task is one of survival, then there's no reason to the shark's method over the jellyfish's...unless you get off on a good bloody mangling feast, I guess.

Again, if you want to deny that Trump's intellect is one of predatory cunning, I've got a laugh waiting for you right here. But if you can't deny that, then I want you to think long and hard, again, if that's someone you want at the helm.
Jellyfish are predators as well. They might be more passive, and some have symbiotic algae, but they are largely predators.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

If you can be the boss, the absolute authority on who gets paid and when and how, and you're not occasionally miserable at the fact that you have to make very hard calls, then I call you a psychopath.

Think of a transplant surgeon who decides who will get an organ and live and who will likely die. You don' t have to be a jerk to make tough calls. The people that make those calls and don't care what happens or how they are handled? Yeah, they are psychopaths.

Sometimes you have to look at what you have as options and make the best of what you can. An example - at one company there were periodic downturns. The business wasn't there to keep everyone on. One "helpful" boss tried cutting back everyone's hours so no one was fired. It ended up with a very large number being unable to pay their bills and having to quit. Another leader in the same company saw the trend and said never again. He hated firing people (except for their own gross incompetence) and decided not to hire as many people. He paid out more in overtime and people had to work harder and scramble more during peak season, but he had also told everyone what he was doing and why. A year and a half later when the downturn came, he didn't have to fire a single person or cut hours.

If you only worked with him for a short period, you would think he was a hard nose with only superficial pleasantries. If you worked with him for awhile you would know that unless you tried to undermine him, he would have your back and really try to find solutions to keep people happy. He made the company an extraordinary amount of money while doing things that were morally correct. For smaller companies, especially those getting started, there isn't a lot of recovery room when something goes wrong. More businesses fail than succeed simply because it is tough. It's even tough to try and be generous when you're hoping just to be able to make next month's bills and not default on bank loans or the lease or be short on quarterly taxes.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You seem to equate running a country with running a business and that doesn't fly. Nothing about politics is all that business-like.

The economy, which is the lifeblood of the citizens and the government is a business.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Sure, you have all the guns, but you're not stupid enough to think that the US can survive cut off from the rest of the world, are you?

No insults please. The weaponry is useful in case of attack and not much more. A good economy is a far more potent weapon than any military device.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Extreme approach, but that's Trump's essential message. Build a wall. Impose unrealistic, punitive tariffs.

The lack of border security is a real problem. One country is primarily the problem and they actively encourage and facilitate the problem. If the vast majority of the people coming over weren't decent hard working family oriented (more so than most of our citizens) people, then the US would already be at war - real military war - with them.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

We're back to shark vs jellyfish. Let's not nibble fingers here, DalaiLama. You don't get to their position without some form of narcissism.

I didn't blame either of them. I stated it as an observation, which you acknowledge. The amount of criticism they take on a daily basis would make most people melt. Without some kind of serious defense mechanism, a president would have a break down.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You haven't really made one sound worse than the other here.

Which is a large part of my overall point. One is a stinky fish with spots and one a stinky fish with stripes.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I disagree with the verisimilitude of 'subtly rude' because it's much harder to ascertain than 'brash and rude', which means it's much more up to the audience to decide. That alone indicates he's PROBABLY not quite as rude as the one who is brash and rude.

Or worse, it's just not as apparent if someone isn't looking for it.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Unless you find brash and rude endearing and honest, which again is something I've seen in only two countries: The US and France. Everywhere else values politesse a little more for some reason.

You aren't wrong here, it is a cultural difference. I knew the US was one of the two, and had heard England was the other, but do not have personal experience to judge England or France in that regard.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Every national leader's popularity drops over time.

True, what I meant was that other than Obamacare, Obama really wasn't doing what his supporters were expecting him to do. They blamed much of it on the opposing congress (which was a large chunk of it) but also became tired of the fact that Obama wasn't doing much to make things happen. He gave up easily, and never really tried to make any inroads with the opposition.

If Trump doesn't find a way to make inroads and compromise, he will be sunk as well, and even faster. He won't like it, but unless he is the idiot many of his detractors think he is, he will begin doing it. Easiest way for him to start accomplishing that would be to leave all the media handling to someone else and only talk about what he was doing and the rationale for it.

Will he do that? We will see soon enough. I expect we will know by midsummer at the latest.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

But keep in mind this race was never about Obama vs Trump. That wasn't the choice. So wherever his popularity was after *two terms* is not all that relevant now. He could have been the most awesome president ever and I'm fairly sure Trump would still be in that seat today.

It was a choice between 20 some Turkeys.

His outspoken nature actually worked in his favor on this aspect. It certainly isn't always pleasant, and there's a temper element, but once you get to know the person, you have a good idea of how far their temper will carry them, how much is just venting, and to what extent the person is telling you how they really feel. Unless they really distrust you, the chances are there's not a whole lot being hidden. That doesn't hold for things they would feel guilty about disclosing to anyone, but they tend to divulge more of themselves than most people do.

Is the same thing true of a con artist? Of course it is. Could they just be conning you? They could, that is up to the person to judge.[/quote]

"

鬼殺し wrote:

That's where you're starting to contradict yourself. We've already agreed that Trump is no dolt, and I expanded that I feel his sort of intelligence is one of predatory cunning. If you don't agree, then what I say next will be hard for you to swallow. Cunning is deceptive, and deception is just as much a game of appearing honest as it is being otherwise.

I'm not sold that he is a predator yet, but agree with you on the other counts. My point to say that this nature helped him win people's trust.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I think he's completely playing the role of 'Trump', which doesn't mean he doesn't believe is that role. But I also think that this role, which we've stated is being the loudest, biggest person in the room, is itself a tactic, a means to an end. I think it would be very foolish to think he doesn't know exactly what he's doing in this role. But it's equally foolish to think that what he thinks he's doing is what the job demands or needs.

It was needed to get elected, the only purpose it serves now is to sway the public towards his side when the media or a political opponent is on the other side. That part needs to go away as it will just suck away all his time and energy. Will he give it up? Who knows. At times, it is amusing and at other times exasperating. A break now and then is OK, but when the employee can't get the job done, that break is a problem.

In terms of leading, that winning people's trust only works with the public. Most elected officials are so skeptical they make Richard Dawkins look like a voodoo faith healer.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

He's treating it like a popularity poll, not a presidency. He's such a weird mixture of insecure and self-propelled egoism! Whenever anyone asks 'who is the real trump?' in regards to his odd combination of social media outbursts and very subdued speeches when he sticks to the script, I laugh. They're both real, and they're both doing the same thing: saying what they think people want to hear to keep the applause going. And by people, I mean the already converted, of course. He had no interest in true bipartisan government when campaigning, and he has none now.

No disagreements there either. He has no interest in it, but like the company owner that has to pay the lease, there really isn't a choice.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

So of course the whiplash in the other direction has been nothing if not shocking and dramatic. And it was perpetrated by the most shocking, dramatic person to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The next president could be far worse. We could end up with someone who makes pleasing mouth noises, but slowly and surely clamps down on freedoms so that their side has a perpetual lock on government.

RE: DL: Obama, unfortunately did do that.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Does that matter now? You're doing what Trump does. Living in the past because you have no answers for the present.

Does it matter? Obama generated a lot of hate with his political games. You spoke of divide, and I mentioned it as a source of that divide. The "legal" system at the time did nothing to resolve it. It isn't a factor for me anymore than Janet Reno and Waco was a tragic debacle, but isn't a factor. For some people, it's still an issue, hence the divide.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You are what you choose to follow, by proxy.

There's very little logic in that. Obama's followers didn't become narcissistic, they didn't suddenly become community organizers or commanders in chief. They didn't become fake "folksy" people who have great trouble drawing a draught beer.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Those liberals who boycotted Hillary are as guilty as anyone ticking the Trump box. They really are. That was so petty.

Some of them hated Hillary far more than they hated Trump. I knew quite a few that were grateful there were other choices, because if it came down to it, they would have ended up voting for Trump over "Killary" <--their term, not mine. Had Hillary not shafted Bernie she might still have won, and she would not have created so many enemies. Trump's outrageousness and crudeness lost him some voters as well, but there wasn't that palpable sense of betrayal as there was with Hillary. Not sure what was up with Jill Stein, unless she thought she could become a future senator.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

MSM is weak and lazy.

They don't deserve any more keystrokes. MM is even more work than some of these news regurgitators makes.
Had Hillary won, that level of emotional outrage wouldn't be there.[/quote]

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Again, yes. Are you saying that's a bad thing at this point? Is emotional outrage something you wanted after this election?

I am saying it wasn't Trump that caused the bulk of that outrage. Had Ben Carson been the GOP nominee and won, they would still have a huge chunk of it. It was HER TURN. Had Carly Fiorina been the GOP and won, they would have mixed elation and bitter hatred. It would be as if they were somehow cheated.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

TBC. I'm already late for a game with the GF...

First things first - real life is far more important.

You just dive in and get it.