For all the negative things one might think about Trump....

[gipper]

Yes, Trump is just a symptom of a bad system that isn't working.

Right now, insofar as he's POTUS and he's got not one major legislative accomplishment under his belt, he's far more than a symptom. He's now an exacerbating part of the problem not part of the solution. That said, it remains to be see whether, upon getting any major legislative agenda item passed, any such policy enacted will make things better, worse or effect no positive change.

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

We only had TWO CHOICES

That quite simply is not true. The Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in every state. And make no mistake, had people simply voted for him, he'd be POTUS.

But the reality is we had two choices. There are often several candidates for POTUS, but we all know it will be either a D or and R.

 

[Votto]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

The dumb, dumb does not understand he is suppose to be an empty suit. That is why they are all against him and why he will "accomplish" nothing, which I say is far better than any empty suit in orifice, especially Hillary

Trump has to understand that if wants things done, he will have to go it alone. That means if you want a wall write an Executive Order. If you want to stop the insane sanctuary cities then write an executive order. If you want to bypass Obamacare then write an Executive Order, etc.

Both parties are out to destroy the man.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, Trump is just a symptom of a bad system that isn't working.

Right now, insofar as he's POTUS and he's got not one major legislative accomplishment under his belt, he's far more than a symptom. He's now an exacerbating part of the problem not part of the solution. That said, it remains to be see whether, upon getting any major legislative agenda item passed, any such policy enacted will make things better, worse or effect no positive change.

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

 

[usmbguest5318]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

Trump has the basic leadership skills of a chihuahua puppy.

He is a rich man that started off rich and thanks to some rich and powerful friends and allies has managed to stay rich despite his best efforts to blow it.

His company didn't actually start thriving till he stopped making business decisions after the last bankruptcy. Trump is a showman and that is what he excels at, as long as he does not have to make any actual decisions.

This is why Trump is the wrong man for the job, we need an actual leader and we have not had one for at least 17 years. And we still do not.

You are very jealous. That is evidenced by the fact that you bitched about his personal wealth even though it has nothing to do with his duties as president.

If you were not so intellectually dishonest you would have mentioned that he has a economics degree from one of the best business schools in the world.

That is evidenced by the fact that you bitched about his personal wealth even though it has nothing to do with his duties as president.

I doubt that Trump's existential wealth is the point of that remark. I don't because of the sardonic back end of the sentence: "managed to stay rich despite his best efforts to blow it."

 

[usmbguest5318]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

The dumb, dumb does not understand he is suppose to be an empty suit. That is why they are all against him and why he will "accomplish" nothing, which I say is far better than any empty suit in orifice, especially Hillary

Trump has to understand that if wants things done, he will have to go it alone. That means if you want a wall write an Executive Order. If you want to stop the insane sanctuary cities then write an executive order. If you want to bypass Obamacare then write an Executive Order, etc.

Both parties are out to destroy the man.

Trump has to understand that if wants things done, he will have to go it alone.

As go matters having the scope and complexity of those a POTUS must usher to resolution, none get accomplished without others in power condoning them. Such is the design of the U.S. government; it's called separation of power. the POTUS is not an absolute monarch.

That means if you want a wall write an Executive Order. If you want to stop the insane sanctuary cities then write an executive order. If you want to bypass Obamacare then write an Executive Order, etc.

That's rich coming from you.

Executive Orders were not because they are not Constitutional

Progs are all about running the country from the Oval Office, so they not only have fascists in their midst, they have subverted the checks and balances of a Constitutional government to make fascism an Executive Order away from reality.

POTUS has found a way to weasel around the need for a treaty through Executive Agreements, much like he already does with the Executive Order, neither of which are Constitutional.

I guess EOs have miraculously become Constitutional?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Right now, insofar as he's POTUS and he's got not one major legislative accomplishment under his belt, he's far more than a symptom. He's now an exacerbating part of the problem not part of the solution. That said, it remains to be see whether, upon getting any major legislative agenda item passed, any such policy enacted will make things better, worse or effect no positive change.

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

A decent candidate has to do what? Appeal to 25% of the population AT LEAST. That's hard, and in doing so you have to not say stuff that will piss people off.

Colin Powell was asked if he'd run for President, he said no, he'd piss 99% of people off by saying what he actually thinks. That sums up the Presidency. Even Trump didn't say what he thought for most of the time, he was contradicting himself 50% of the time, and preparing to contradict himself the other 50%.

In Proportional Representation you have leaders who appeal to sections of the country, and they get power, because no one party usually gets 50% of the seats or votes in order to be able to control things.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

A decent candidate has to do what? Appeal to 25% of the population AT LEAST. That's hard, and in doing so you have to not say stuff that will piss people off.

Colin Powell was asked if he'd run for President, he said no, he'd piss 99% of people off by saying what he actually thinks. That sums up the Presidency. Even Trump didn't say what he thought for most of the time, he was contradicting himself 50% of the time, and preparing to contradict himself the other 50%.

In Proportional Representation you have leaders who appeal to sections of the country, and they get power, because no one party usually gets 50% of the seats or votes in order to be able to control things.

Colin Powell was asked if he'd run for President, he said no, he'd piss 99% of people off by saying what he actually thinks.

That is why I didn't pursue elective office. I say what I think on here, but in the "real word," I have the sense to keep my mouth shut about all sorts of public policy matters -- sometimes because I just don't know enough to have a well informed opinion and sometimes because I do have a well informed opinion and I know it's not what people will care to hear and they will thus look for every immaterial "straw" they can find for rejecting it.

One routinely sees examples of that here with all the tu quoque BS that people toss out when a member criticises "whatever" or whomever...as if that has any relevance to the critique itself and the validity or virtue of the behavior giving rise to it. And the sad thing is that every person in the country from the time they were small children have been taught that tu quoque arguments hold no water.

• "I don't care what 'Billy's' parent let him do. That has nothing to do with what you will do."
• "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?"
• Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Votto]

Right now, insofar as he's POTUS and he's got not one major legislative accomplishment under his belt, he's far more than a symptom. He's now an exacerbating part of the problem not part of the solution. That said, it remains to be see whether, upon getting any major legislative agenda item passed, any such policy enacted will make things better, worse or effect no positive change.

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

Likeable? Who in the hell wants likeable when likeable has gotten us a $20 trillion debt, wars abroad, enldess corruption, and uncontrolled immigration?

Screw likeable. What we need I think is a real SOB, more so than Trump.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, I agree, however the only reason he's a part of the problem is because people elected him, and why did they elect him? That shows that there is something really wrong to be doing such a thing.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

Likeable? Who in the hell wants likeable when likeable has gotten us a $20 trillion debt, wars abroad, enldess corruption, and uncontrolled immigration?

Screw likeable. What we need I think is a real SOB, more so than Trump.

I think we need candidates who will simply say:

• A is what the government is doing well; it's working.
• B is what the government is doing at with so-so degree of effectiveness and efficacy; it's working to some degree
• C is what the government is doing poorly; it's barely working
• D is what the government is doing and it's mess; it's not working at all

That part of the message should, quite frankly, be identical among every candidate who's running for elective office. The rest of the message should continue as follows:

Given those realities and the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, I cannot legitimately promise to fix all things to the satisfaction of all people; therefore I have to prioritize what we fix, and of those things:

• these are the two or three I'm prioritizing for getting done in four years of my term
• these are the detailed arguments for why I'm prioritizing those ahead of other needs
• these are my specific objectives pertaining to those key
• here is the detailed approach I intend to use to achieve each of them

Other things that need fixing will be addressed as circumstances and opportunities for multitasking above and beyond the the first tier priorities allow.
​

Everyone can understand a message like that because having to choose among competing needs is something everyone -- at every wealth and income level -- must face in their lives. Because we all face exactly that situation, red flags should go up in every voter's mind when they hear messages that amount to "I'm going to fix everything and it's going to be wonderful for everybody."

Messages like that and people who issue them do only one thing: over promise and under deliver. Anyone who does't call BS on people making such promises have no business voting, and anyone who persists in delivering such messages doesn't deserve to be voted for.

Really, who should win any election should come down to who has the most well thought out and risk mitigated approach to solving the problems. Of course, listening to presentations of that sort isn't "exciting." It's really serious stuff and it's stuff one must pay attention to carefully, which is not really something most Americans seem given to doing.

 

[BrokeLoser]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

Yes. What's wrong is that we allow people who don't know a damn thing about the most critical aspects of running a nation like the U.S. run for elective office and vote for people running for elective office. We today live in a very complex world that needs at the helm people who are extremely well informed in a host of disciplines other than politicking

Would you call, say, a doctor to fix your car's motor? I wouldn't. Yet we have people of all stripes making public policy, yet they are not experts at social or natural sciences. By all means we need and should have interdisciplinary decision making, but the decision makers need to, in their own right, be pros at something other than politics and law writing.

For example, why the hell is Ben Carson the head of an agency about housing and city planning rather than something related to the health and medicine? Dr. Carson's a smart man, but putting him at HUD does not play to the strengths he's developed over a long career in medicine.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

Likeable? Who in the hell wants likeable when likeable has gotten us a $20 trillion debt, wars abroad, enldess corruption, and uncontrolled immigration?

Screw likeable. What we need I think is a real SOB, more so than Trump.

I think we need candidates who will simply say:

• A is what the government is doing well; it's working.
• B is what the government is doing at with so-so degree of effectiveness and efficacy; it's working to some degree
• C is what the government is doing poorly; it's barely working
• D is what the government is doing and it's mess; it's not working at all

That part of the message should, quite frankly, be identical among every candidate who's running for elective office. The rest of the message should continue as follows:

Given those realities and the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, I cannot legitimately promise to fix all things to the satisfaction of all people; therefore I have to prioritize what we fix, and of those things:

• these are the two or three I'm prioritizing for getting done in four years of my term
• these are the detailed arguments for why I'm prioritizing those ahead of other needs
• these are my specific objectives pertaining to those key
• here is the detailed approach I intend to use to achieve each of them

Other things that need fixing will be addressed as circumstances and opportunities for multitasking above and beyond the the first tier priorities allow.
​

Everyone can understand a message like that because having to choose among competing needs is something everyone -- at every wealth and income level -- must face in their lives. Because we all face exactly that situation, red flags should go up in every voter's mind when they hear messages that amount to "I'm going to fix everything and it's going to be wonderful for everybody."

Messages like that and people who issue them do only one thing: over promise and under deliver. Anyone who does't call BS on people making such promises have no business voting, and anyone who persists in delivering such messages doesn't deserve to be voted for.

Really, who should win any election should come down to who has the most well thought out and risk mitigated approach to solving the problems. Of course, listening to presentations of that sort isn't "exciting." It's really serious stuff and it's stuff one must pay attention to carefully, which is not really something most Americans seem given to doing.

Like most exceptionally successful people...real leaders have an amazing ability to simplify problems and issues that appear to be extremely complex to most.
The truth is "many people" love to create complexity in things that are simple to begin with...it makes self proclaimed smart people feel smarter when they think everything requires total dissection. These are the same people that will bust their ass using an expanded vocabulary which essentially causes confusion, misunderstanding and ultimately a disconnection. They'll write lengthy stories rather than saying what needs to be said in simple clarity. Do you know any of these types I speak of?

 

[gipper]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

Likeable? Who in the hell wants likeable when likeable has gotten us a $20 trillion debt, wars abroad, enldess corruption, and uncontrolled immigration?

Screw likeable. What we need I think is a real SOB, more so than Trump.

I think we need candidates who will simply say:

• A is what the government is doing well; it's working.
• B is what the government is doing at with so-so degree of effectiveness and efficacy; it's working to some degree
• C is what the government is doing poorly; it's barely working
• D is what the government is doing and it's mess; it's not working at all

That part of the message should, quite frankly, be identical among every candidate who's running for elective office. The rest of the message should continue as follows:

Given those realities and the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, I cannot legitimately promise to fix all things to the satisfaction of all people; therefore I have to prioritize what we fix, and of those things:

• these are the two or three I'm prioritizing for getting done in four years of my term
• these are the detailed arguments for why I'm prioritizing those ahead of other needs
• these are my specific objectives pertaining to those key
• here is the detailed approach I intend to use to achieve each of them

Other things that need fixing will be addressed as circumstances and opportunities for multitasking above and beyond the the first tier priorities allow.
​

Everyone can understand a message like that because having to choose among competing needs is something everyone -- at every wealth and income level -- must face in their lives. Because we all face exactly that situation, red flags should go up in every voter's mind when they hear messages that amount to "I'm going to fix everything and it's going to be wonderful for everybody."

Messages like that and people who issue them do only one thing: over promise and under deliver. Anyone who does't call BS on people making such promises have no business voting, and anyone who persists in delivering such messages doesn't deserve to be voted for.

Really, who should win any election should come down to who has the most well thought out and risk mitigated approach to solving the problems. Of course, listening to presentations of that sort isn't "exciting." It's really serious stuff and it's stuff one must pay attention to carefully, which is not really something most Americans seem given to doing.

Like most exceptionally successful people...real leaders have an amazing ability to simplify problems and issues that appear to be extremely complex to most.
The truth is "many people" love to create complexity in things that are simple to begin with...it makes self proclaimed smart people feel smarter when they think everything requires total dissection. These are the same people that will bust their ass using an expanded vocabulary which essentially causes confusion, misunderstanding and ultimately a disconnection. They'll write lengthy stories rather than saying what needs to be said in simple clarity. Do you know any of these types I speak of?

Obama for the win.

 

[usmbguest5318]

....I'm of the mind that the one thing that's wrong with the man is not actually something that's wrong with him, but rather a wrong fit. I think is, at the end of the day, just a regular person and being so is for regular people with regular lives and, more importantly, regular jobs.

Trump's life and lifestyle is quite rarefied. I think he's convinced himself that his exceptional life, particularly his wealth, has convinced him that he's an exceptional individual. Great wealth, quite simply, is not a proxy for great facility at managing one's way through and being excellent at everything, by which I mean a POTUS has to handle everything with aplomb whereas becoming wealthy requires one to be "ingenious" or nearly so at just a few things.

I think he just isn't outstanding at everything, or even most things, which is fine for most people, and but for the fact that he's president and, it'd be fine for Trump. The scrutiny of the presidency is unmatched by any other role, making it a terrible job for thin skinned people. The issues and interactions one must navigate are complex, making it the wrong job for people who aren't given to developing deep understandings of things. The decisions one makes cost lives and have impacts well beyond one's tenure in office, making it very difficult for people with any sort of conscience, no matter how minimal. The nature of job's scope requires one to rely heavily on others, something that's difficult for anyone who's to some extent a self-made individual. POTUS is not an all powerful position; making it the wrong role for people who are accustomed to authoritarian ways of getting things done.

Trump is POTUS, but it's clear that he should not be POTUS. It's just the wrong job for him. That's something lots of people discover after having taken a job for whatever reason they took it. The problem is that Trump can't as easily as regular people walk away from a job that's a bad fit for them.

I can't agree. The people voted for Trump because they wanted someone other than a corrupt lying politician for POTUS. This is admirable and acceptable. The majority knew Clinton was your typical criminal politician. We only had TWO CHOICES.

The ruling class (R and D party establishment) does not want Trump to be successful, because he is an outsider. As such, they will do what they can to sabotage him. So, people will believe we MUST have a lying criminal politician for POTUS.

Imagine if the system changed and people actually had choice, how amazing would that be?

We are routinely presented with decent candidates. The majority of people choose for whom they'll vote based on things that don't really speak to the individual's actual knowledge, intellect, character and demonstrated strengths and weaknesses in areas of public policy.

I for one don't much care whether a politician is likable. I care if they are highly competent, an excellent collaborative leader, and of high ethical character. Those are not average traits. Trump was clearly none of those things, and that was clear from the start. Moreover, the only thing that man has in common with most Americans is that he's an average guy, but even that is diminished by his complete lack of connectedness with average people. Every member of the royal family of England have more direct exposure to regular people, their concerns, their struggles, etc. than does Trump. The Queen served in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service as mechanic and truck driver. Indeed, the only things not average about Trump are his wealth and his complete and lifelong isolation from all things not posh.

Likeable? Who in the hell wants likeable when likeable has gotten us a $20 trillion debt, wars abroad, enldess corruption, and uncontrolled immigration?

Screw likeable. What we need I think is a real SOB, more so than Trump.

I think we need candidates who will simply say:

• A is what the government is doing well; it's working.
• B is what the government is doing at with so-so degree of effectiveness and efficacy; it's working to some degree
• C is what the government is doing poorly; it's barely working
• D is what the government is doing and it's mess; it's not working at all

That part of the message should, quite frankly, be identical among every candidate who's running for elective office. The rest of the message should continue as follows:

Given those realities and the fact that we don't have unlimited resources, I cannot legitimately promise to fix all things to the satisfaction of all people; therefore I have to prioritize what we fix, and of those things:

• these are the two or three I'm prioritizing for getting done in four years of my term
• these are the detailed arguments for why I'm prioritizing those ahead of other needs
• these are my specific objectives pertaining to those key
• here is the detailed approach I intend to use to achieve each of them

Other things that need fixing will be addressed as circumstances and opportunities for multitasking above and beyond the the first tier priorities allow.
​

Everyone can understand a message like that because having to choose among competing needs is something everyone -- at every wealth and income level -- must face in their lives. Because we all face exactly that situation, red flags should go up in every voter's mind when they hear messages that amount to "I'm going to fix everything and it's going to be wonderful for everybody."

Messages like that and people who issue them do only one thing: over promise and under deliver. Anyone who does't call BS on people making such promises have no business voting, and anyone who persists in delivering such messages doesn't deserve to be voted for.

Really, who should win any election should come down to who has the most well thought out and risk mitigated approach to solving the problems. Of course, listening to presentations of that sort isn't "exciting." It's really serious stuff and it's stuff one must pay attention to carefully, which is not really something most Americans seem given to doing.

Like most exceptionally successful people...real leaders have an amazing ability to simplify problems and issues that appear to be extremely complex to most.
The truth is "many people" love to create complexity in things that are simple to begin with...it makes self proclaimed smart people feel smarter when they think everything requires total dissection. These are the same people that will bust their ass using an expanded vocabulary which essentially causes confusion, misunderstanding and ultimately a disconnection. They'll write lengthy stories rather than saying what needs to be said in simple clarity. Do you know any of these types I speak of?

Like most exceptionally successful people...real leaders have an amazing ability to simplify problems and issues that appear to be extremely complex to most.

That's not exactly what "real" leaders do; it is what strong analysts do. Strong leaders need not be the one to perform the in-depth analysis, but if they aren't the person who does, they must have the perspicacity to accurately evaluate the work of those who do. Having the requisite acumen to do that is discipline-/topic-specific, or multidisciplinary, for the matters on which a POTUS must make decisions.

For example:

• Were I presented with the paper "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?", Einstein's first paper deriving e=mc^2 (Einstein didn't write it exactly that way; he wrote m=L/c^2, which is a different, albeit less simple/elegant, way to say the same thing.)
  
  Any number of high school students can follow the math in that paper; there's no particularly complex math there. What they cannot do is know whether the operations used are apropos to the situation and claim the paper makes. As it turns out, the math used in that 1905 paper is inapt; it is not valid for establishing obtain E=mc^2 from considerations starting with a body emitting light isotropically in all directions. Indeed, a guy named Poincaré had, in 1900, stated that to obtain the result E=mc^2 it is necessary to use a parabolic mirror in order to focus and send light in one direction, thus eliminating the universality of the statement E=mc^2. [1]
  
  Einstein, in "The Principle of the Preservation of the Center of Gravity and Motion the Inertia of the Energy" (1906), fixed the problems in his 1905 derivation. That paper became the one on which proofs and subsequent derivations, among them Max Born's, of E=mc^2 were based. [2]
• A simpler example is found as in the following observation. One can know the length of two sides of a triangle and apply the Pythagorean Theorem (PT) to calculate the length of the third side, but if the triangle in question is not a right triangle, the PT is inaptly applied.

What makes the second example simpler? Mainly the fact that anyone who's taken algebra already knows the proof and use of the PT; thus one can assume one's audience knows the "complexity" that underlies the assertion I made, and those who don't know it simply are not among the intended audience for the statement/conversation.
​

That distinction aside, what strong analysts do is not simplify the problem, but rather the solution to it, most often by, after having come to understand the full nature of the problem, developing tactical elements of the "to-be" solution that eliminate varying aspects of the complexity in the "as-is" situation that is the problem. Truly, at the POTUS-level, there are very few, if any, problems that are simple.


Note:

1. in 1900 the ubiquitous Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc2. Poincaré, however, failed to connect E with the mass of any real body. (Source)
2. Given modern society's disdain for complexity, most people even considering anything longer than a tweet "too much trouble," I cannot imagine that anyone can do justice to any national problem in the amount of space it'd take to prove E=mc^2, which isn't at all a complex proof.
3. It's probably worth noting that a teacher's job is to make the complicated be readily, if not easily, understood, but politician's isn't to teach, it's to explain. I know the distinction is subtle, but it's nonetheless there -- teaching necessarily include explaining, but explaining need not include teaching. On need only read any of the papers I linked above, with possible exception of Born's. Their authors explained plenty, but they had no explicitly didactic aims in publishing their ideas; the rhetorical purpose was to say "Hey. Look at what I've discovered. Given what I've found, we can be confident that "such and such" is so and, accordingly conclude/predict "thus and such...."