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

[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.

 

[Dale Smith]

....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.

That is your opinion. There is no one that is more jaded about the political system than me. Presidents have been selected instead of elected and for the first time since JFK, America might just have a chance at turning this thing around and it's in worse shape than you could ever imagine. You are totally stuck in this "left versus right" paradigm and you actually believe that there is a difference between the two parties at the top and you couldn't be more wrong. Those of them that can't be bought, are compromised in order to keep this debt slavery system in place while our labor and sweat equity is borrowed against to the Fed bank owned mostly by foreigners.

Until Trump gives me a reason to throw him under the bus and lump him in as another puppet of the shadow government that he appears to be fighting? I am going to support his efforts the best I can. Trump on his worst day is better than the last six CEOs of USA.INC.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

....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.

 

[Tax Man]

So far tRump has done so many things that are harmful to America in his first 6 months he should not get any more time to totally de3stroy us.

 

[gipper]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

 

[Dale Smith]

So far tRump has done so many things that are harmful to America in his first 6 months he should not get any more time to totally de3stroy us.

Name them.......and be precise......the fact that he isn't a commie sack of shit isn't an example.

 

[MACAULAY]

So far tRump has done so many things that are harmful to America in his first 6 months he should not get any more time to totally de3stroy us.

__________________

And here is my opinion:

Waiting for the chance to contribute to his re-election campaign.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So far tRump has done so many things that are harmful to America in his first 6 months he should not get any more time to totally de3stroy us.

__________________

And here is my opinion:

Waiting for the chance to contribute to his re-election campaign.

OT:
What are you waiting for? He's already announced his candidacy for POTUS in 2020 and he's got a campaign organization in place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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

 

[usmbguest5318]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

....and which is exactly what the Framers had in mind for the man to fill the office of President.

Plus one other thing, possibly the most important. The President had to be a man of integrity. One who sticks to his ideals, tries to decide what would really be best for the country, and then is relentless in pursuing it. It goes without saying that the President must know what's really good for the country. A President who pushes plans that cannot work, is not what they wanted.

Trump is not perfect in that last qualification. He's merely a lot better at it overall, than the last President.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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'd say the biggest problem is that people feel they can only vote for two parties. These two parties then make sure people listen to what they say, rather than the politicians listening to the people. The people can't force policies into being, like they can in other countries, because the Republicans and Democrats know they can do ANYTHING and still win votes.

Proportional Representation would allow for MORE PARTIES, which would mean parties would focus on certain issues the people have, and then people would vote for issues that they want to get into power.

Government would be about compromise before they've even started, and more sensible govt would ensue. Also, for people like Trump, it would be harder if there were a French style system of a run off vote with PR, he's have to appeal to ALL PEOPLE, and not just a percentage of 12 states. Also, people would vote for whoever they prefer the first round, then vote for who they don't want the second round.

 

[Lakhota]

....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.

There's a name for that.

Peter principle - Wikipedia

 

[gipper]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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?

 

[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.

There's a name for that.

Peter principle - Wikipedia

Yes, that's the notion of rising to the level of one's incompetence. Elective office is one of the few areas in which that happens these days. It happens because the groups that determine who gets to hold political and high political office don't, for the most part, have the first idea of what it takes to be excellent at public policymaking and governance. Too, our various governing organizations are filled with people who are pros at some of the issues upon which they're called to legislate, enact, interpret and enforce governing policy, but there's not nearly enough variety among them and the weight of numbers fall in the disciplines having little to do with the most important policies for which they must legislate.

In the 115th Congress, the following careers are represented

• 3 physicians in the Senate
• 11 physicians in the House,
• 4 dentists and 3 veterinarians (House)
  
• 3 psychologists (all in the House)
• 1 optometrist (in the Senate)
• 1 pharmacist (in the House)
• 2 nurses (in the House)
  
• 8 ordained ministers (House)
• 62 attorneys between both chambers
• 3 sheriffs (House)
• 6 police officers (House)
• 1 firefighter (House)
• 1 CIA agent (House)
• 1 FBI agent (House)
  
• 1 physicist (House)
• 1 microbiologist (House)
• 1 chemist (House)
  
• 8 engineers (7 in the House and 1 in the Senate)
  
• 21 public relations or communications professionals (3 in the Senate, 18 in the House)
• 11 accountants (2 in the Senate and 9 in the House)
  
• 6 software company executives in the House and 2 in the Senate
  
• 18 management consultants (4 in the Senate, 14 in the House) (this is the group that the one professional economist in Congress is in)
• 6 car dealership owners (House)
• 3 venture capitalists (2 in the House, 1 in the Senate)
  
• 18 bankers or bank executives (4 in the Senate, 14 in the House)
• 36 veterans of the real estate industry (5 in the Senate, 31 in the House)
• 14 Members who have worked in the construction industry (2 in the Senate, 12 in the House)
  
• 9 social workers (one in the Senate, eight in the House)
• 3 union representatives (all in the House)
  
• 7 radio talk show hosts (one Senate, six House)
• 7 radio or television broadcasters, managers, or owners (two Senate, five House)
• 8 reporters or journalists (one Senate, seven House)
• 1 public television producer in the House
• 1 newspapers publisher in the House
  
• 21 insurance agents or executives (4 Senate, 17 House)
• 3 Members who have worked with stocks or bonds (1 Senate, 2 House)
  
• 1 screenwriter and comedian (Senate
• 1 documentary filmmaker (Senate)
• 1 artist (House)
• 2 speechwriters (House)
• 26 farmers, ranchers, or cattle farm owners (4 in the Senate, 22 in the House
• 2 almond orchard owners in the House
• 1 vintner (House)
• 10 current members of the military reserves (9 House, 1 Senate)
• 6 current members of the National Guard (House)
• Jobs for which I don't know which chamber the holders are in:
  • 1 emergency dispatcher
  • 1 letter carrier
  • 1 urban planner
  • 1 astronaut,
  • 1 pilot
  • 1flight attendant
  • 1 electrician
  • 1 museum director
  • 1 rodeo announcer
  • 1 carpenter
  • 1 computer systems analyst
  • 1 software engineer
  • 1 R&D lab executive
  • 1 explosives expert

Think about this. For as important as economics are in the making of so much of public policy, how many members of Congress are indeed economists -- hold a master's degree or higher in the field and or have extensive professional experience as an economist? AFAIK, one, and that one represents only one school of economic thought. I know of one member of Congress who has a BS in economics. and about 30 who can be assumed to have taken principles of economics, but nothing more than that.

Earlier this year I had an exchange with a senior member of Congress about the incidence of tax as goes the GOP's currently (then) floated ideas about tax plan changes. Rather than being a conversation about how to structure provisions of the plan so the incidence falls less on people who can least afford it, which is what I was told would the the purpose of the conversation, it ended up being more of a one-on-one teaching session that any instructor would give in a principles of economic class for undergrads. The principles and math of it were completely new to him, and he's been in Congress for over a decade.

As goes the Peter Principle itself and it's manifestation in enterprise, in 25+ years of providing strategic consulting services to "Fortune 500" companies, I don't know any that these days promote that way. The "up or out" firm in which I'm currently a partner doesn't promote that way either; one will not be promoted until one demonstrates a year's worth of performance at the next level. The consequence of that is that people leave the firm being successes at their current level. That's good for the employee in that when they leave, they still get a good reference from us as goes their performance at the level at which they left the firm. After all, why would we have something bad to say about one's performance in a job one didn't obtain?

 

[Muhammed]

....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.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We have had so many bad men become POTUS. Trump is no different. Our system is not working and needs changing.

That said, we can all agree that Hillary would have been worse. That is not saying much, since both he and her are two of the worst people in the country.

A great man said the worst among us become politicians. So true.

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.