Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Comments
-
There's been a marked dis-improvement in race relations since the beginning of the obama administration for one.
There's an interesting article here actually
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/203123/america-changed-during-obama-years.aspx
But essentially the problem was a shift to the left by Obama's america after the GW years.
The GOP had been using the Southern strategy for decades. Their position is therefore de facto racist. A black president was always going to organically alarm racists in the GOP. Also white christian supremacists like the council for national policy had been slowly capturing the GOP.
But the extent of what happened was not organic: The Tea party was set up specifically to incite this. Far right proaganda was created. Hate speech was laundered through outlets liek Breitbart news. The Daily Stormer literally sending articles in and Milo rephrasing them to sit them inside the overton window.
The racists/fascists were not ready for a president with black skin. So what?
They now need to be taken care of.0 -
hill16bhoy wrote: »You haven't demonstrated in any way there that the US is an anti-male society.
In fact you've demonstrated the opposite. People rightly protested because they see justice being denied in an effort to railroad through the nomination of somebody clearly not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
And they were completely correct in the assertion that justice was being denied - first of all in the refusal to investigate, then as regards the sham investigtion which followed, as well the public attempt from the Republican party and the entire pro-Republican media to publicly attempt to shame Christine Blasey Ford.
That you describe them as an "angry mob" gives a huge clue as to your bona fides.
Now you're telling us that "straight white males" are discriminated against, and are citing the existence of any sort of affirmative action programme as evidence of this.
That's laughable.
You have completely failed to back up your assertion with any evidence.
You need to read Peter Beinart's recent piece in The Atlantic,and particualrly this passage.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/has-american-politics-hit-rock-bottom/572452/
Because your claim that US society is anti-male is about as legitimate as a claim that US society in 1963 was anti-white.
How is he clearly unfit?
Based on uncorroborated claims, which he is still innocent of (as he has not been convicted in a court of law)?
Or is it based on his performance in the farce of a hearing where he was asked questions such as "do you like beer", "did you drink in college"
How would you like if you had a disciplinary hearing in work and were faced with questions about your college life from 30 years ago?? Mind = blown.0 -
The GOP had been using the Southern strategy for decades. Their position is therefore de facto racist. A black president was always going to organically alarm racists in the GOP. Also white christian supremacists like the council for national policy had been slowly capturing the GOP.
But the extent of what happened was not organic: The Tea party was set up specifically to incite this. Far right proaganda was created. Hate speech was laundered through outlets liek Breitbart news. The Daily Stormer literally sending articles in and Milo rephrasing them to sit them inside the overton window.
The racists/fascists were not ready for a president with black skin. So what?
They now need to be taken care of.
But the problem is not with white people, the problem is with black hatred and black violence, between whites and blacks and between blacks and other blacks. Don't forget that the largest killer of blacks by homicide are other blacks.
The biggest problem is that America needs to get away from this idea of categorisation by race. Obama's presidency made it worse not better because he wasn't a president solely, he was a black president. If he was just a president there wouldnt have been such a problem.0 -
Now it's your turn to find anywhere I have ever stated or advocated that online or offline.
You just support politicians that do and don't speak against it.
I'll give you another hand with that list.
1. He held up a flag.
2. Muslim ban
3. <text goes here>
This is the first time a Trump supporter has failed to say something good about dear leader. What about all the tax cuts a gay couple will get? Assuming they are allowed to get married if they live in a republican state. I even threw in the Muslim ban for you, last thing America needs is more religious people to vote republican.0 -
So Elm, you don't have anything in particular that Obama did that drove you to want it reversed, just the left agenda as a whole?
And you are willing to potentially see the rights of your friends and colleagues reduced in order that you get back whatever it is that you felt was lost?
So, there is the very real potential that Trump SCOTUS picks could, at the very least, bring abortion rights into play and leave individual states open to bringing in the very smallest of rights in the knowledge they will be backed by the SCOTUS.
You are happy that LGBTQ people have been openly discussed as being negative to the army (and thus allowing a conversation about the value of these people)? Again, all on the alter of getting rid of PC nonsense.
Yet so seem to have an issue with your perception that white males are loosing their rights? So your rights are more important and others?
You seem totally unable to explain why you have accepted such a trade off. You mentioned that race diversity increased during Obama. Do you have any idea why that would be? I have seen that line before, with the clear intent that Obama was the problem. Isn't it more likely that white men, suddenly faced with a changing US, increased their hatred. And Trump was the embodiment of that. Taking back the US so the times before Black men were POTUS, before minorities had an equal voice, before women could run for POTUS.0 -
Advertisement
-
The biggest problem is that America needs to get away from this idea of categorisation by race. Obama's presidency made it worse not better because he wasn't a president solely, he was a black president. If he was just a president there wouldnt have been such a problem.
He was a black president to you. To most people he was president.
i think your posts sums up your position pretty clearly.0 -
This is a discussion forum. Saying "it's self-explanatory" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Really...
If it's not self explanatory that for a right wing supporter that a left wing administration moved too far left then I can't see the merit in spending time explaining again.
Can you name me a country that doesn't interfere in the market? Can you name an example of a country where there is no market interference and which is successful?Yes. Ireland and most of the non-US western world is way too far left. We give lifetime welfare, free healthcare, free this and free that, welfare card for this and allowance for that. We interfere in the market everywhere (latest being the RPZ) and we fund everything from the squeezed middle. Loudmouths like AAA/PBP and the ilk of margaret cash get everything for free.
That is too far fiscally left wing.
So, are you saying that there should be no such thing as the welfare state at all?
What payments in particular do you have a problem with?
For example, as a full-time carer for a sick parent I receive €214 a week. Is this too much, or what should I be expected to live on?
Bear in mind now that the countries with the most developed welfare states tend to be the most fiscally responible.
Sweden, for instance, has a debt to GDP ratio of 42%, compared to the US's 105% - the lion's share of which was inflated by Ronald Reagan and the 2008 financial crash which George W. Bush's policies did so much to precipitate.
In the UK, since World War II, Labour governments have been more fiscally responsible than Conservative ones - borrowing less on average and paying back considerably more national debt on average.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/0 -
Ah the polls. Which gave Trump and Brexit as a "NO".
This statement tells me all I need to know. It demonstrates a serious lack of critical thinking skills.
EDIT:
A 70% chance of something happening doesn't mean that something will happen. 70% =/= 100%. The polls themselves were fairly spot on.
I have seen this line about Trump and brexit and polls so many times and this sort of ignorance bugs me. People should already understand this aspect of probability. Anyone who has seen the horse racing news knows that the favourite doesn't always win. And yet people are willing to state nonsense like what I quoted above.0 -
But the problem is not with white people, the problem is with black hatred and black violence, between whites and blacks and between blacks and other blacks. Don't forget that the largest killer of blacks by homicide are other blacks.
The biggest problem is that America needs to get away from this idea of categorisation by race. Obama's presidency made it worse not better because he wasn't a president solely, he was a black president. If he was just a president there wouldnt have been such a problem.
I have just pointed out how white supremacy grew with reference to specific organisations and groups. Can you try to refute this argument or at least try and substantiate your own?0 -
Aaaaand here's where the discussion has changed from respectful debate to condescension.
I'll drop out now for a while.
Pity, this was going so well earlier. Have a good one folks.0 -
Advertisement
-
How is he clearly unfit?
Based on uncorroborated claims, which he is still innocent of (as he has not been convicted in a court of law)?
Or is it based on his performance in the farce of a hearing where he was asked questions such as "do you like beer", "did you drink in college"
How would you like if you had a disciplinary hearing in work and were faced with questions about your college life from 30 years ago?? Mind = blown.
He is unfit for a number of reasons
1. He lied continuously. He lied on national tv, he lied under oath during the hearing.
2. He showed himself to be completely partisan. Firstly by going on Fox News and attempting to gain sympathy from that networks millions of mostly older right wing conservative viewers and secondly by claiming there was a Democratic conspiracy against him.
3. He showed very little composure under scrutiny.
If most of us had a disciplinary hearing about our college life I doubt we would lie through our teeth about it.0 -
rossie1977 wrote: »He is unfit for a number of reasons
1. He lied continuously. He lied on national tv, he lied under oath during the hearing.
2. He showed himself to be completely partisan. Firstly by going on Fox News and attempting to gain sympathy from that networks millions of mostly older right wing conservative viewers and secondly by claiming there was a Democratic conspiracy against him.
3. He showed very little composure under scrutiny.
If most of us had a disciplinary hearing about our college life I doubt we would lie through our teeth about it.
Sure I've listed about 20 facts and reasons in one post - twice! No one has come back to counter those.
Trump supporters will bluff that her testimony was either false, or it wasn't him, or that the lies are superficial ones, about drinking habits.
That is what they want to see. Facts don't count in the main.0 -
everlast75 wrote: »Sure I've listed about 20 facts and reasons in one post - twice! No one has come back to counter those.
Trump supporters will bluff that her testimony was either false, or it wasn't him, or that the lies are superficial ones, about drinking habits.
That is what they want to see. Facts don't count in the main.
"I believe everything she said... except the one part that's inconvenient for me politically even though she said under oath she's 100% sure it was him" - Susan Collins (paraphrased, not direct quote)0 -
This is a slight grey area legally, as all allegations are assumed to be true unless proven otherwise, but all accused are innocent until proven otherwise. The latter part was forgotten by the angry mob who already decided Kavanaugh was guilty, so I guess in turn the POTUS and his supporters have adopted a similar stance to the former.
If you notice, Trump's position changed from "let's see what she has to say, but Kavanaugh is a good man", to attacking her, based on his assessment of what the voter base wanted.
FYI - Trump would not and will not apologise. I, along with a lot of his supporters, would lose a lot of respect for him if he did.
Edited to add: I actually don't support his/GOP stance on abortion, but it's better than another 8 years of Obama2 aka hillary.
Is there not an anomaly in Don Trump's position [on Prof Ford] dropping his original estimate that she was a credible witness to attacking her purely on political grounds on his assessment of what the voter base wanted, instead of him sticking to his original estimate that she was a credible witness and leading from the front?0 -
Statesmanship is the word you were looking for.
Trump is not "statesman"
I don't like the mocking of disabled people, but the rest of the mocking is a direct riposte to the excesses of the extreme feminism, extreme "kava-no" variants from the metoo movement and so on.
I see there is a large group of people who, while they may not find the mocking of women to be ok, they find the extreme man hating feminist agenda even more "less ok" and as such voted for trump as a protest.
Speaking of agendas, there's an agenda online perpetuated by the left/anti Trump media that all Trump supporters are unintelligent barely intelligible braindead unemployable morons. It is common here too.
I don't fit any of these stereotypes, I was on the school debate team, even the chess team for a while. I played rugby at my secondary school for 6 years. I work in fintech and while I'm no where near the 1%, I'm well paid for what I do. I'm a member of the diversity group at work which aims to promote rights for minority groups and LGBTQ. I'm by no means the only trump supporter that doesn't fit this media perpetuated stereotype.
A vote for Trump was often a vote in protest against a pandering politically correct anti male society.
Great post.0 -
Why would Nikki Haley resign 4 weeks out from the mid-terms when she's leaving Dec 31st? Why not announce it after the mid-terms are over?
I'm presuming Haley doesn't want to get lumped into the mix of post-midterms firings/resignations: Sessions is a goner and Don McGahn will go out under a cloud in Nov/Dec, whatever way the results go. She's leaving on her own terms and it's actually a pretty good time for her to go. 2 years as UN ambassador isn't actually too bad. She'll fall into a role on the board of some multinational, she'll earn a few bob on the lecturing circuit and she can point to her foreign policy experience for any future WH run. There's also the possibility, as speculated by her fellow South Carolinian and former colleague Mark Sandford, that she's anticipating some stories to drop about trips on private jets with some SC millionaires. She definitely doesn't want to end up like Price or Pruitt.
Also, there are two more years of this train-wreck of a presidency left and if Dems take the house next month, it's going to get a lot uglier. Who knows what Trump will do when he's been harried day and night by even more investigations and his legislative agenda is impeded. The next ambassador to the UN could have serious problems on their hands if Trump turns his hand to one of the areas he has most control: war-making.0 -
Great post.
Agreed.
There is no one on this earth more put upon that the white male.
Blacks, gay people, hispanic, women, people from "sh1thole" countries. They've been getting it their own way, ruling the roost for thousands of years.
Sure, they don't have equal civil rights, voting rights, equal pay, workers rights in general, proportional representation, equal life expectancy etc etc, but apart from that, they have had it S.W.E.E.T.!
I mean, when are white men ever gonna catch a break????0 -
FYI - Trump would not and will not apologise. I, along with a lot of his supporters, would lose a lot of respect for him if he did
So you "respect" (your word, not mine) a guy who has lied 4000+ times in the last 18 months or so, has had multiple affairs on his partners, lied to the electorate about how he made his money, one thing he continually bragged about and was surely a huge condition upon which a lot of people would have voted for him on, committed systemic tax fraud along with his dad and siblings for decades.. and won't apologise when he is wrong?
Ridiculous.0 -
How is he clearly unfit?
Based on uncorroborated claims, which he is still innocent of (as he has not been convicted in a court of law)?
Or is it based on his performance in the farce of a hearing where he was asked questions such as "do you like beer", "did you drink in college"
How would you like if you had a disciplinary hearing in work and were faced with questions about your college life from 30 years ago?? Mind = blown.
If I was the type of man who assaulted women I probably wouldn't like it at all.
The standard for a supreme court judge is not 'was not convicted of sexually assaulting a woman'.
One of the standards is not to lie in court to get your job.
Kavanaugh provably lied 20 times in court by counts and thus is unfit and should be impeached.
Also, the president and Fox news said that Ford was a credible witness.
If a person believes that they were attacked by a supreme court nominee it is civic of them to come forward and testify that the perspn is unfit.
What is your problem?0 -
The current make-up of the SCOTUS is not a Trump achievement in any way shape or form , it's 100% A Mitch McConnell achievement.
McConnell brazened out the delay around Garland and whilst yes , Trump picked Kavanaugh , it was McConnell and Grassley that got the job done. Trump had zero involvement in working through the Senate procedures , cloture etc. etc. that got Kavanaugh confirmed.
I think your letting your anti-Trump bias cloud your judgement, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanugh for one might differ with the idea that the " current makeup of the SCOTUS is not a Trump achievement in any way shape or form "
There is no one credibly making a case that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is not a direct result of Donald Trump.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 15048
I think your letting your anti-Trump bias cloud your judgement, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanugh for one might differ with the idea that the " current makeup of the SCOTUS is not a Trump achievement in any way shape or form "
There is no one credibly making a case that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is not a direct result of Donald Trump.
Please explain what exactly Donald Trump did to get the two seats filled? Other than getting Elected as a Republican President?
If he'd gotten a seat filled with a Democrat controlled Senate , then yes , that would be an achievement.. but in a GOP control Senate , it's a gimme.. No effort required, although by picking Kavanaugh (who he was warned would be very difficult to confirm) he almost screwed it up..
It's McConnells naked partizanship and frankly brass neck that got Trump the opportunity to fill the Scalia seat and pure luck on the Kennedy seat (unless you're suggesting that Trump in some way pressured Kennedy to retire??).
It's not an "achievement" for him at all.0 -
Statesmanship is the word you were looking for.
Trump is not "statesman"
I don't like the mocking of disabled people, but the rest of the mocking is a direct riposte to the excesses of the extreme feminism, extreme "kava-no" variants from the metoo movement and so on.
I see there is a large group of people who, while they may not find the mocking of women to be ok, they find the extreme man hating feminist agenda even more "less ok" and as such voted for trump as a protest.
Speaking of agendas, there's an agenda online perpetuated by the left/anti Trump media that all Trump supporters are unintelligent barely intelligible braindead unemployable morons. It is common here too.
I don't fit any of these stereotypes, I was on the school debate team, even the chess team for a while. I played rugby at my secondary school for 6 years. I work in fintech and while I'm no where near the 1%, I'm well paid for what I do. I'm a member of the diversity group at work which aims to promote rights for minority groups and LGBTQ. I'm by no means the only trump supporter that doesn't fit this media perpetuated stereotype.
A vote for Trump was often a vote in protest against a pandering politically correct anti male society.
Why are you focusing on a tiny minority of women and using them as a yardstick. Grow a pair of balls man will you, that sort of ****e is beyond its embarrassing sell by date.0 -
I think your letting your anti-Trump bias cloud your judgement, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanugh for one might differ with the idea that the " current makeup of the SCOTUS is not a Trump achievement in any way shape or form "
There is no one credibly making a case that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is not a direct result of Donald Trump.
Is this a claim that Don is responsible for the make-up of the bench [nine members] entirely or the promotion of two of the justices to the bench? Are you saying he's made the USSC a majority or majorly conservative court?0 -
God I wish ignoring folks here meant their wearisome, everyone-hates-men dibblings wouldnt appear in other posters' replies.0
-
Please explain what exactly Donald Trump did to get the two seats filled? Other than getting Elected as a Republican President?
If he'd gotten a seat filled with a Democrat controlled Senate , then yes , that would be an achievement.. but in a GOP control Senate , it's a gimme.. No effort required, although by picking Kavanaugh (who he was warned would be very difficult to confirm) he almost screwed it up..
It's McConnells naked partizanship and frankly brass neck that got Trump the opportunity to fill the Scalia seat and pure luck on the Kennedy seat (unless you're suggesting that Trump in some way pressured Kennedy to retire??).
It's not an "achievement" for him at all.aloyisious wrote: »Is this a claim that Don is responsible for the make-up of the bench [nine members] entirely or the promotion of two of the justices to the bench? Are you saying he's made the USSC a majority or majorly conservative court?
I think CNN probably put it best ...
President Donald Trump's winning streak
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.htmlTrump became an undeniably consequential President when Senate voted Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, consecrating the conservative majority that has long been the impossible dream of the GOP.
Theres no gimmes these days. The left liberal anti-Trumpers should have learned that lessen after 2016 when HRC blew her 'gimme' election.
So yep, its a major achievement for Trump and the Trump Administration, to have 2 SCOTUS appointments in less than 2 years.
Bret Kavanaugh has started his first day at work, already working a docket of cases in his new role.
And factor in the energy it has added to the GOP pre mid-terms then its been a massive month of wins and achievements for the Trump Administration.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
Thing is, despite insistences to the contrary, Donald Trump does not lead. Not as CEO, nor as President. Certainly not leading in the Steve Jobs mould, where the Apple CEO demanded eye-watering precision, and had a hands-on approach to the minutiae (arguably you can see the slipping standards since his death, but that's another topic). Trump preferred to simply make a pronouncement, demanded executives to sort it out so the CEO could swoop in to take the plaudits - or fire those who didn't step up to demands. Like, he literally carved a TV career out of this approach via his "You're Fired" catchphrase - this isn't particularly revelatory, or indeed, "Anti Trump". This scattershot CEO-as-King yielded results like Trump Steaks or Trump's infamous casino disasters.
Trump as President is simply continuing the only way he knows how: make the demand (of the GOP) to get it (a bill, Supreme Court pick etc.) passed through the Houses, while publicly humiliating or castigating those who cannot deliver on the demand fast enough. It just isn't in his character or preferred way of conducting business to work alongside people - or indeed with them.
Witness the borderline calamitous attempts to pass that Healthcare bill; reports at the time echoed those CEO days in his steadfast refusal to involve himself in the horse trading of whipping votes, while sitting on the sidelines carping at McConnell & the other GOP leadership. "Who knew healthcare was so complicated?" - remember those words? Donald Trump does not get his hands dirty - that's the job of his underlings. Only of course, you don't own the government so you have the John McCain's of the world refusing to kowtow to the CEO. Cue refusal to even acknowledge the senator when he dies. You don't say no to the boss.
So as to Kavaunagh? No, this is not an achievement for Trump because he literally had to pick ONE name from a list of 27 (IIRC), that was the sum total of his political involvement, at which point it fell to McConnell once more to make it work. And were the midterms not just around the corner it's entirely debatable whether Mitch would have continued pursuing an increasingly toxic pick.
Donald Trump does not lead. Donald Trump tells you what he wants, and lets others sweat the details. "Shoot them all and let God sort it out" way of leading. And with others sorting out the details, he's free to bask in the adulation of rallies (handy tax breaks there in calling them the 2020 campaign), in between record-breaking days spent golfing.
Whether that's what you want in a President is up to you - but Donald Trump is not a leader. He's a monarch.0 -
Thing is, despite insistences to the contrary, Donald Trump does not lead. Not as CEO, nor as President. Certainly not leading in the Steve Jobs mould, where the Apple CEO demanded eye-watering precision, and had a hands-on approach to the minutiae (arguably you can see the slipping standards since his death, but that's another topic). Trump preferred to simply make a pronouncement, demanded executives to sort it out so the CEO could swoop in to take the plaudits - or fire those who didn't step up to demands. Like, he literally carved a TV career out of this approach via his "You're Fired" catchphrase - this isn't particularly revelatory, or indeed, "Anti Trump". This scattershot CEO-as-King yielded results like Trump Steaks or Trump's infamous casino disasters.
Trump as President is simply continuing the only way he knows how: make the demand (of the GOP) to get it (a bill, Supreme Court pick etc.) passed through the Houses, while publicly humiliating or castigating those who cannot deliver on the demand fast enough. It just isn't in his character or preferred way of conducting business to work alongside people - or indeed with them.
Witness the borderline calamitous attempts to pass that Healthcare bill; reports at the time echoed those CEO days in his steadfast refusal to involve himself in the horse trading of whipping votes, while sitting on the sidelines carping at McConnell & the other GOP leadership. "Who knew healthcare was so complicated?" - remember those words? Donald Trump does not get his hands dirty - that's the job of his underlings. Only of course, you don't own the government so you have the John McCain's of the world refusing to kowtow to the CEO. Cue refusal to even acknowledge the senator when he dies. You don't say no to the boss.
So as to Kavaunagh? No, this is not an achievement for Trump because he literally had to pick ONE name from a list of 27 (IIRC), that was the sum total of his political involvement, at which point it fell to McConnell once more to make it work. And were the midterms not just around the corner it's entirely debatable whether Mitch would have continued pursuing an increasingly toxic pick.
Donald Trump does not lead. Donald Trump tells you what he wants, and lets others sweat the details. "Shoot them all and let God sort it out" way of leading. And with others sorting out the details, he's free to bask in the adulation of rallies (handy tax breaks there in calling them the 2020 campaign), in between record-breaking days spent golfing.
Whether that's what you want in a President is up to you - but Donald Trump is not a leader. He's a monarch.
So now TRump is being stuck as a Royalist.
I think the totalitarian liberal left anti-trump are losing it.
One day the Trump adminstration is the Taliban , the next day they are the Court of Louis XIV.
Meanwhile in the real world of American politics and geo-political achievements, Brett Kavanagh takes his seat on the Supreme Court, unemployment continues to fall, NK talks continue moving forward and the mid-terms get ever closer and still no sign of the red wave .
I think the left should try to figure out some policys and strategys.
Calling the GOP some kind of Taliban or monarchy is not going to win any votes or convince anyone of anything.
Trump delivers on one of his major campaign promises from 2015, securing the conservative majority supreme court the GOP has waited 50 years for ... and all the totalitarian left can come up with is that he is a Monarch !0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
So now TRump is being stuck as a Royalist.
I think the totalitarian liberal left anti-trump are losing it.
Did you even bother reading what I posted? Or are you in such a rush to make snide condescending dismissals you just jumped on the first thing offending your eyes? It's a joke to think that even trying to meet you halfway with a sober discussion of Trumps past style you can't resist - you just can't avoid - attacking the poster. It's intellectual cowardice on your part.
How would you describe Trumps CEO style?
You want to debate: I'm here asking you. You're a fan, that's clear. Historically his management style is there for all to see, and if you can think of a better synonym to describe the "Do as I say" style than that of an absolute monarch, be my guest. Donald Trump doesn't do details. It predates his Presidency.
Do you feel true leadership means taking zero control of the implementation?0 -
Did you even bother reading what I posted? Or are you in such a rush to make snide condescending dismissals you just jumped on the first thing offending your eyes?
How would you describe Trumps CEO style?
You want to debate: I'm here asking you. Historically his management style is there for all to see, and if you can think of a better synonym to describe the "Do as I say" style than that of an absolute monarch, be my guest. Donald Trump doesn't do details. It predates his Presidency.
Do you feel true leadership means taking zero control of the implementation?
He is the 45th President of the United States of America, I dont know why you call him a CEO.
He had an election manifesto, won the election and is now implementing those promises, with some promises already delivered on .
His style, in a very brief description which does not do justice to all the nuances of the role, is as Presidential candidate and now President is to make promises and outline his policys to the American people, get voters to support him and the GOP candidates because of these promises and policy and then move those policys thru the machine that is the US triumvarate.
Voters have an option to decide on Nov 6th if they support their President or not in all of the above.
It couldnt be simpler.0 -
Advertisement
-
jooksavage wrote: »I'm presuming Haley doesn't want to get lumped into the mix of post-midterms firings/resignations: Sessions is a goner and Don McGahn will go out under a cloud in Nov/Dec, whatever way the results go. She's leaving on her own terms and it's actually a pretty good time for her to go. 2 years as UN ambassador isn't actually too bad. She'll fall into a role on the board of some multinational, she'll earn a few bob on the lecturing circuit and she can point to her foreign policy experience for any future WH run. There's also the possibility, as speculated by her fellow South Carolinian and former colleague Mark Sandford, that she's anticipating some stories to drop about trips on private jets with some SC millionaires. She definitely doesn't want to end up like Price or Pruitt.
Also, there are two more years of this train-wreck of a presidency left and if Dems take the house next month, it's going to get a lot uglier. Who knows what Trump will do when he's been harried day and night by even more investigations and his legislative agenda is impeded. The next ambassador to the UN could have serious problems on their hands if Trump turns his hand to one of the areas he has most control: war-making.
There's a bunch of speculation about Haley. That Sessions gets dumped, Lindsey Graham goes to AG and Haley gets appointed as senator in SC. Another school of thought says she's ridden her luck in terms of not getting pulled into any of this administration's scandals or screw-ups and just wants to spend a couple of years cashing in on her profile before re-assessing the lie of the land after 2020.
My gut feeling is that that there's another shoe to drop but it's not necessarily to do with plane trips. Mueller is winding uo his investigation and it's a fair guess that there is a bucket of charges to be doled out upon senior Trump administration people. I reckon Haley wants to be completely unconnected to the regime when the schit hits the fan.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement