Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

How many has it been now, I've lost count.

Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers.  Why do you object to that?  Aren;t your complaints just politics?  Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less.  "you're fired" is his style. 

Look at Trump properties.  They represent the finest in materials and execution.  Why do you think 500 companies have done business with Trump using the Trump name on their hotels on other properties.  Most of these are not Trump properties.  They are owned by others.  Trump sells them his name.  These developers know his name drawers richer people willing to spend more on elegance and class as well as power. 

[faberryman]

Trump demands loyalty and excellence from his workers.  Why do you object to that?  Aren;t your complaints just politics?  Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less.  "you're fired" is his style. 

Look at Trump properties.  They represent the finest in materials and execution.  Why do you think 500 companies have done business with Trump using the Trump name on their hotels on other properties.  Most of these are not Trump properties.  They are owned by others.  Trump sells them his name.  These developers know his name drawers richer people willing to spend more on elegance and class as well as power.

Your posts are just hilarious.

[Alan Klein]

Your posts are just hilarious.

You're pretty funny too.

[James Clark]

Other presidents put up with just average subordinates.  Trump wants excellence in his people and won't accept less. 

Oh good grief, Alan.   I don't think anyone actually *believes* deep down inside that this is true.  Or perhaps more accurately, there's a serious disconnect between what Trump defines as "excellence" and what a sane person defines as such.   

I mean, no one that's serious defines Sara Sanders, Ken Cuccinelli and Kris Kobach as "excellence."  The problem with Trump, and to a lesser extent, hard-right Republicans is that they give far too much credence to ideologues and populists who have no grounding in reality or policy, but are trained to advance basic "common sense" emotionally-based solutions to what are actually incredibly complex problems.  Which is why you have guys like Hannity and Steve Doocy (God help us - when I was growing up in DC he was the "wacky personality segment guy on the local NBC affiliate IIRC) as de facto policy directors, and why here in Texas and in Ohio we elected idiot AM radio philosophers (Dan Patrick and Mike Pence, respectively)  to critical positions in their respective states, and of course Donald Trump to the presidency.  There's no "excellence" there, at least insomuch as we're talking about governing a nation...

I know that I'm probably perceived as a loony lefty here, but I'm really not.  I'm not a Warren guy or a Bernie guy - hell, I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012 (I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though his VP candidate was woefully unprepared), but I just don't understand why some segment of the electorate is so susceptible to simplistic messaging and, frankly, policy developed not with any experience or analysis, but by what some bozo on TV tells them when you know damn well that bozo's goal is to craft the least objective argument possible.

[Alan Klein]

Oh good grief, Alan.   I don't think anyone actually *believes* deep down inside that this is true.  Or perhaps more accurately, there's a serious disconnect between what Trump defines as "excellence" and what a sane person defines as such.   

I mean, no one that's serious defines Sara Sanders, Ken Cuccinelli and Kris Kobach as "excellence."  The problem with Trump, and to a lesser extent, hard-right Republicans is that they give far too much credence to ideologues and populists who have no grounding in reality or policy, but are trained to advance basic "common sense" emotionally-based solutions to what are actually incredibly complex problems.  Which is why you have guys like Hannity and Steve Doocy (God help us - when I was growing up in DC he was the "wacky personality segment guy on the local NBC affiliate IIRC) as de facto policy directors, and why here in Texas and in Ohio we elected idiot AM radio philosophers (Dan Patrick and Mike Pence, respectively)  to critical positions in their respective states, and of course Donald Trump to the presidency.  There's no "excellence" there, at least insomuch as we're talking about governing a nation...

I know that I'm probably perceived as a loony lefty here, but I'm really not.  I'm not a Warren guy or a Bernie guy - hell, I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012 (I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though his VP candidate was woefully unprepared), but I just don't understand why some segment of the electorate is so susceptible to simplistic messaging and, frankly, policy developed not with any experience or analysis, but by what some bozo on TV tells them when you know damn well that bozo's goal is to craft the least objective argument possible.

James you cherry picked one sentence from two posts I made regarding this issue. I said that Trump wants loyalty as well as excellence.  Obviously loyalty comes first and most alpha leaders insist upon it. Everything else is second.  I never said the Secretary of the Navy was an average administrator.  What I said was his policy was in conflict with the presidents and he had to go.  I even agreed with the Navy in this situation opposing Trump's action that the military should decide.  But that part is politics.

It's hard to write how effective a president is during his term.  Usually it takes 20-30 years or more when people don't have an ax to grind to determine just how effective the president was.  We also need time for history to work its processes.  Many recent presidents well steeped in politics who used other very well experience advisors did terribly.  Either because their advisors were wrong or they overrode them and went down a wrong path.  Johnson  and McNamara "the best and the brightest" got us into the Vietnam disaster.  The second Bush got us into Iraq.  Obama laid the foundation for ISIS.  Clinton ignored the accumulating evidence about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and did little.  How about Nixon and his legal counsel in Watergate?  Where were Carter's advisors during the Iran hostage crisis?   I could go on.  Certainly Trump and his subordinates have their successes and failures already although it is too soon to see how good or bad they really are.  History has a way of reversing itself.

The point is Trump has had stars as well as dim bulbs working for him.  And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power. 

[dreed]

Implying that a participant in this forum - many participants, in fact - are racists because they support Trump is an unacceptable slur, and repeating the accusation more directly is disgraceful. Apologise immediately.

Jeremy

The disgrace is how people can support (by voting for) a president that is both a racist and a misogynist yet themselves pretend not to be either.

How can you claim to not be either yet support and vote for someone that is?

Just as people say "you are what you eat", so too "you are who you vote for." Own it.

And who you work for. Hence why people resign from the Trump administration.

[dreed]

And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.

Bingo.

He cares more for himself than he does the nation.

[Peter McLennan]

The point is Trump has had stars as well as dim bulbs working for him.  And it's Trump's style to not put up with mediocrity or disloyalty especially if it affects his wealth and power.

Name a few of his "stars", please.  And tell us why you think they are so.

[Robert Roaldi]

A friend sent me this link https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/, which reports that Rick Perry likens Trump to King David or Salomon and that he was chosen by god.

My question is how does he know that Trump isn't instead the punishment for some sin? 

[Alan Klein]

Name a few of his "stars", please.  And tell us why you think they are so.

General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were. 

[Alan Klein]

A friend sent me this link https://deadstate.org/rick-perry-trump-is-gods-chosen-one-much-like-king-david-and-solomon/, which reports that Rick Perry likens Trump to King David or Salomon and that he was chosen by god.

My question is how does he know that Trump isn't instead the punishment for some sin? 

Give Perry a break.  The article says that he also said that Obama was sent from God. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Re. your last paragraph, Jeremy: I specifically stated that I had no intentions of challenging your decisions as Moderator, and indeed, my entire post has been - or at least is intended to be - addressed to the wider matter of how society can or should judge things like racism and, in fact, whether or not society making such decisions part of law makes sense at all.

I realise that, Rob. I was just making it perfectly clear that neither you nor anyone else should feel any qualms about such a challenge, provided it is done in a sensible, mature and considered fashion.

Jeremy

[Peter McLennan]

General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.

So, virtually nobody, then. Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.

[Alan Klein]

So, virtually nobody, then. Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.

Peter I get it.  You don't like Trump or his policies.  So don't vote for him. 

[Robert Roaldi]

So, virtually nobody, then. Mattis bailed because he couldn't stand working there.  Pompeo remains to be judged in the light of current developments.  His "economic advisors" have done little, other than steal a trillion dollars from America's future to give to her top 1%

Listing Trump as one of Trump's "stars" seems a little like a self-licking ice cream cone, really.

"Self-licking ice cream cone", never heard that before! Great expression.

[Robert Roaldi]

General/Secretary of Defense Mattis who left,  Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be pretty effective, his economic advisors. Mainly, it's Trump himself. He's a hands on leader who makes the decisions.  He'll defer as long as the subordinate is effective and follows his policies but will grab back the reins if that deviates.  He's use to leading from the top due to the Trump Organization.  At the end of the day, how are things going?  The economy is doing well, unemployment is at its lowest, ISIS was defeated for all practical purpose (I see the EU shut down their online ability yesterday).  That's how leaders are measured.  No one remembers who worked for them.  No one's going to vote for or against Trump in 2020 because of who his subordinates were.

You owe it to yourself to read the first chapter of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk. You need that information for your own good. I know you don't have an open mind about any criticism of Trump, but still, set aside your prior beliefs and read just that chapter.

Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The disgrace is how people can support (by voting for) a president that is both a racist and a misogynist yet themselves pretend not to be either.

How can you claim to not be either yet support and vote for someone that is?

I think it's a little less black or white, because some of them were just against Hillary Clinton, regardless of the consequences. That reeks of desperation, not good judgment.

In this context I kind of like a remark made by Pete Buttigieg:

Democrats can no more turn the clock back to the 1990s, than Republicans can return us back to the 1950's.

Just as people say "you are what you eat", so too "you are who you vote for." Own it.

And who you work for. Hence why people resign from the Trump administration.

Although I'm not a fan of his, two and a half years ago Bill Maher summed up what you suggested quite nicely and with a little more humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o

Some people will go down in history as enablers...

[RSL]

You can put me down as an "enabler," Bart. Here are some of the things my vote has enabled: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments. As James Carville said in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."

[Alan Klein]

I think it's a little less black or white, because some of them were just against Hillary Clinton, regardless of the consequences. That reeks of desperation, not good judgment.

In this context I kind of like a remark made by Pete Buttigieg:
Although I'm not a fan of his, two and a half years ago Bill Maher summed up what you suggested quite nicely and with a little more humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVavyvMoe8o

Some people will go down in history as enablers...

Oh, so we're not quite racists.  It's a little less black or white, eh?  We're just desperate enablers lacking in good judgment. Gee. I feel better already.   

[Alan Klein]

You owe it to yourself to read the first chapter of Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk. You need that information for your own good. I know you don't have an open mind about any criticism of Trump, but still, set aside your prior beliefs and read just that chapter.

Don't be afraid, it won't hurt you.

All that counts are results.  You're more concerned with style rather than substance and results.  It's your way of ignoring his accomplishments by attacking his methods.  The press has been doing that for three years.  Attacking the man.  It's just a cheap shot. 

Check link in Russ's last post.