Indeed. Thus showing that 46% of the electorate is as childish as the candidate they supported.
I’m not disputing this fact. Seems neither are you. But only one of us is hailing this as a virtue.
I agree. You put it better than I did.
We have people on this board defending Trump’s actions as if they are part of some brilliant overall plan. “He’s only acting like a spoiled child because he wants to, because it makes people underestimate him! He’s not really a pouty child, posting butthurt tweets at three am, he’s just pretending to be one!”
They think he’s acting like the most unqualified person ever to hold the office of POTUS as some sort of strategy, rather than him actually being the most unqualified person ever to hold the office of POTUS and having no clue whatsoever how to do the job.
These people sound like the SNL Superfans - “Well, Da Bears are down by 79 points with 2 minutes to go, but this is all part of Ditka’s master plan!”
Trump’s road to success is littered with (figurative) crushed bodies of his opponents who underestimated him. And it seems the opponents never learn.
I am most certainly not a Trump supporter. If I was, I would probably say he isn’t childish, he just plays by his own rules/tells it like is/whatever.
“Success in Business” is not a leading indicator of “qualified to be POTUS”.
He won the presidency because 46% of voters chose to ignore his deep and obvious flaws and lack of fitness.
I do no deny he’s won. I accept it. Doesn’t mean I think that makes him any more qualified for having won the contest.
That’s kind of how I’m reading it, too. Absolutely fascinating.
So y’all are saying that the fact that he (apparently) has been successful in business and then got himself elected President is evidence, and possibly conclusive proof, that he’s NOT childish and immature. You’re saying the results speak for themselves and “trump” (as it were) any nitpicks about his behavior.
And the 3 am tweets, pussy grabbing, lashing out at Alec Baldwiin/SNL, failure to attend briefings, not following through on promised press conferences and revelations of information (one of those is due today), and other things too numerous to list here-- that’s just an act.
This is really interesting. I sure would never have looked at it that way. I’m more of a “when people show you who they are, believe them” kind of gal.
No. It’s not an “act”. It’s a technique. A highly successful one. One that brought him yuuuge success in business, and recently destroyed, utterly, 16 eminently “qualified” Republican politicians and one eminently “qualified” Democratic one.
As he said a few times when asked if he will “pivot” at some point - why should he? Why not continue what has made him successful so far? I mean, in business as in politics, if what you’re doing works, why change it?
There is plenty of blame to go around for Trump’s success. I blame RNC’s and Republican Party leaders’ craven cowardice to stand up to Trump. I blame DNC’s and HRC’s campaign for a failing to make their case to their own electorate and for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I blame Trump supporters for casting a tantrum vote. I blame liberals and independents for their apathy in not turning out to vote in one of the most consequential elections of the past 50 years.
I accept and acknowledge all the many failings of the various entities of this election, including the voters on both sides. It seems the very definition of the perfect storm. Any credit that can be fairly attributed to Trump can only be explained by dumb-ass luck.
Interesting. I wonder if you’d have been as sanguine had Hillary won with the same ‘win at any cost’ approach.
I believe “win at any cost” was Hillary’s approach all her life.
Maybe. But she’s roundly hated for it. Evidently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander, eh?
She’s about as “roundly hated for it” as is Trump. There wasn’t that much difference in the non-popularity ratings between them.
But when picking between “win at any cost” people, I prefer one that wasn’t thirsting for political power all his/her life. And apparently it’s not just me.
Yes, yes, my child, you and your ilk keep saying that.
But it is what is he going to do AS president that we are discussing. Sure, Trump has crushed his enemies, seen them driven before him, and heard the lamentations of their women (and Liberals). *But now what? *
Is he going to give us 4 (or god help us, eight) more years of whiny-assed tweets, pouting that no one likes him, setting up enemies lists, changing the laws so that it is illegal to say anything bad about him, and generally acting like a five year old?
Or is he actually going to do something as president? And, is that something going to be good for the country? Answer me that one - what do you think he is actually going to do? And “make America great again” is not an allowed answer.
That’s because Trump is not childish. End of debate.
Well by his own admission, Trump has been donating and currying favour with both parties his entire life. So I don’t know it’s valid to say he hasn’t wanted political power as long as Clinton despite this being his first elected office.
I think he’s going to be a good President. I don’t know about great.
In spite of stupid assertions I hear thrown about, he’s definitely not in it for the money. For one thing, he already has way more than almost anyone else, and for another, it is not a good business policy to alienate half of your customers and diminish your brand (which is an inevitable consequence of going into politics).
So he’s in it for something else. It’s not thirst for power - that kind of stuff is what “professional” politicians are in it for and if he was that way, he would have started WAY earlier.
So it could be (yeah, yeah, I know, you will never believe it, but ask yourself so far how often were you right about him?) that he’s in it because he actually thinks he can accomplish good things for the country. And hopefully he succeeds.
As for what exactly he’ll do - I don’t know. If I could predict his success, I could do the same. Although moderately successful, I am not nearly in his league. Neither, I presume, are you.
Don’t look to me to be a strong defender of HRC’s fitness as a candidate. I believe she would have been a competent, if not inspirational, POTUS. But yes, I wish the DNC had fielded better candidates in the primary. Perhaps the election results would have been quite different.
Alas, Trump is no less incompetent/unqualified/childish for HRC/DNC failures.
What I’m saying is, Trump’s is a hollow victory.
Using politicians is a standard business practice. Has nothing to do with “wanting political power”. It’s the difference between using an umbrella not to get wet and standing on top of a building pissing on everyone.
More like a toddler. Doesn’t understand why he can’t get his own way and throws a tantrum when that happens.
Because politics is not business. Trump has had several huge failures in his business career. Now he’s President. If he has a huge failure in his new career, it could literally result in the death of every person on this planet.