CSNbbs

(04-28-2017 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

(04-29-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

(04-29-2017 11:34 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.

Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.

I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?

That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

Whoosh.

I did n't say "he" lacked a sense of self-importance - I said that was a quality I would like to see in a POTUS, but that didn't make a lack of self-importance a qualification.

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.

Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.

I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?

That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

That's a fair question Buddy.

I think the reality is that each of us has our own standards as to what would qualify a person for the job of President.

On a whole, I judge Trump to be unqualified, but my judgment is probably mostly subjective. I'll agree that there are very few actual qualifications, and he obviously meets those.

Thinking about it some:

* like to elect someone who either has enough political experience that they can work with Congress to pass legislation, or has the personal qualities / personality that would allow him to reach across aisles and effect constructive compromise.
* has enough understanding of diplomacy to avoid inadvertently misstepping in ways that impact our relationships with other countries.

There are others . .

Note that Trump would not necessarily need to be able to meet those criteria on his own. I.E., if he can bring in the correct staff to enable him to accomplish the above (even if he individually was "in Rick's eyes" unqualified)

The fact that I often found myself thinking during the first month or so "Geez, couldn't any of his staff convince him to handle this differently, (or not to say X, Y or Z)" would indicate that he is 'learning'
how to determine which advisors he should trust, and then at what time and to what degree he should trust them.

Just because someone is unqualified when they assume a job does NOT mean that they can't grow into it, or to gain the necessary experience on the job.

Not everything he and his staff has done has been wrong. But I don't think they've YET done enough things right to move him from "unqualified for the job", to "he's learned the job."

Don't know if that helps answer your question as to how I'm thinking about this. . . but it helps me to think about it in a more specific context than my general "I didn't think he was qualified." statements.

(04-29-2017 09:58 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.

Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.

I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?

That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

That's a fair question Buddy.

I think the reality is that each of us has our own standards as to what would qualify a person for the job of President.

On a whole, I judge Trump to be unqualified, but my judgment is probably mostly subjective. I'll agree that there are very few actual qualifications, and he obviously meets those.

Thinking about it some:

* like to elect someone who either has enough political experience that they can work with Congress to pass legislation, or has the personal qualities / personality that would allow him to reach across aisles and effect constructive compromise.
* has enough understanding of diplomacy to avoid inadvertently misstepping in ways that impact our relationships with other countries.

There are others . .

Note that Trump would not necessarily need to be able to meet those criteria on his own. I.E., if he can bring in the correct staff to enable him to accomplish the above (even if he individually was "in Rick's eyes" unqualified)

The fact that I often found myself thinking during the first month or so "Geez, couldn't any of his staff convince him to handle this differently, (or not to say X, Y or Z)" would indicate that he is 'learning'
how to determine which advisors he should trust, and then at what time and to what degree he should trust them.

Just because someone is unqualified when they assume a job does NOT mean that they can't grow into it, or to gain the necessary experience on the job.

Not everything he and his staff has done has been wrong. But I don't think they've YET done enough things right to move him from "unqualified for the job", to "he's learned the job."

Don't know if that helps answer your question as to how I'm thinking about this. . . but it helps me to think about it in a more specific context than my general "I didn't think he was qualified." statements.

I aapreciate your views, Rick, because I know you give them a lot of thought.

I gues I am having trouble differentiating between qualities we want a POTUS to have and qualifications. I, for example, want my POTUS to honest. So if a person, not naming names, is experienced in Congress and in diplomacy, yet is dishonest, is that person qualified? Not by my set of desired qualities, but perhaps by yours.

I wonder which, if any, of these former Presidents would meet your criteria: Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Eisenhower.

I just think this whole "unqualified" idea is highly subjective and individual. But the Constitution does not even specify that POTUS needs to be able to read or write.

I do think that there is a sharp learning curve in evidence. For example, he rushed into the travel ban and tried to push through a vote on healthcare, and now he is going slower and gathering support in a more traditional manner. I think he has put some very good people in office, notably Tiller and Mattis. I am less worried about the US than I was a few months ago.

(04-29-2017 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...9042805761

(04-30-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The primaries obviously did not do a good job in being able to illustrate that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulties and complexities of being president,

I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...9042805761

First: That tweet is fairly ambiguous about the constitutional role of a court, at the very best.

Second: The rulings on the preliminary injunction(s) (both round 1 and round 2, i.e. the Hawaii ruling *and* the 9th Circuit ruling in the case of the first Washington ruling have some very serious, potential fatal, issues within them. So even assuming, in arguendo, that the tweet supposedly is a comment on the Constitutional process of a judge, I really don't see anything wrong with it nor as evidence of a lcak of understanding.

(04-30-2017 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 04:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I think what the primaries--and the general election--did was to identify that we have a significant portion of our population that wants a president who has a fundamentally different concept about what the difficulties and complexities of being president should be.

And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...9042805761

First: That tweet is fairly ambiguous about the constitutional role of a court, at the very best.

Second: The rulings on the preliminary injunction(s) (both round 1 and round 2, i.e. the Hawaii ruling *and* the 9th Circuit ruling in the case of the first Washington ruling have some very serious, potential fatal, issues within them. So even assuming, in arguendo, that the tweet supposedly is a comment on the Constitutional process of a judge, I really don't see anything wrong with it nor as evidence of a lcak of understanding.

I'll pull more quotes/tweets, but I disagree wth your analysis. Trump in that tweet doesn't say he disagrees with the judges ruling because of his or his advisor's legal interpretation of the constitution. He states very bluntly that he disagrees with a judge being able to halt an TSA travel ban. That seems pretty clear that he doesn't believe the judge shouldn't be able to have the power to do that.

I get your argument about the ruling, but that tweet does not touch on that.

(04-30-2017 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And it proved that they apparently didn't care that the fundamentally different concept equated to a completed lack of understanding of how our government is designed to function (e.g. checks and balances) or the complexities of the world as a whole (e.g. health care and North Korea).

I understand the desire to have someone with a different point of view of how government agencies work or government officials interact. But Trump, since the primaries, has shown numerous times that he seems to lack an understanding of how our government operates. And I mean operates as in how bills are passed, what the role of judges are, etc.

How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...9042805761

First: That tweet is fairly ambiguous about the constitutional role of a court, at the very best.

Second: The rulings on the preliminary injunction(s) (both round 1 and round 2, i.e. the Hawaii ruling *and* the 9th Circuit ruling in the case of the first Washington ruling have some very serious, potential fatal, issues within them. So even assuming, in arguendo, that the tweet supposedly is a comment on the Constitutional process of a judge, I really don't see anything wrong with it nor as evidence of a lcak of understanding.

I'll pull more quotes/tweets, but I disagree wth your analysis. Trump in that tweet doesn't say he disagrees with the judges ruling because of his or his advisor's legal interpretation of the constitution. He states very bluntly that he disagrees with a judge being able to halt an TSA travel ban. That seems pretty clear that he doesn't believe the judge shouldn't be able to have the power to do that.

I get your argument about the ruling, but that tweet does not touch on that.

I take the tweet as equally being likely that he doesn't agree with the ruling, and that he is not satisfied that a bad result coming from a judge can stop it. And not necessarily that he doesnt understand that a judge can stop it. The tweet on its surface is subject to at least those two different interpretations, if not more. And, to be blunt, much of the subject matter of the tweet is about precisely a case that the bounds of executive power are in question. If you understood the grounding of the first case and appeals (and the second case) the issue is precisely *if the order is reviewable* under the passage of the statute in question.

If he disagreed with broad idea that a judge can halt it, I would think a tweet and/or actions more in line with the famous Andrew Jackson response to what was perceived to be a bad ruling.

Sorry, but a single ambiguous tweet doesn't get me to your broad based indictment. And, to be blunt, especially given the amazingly candid dissent at the 9th circuit, I for one am inclined at one level to agree with the tweet with the interpretation that I tend to ascribe to it.

(04-30-2017 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2017 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]How has he shown a lack if understanding in the role of judges since being in office?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...9042805761

First: That tweet is fairly ambiguous about the constitutional role of a court, at the very best.

Second: The rulings on the preliminary injunction(s) (both round 1 and round 2, i.e. the Hawaii ruling *and* the 9th Circuit ruling in the case of the first Washington ruling have some very serious, potential fatal, issues within them. So even assuming, in arguendo, that the tweet supposedly is a comment on the Constitutional process of a judge, I really don't see anything wrong with it nor as evidence of a lcak of understanding.

I'll pull more quotes/tweets, but I disagree wth your analysis. Trump in that tweet doesn't say he disagrees with the judges ruling because of his or his advisor's legal interpretation of the constitution. He states very bluntly that he disagrees with a judge being able to halt an TSA travel ban. That seems pretty clear that he doesn't believe the judge shouldn't be able to have the power to do that.

I get your argument about the ruling, but that tweet does not touch on that.

I take the tweet as equally being likely that he doesn't agree with the ruling, and that he is not satisfied that a bad result coming from a judge can stop it. And not necessarily that he doesnt understand that a judge can stop it. The tweet on its surface is subject to at least those two different interpretations, if not more. And, to be blunt, much of the subject matter of the tweet is about precisely a case that the bounds of executive power are in question. If you understood the grounding of the first case and appeals (and the second case) the issue is precisely *if the order is reviewable* under the passage of the statute in question.

If he disagreed with broad idea that a judge can halt it, I would think a tweet and/or actions more in line with the famous Andrew Jackson response to what was perceived to be a bad ruling.

Sorry, but a single ambiguous tweet doesn't get me to your broad based indictment. And, to be blunt, especially given the amazingly candid dissent at the 9th circuit, I for one am inclined at one level to agree with the tweet with the interpretation that I tend to ascribe to it.

Here are some more, with my analysis of why Trump fundamentally misunderstands the role of the judiciary.

Quote: Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...2174668800

The above quote to me indicates that Trump thinks that just because the potential outcome of a law is good in his eyes (e.g. reducing # of harmful immigrants), it is legal. He can't believe a judge would rule that his EO was unconstitutional just because it could reduce attacks in the US.

Quote: “If these judges wanted to help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing,” Trump said... “It’s so sad.”

He added: “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased. But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would read [the law] and do what’s right.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...9dc27e4f45

The above quote echoes the first, which is that Trump believes they aren't "doing what they should be doing," even though they are doing exactly what they were designed to do, acting as a check against the executive and legislative branches. Trump doesn't frame this argument as disagreeing with the ruling on constitutional grounds, but rather that these judges aren't doing their job or are biased.

Quote:SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...57?lang=en

The above quote indicates that Trump didn't understand that he already had his EO ruled on in a court (sorry, this one is just funny, I don't think it means he doesn't understand the judiciary).

Perhaps it isn't, in the end, a misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary, but perhaps a misunderstanding of the limits of power that a POTUS has. But those aren't too far off from one another, IMO.

And to be blunt, I would say that your anti-Trump bias goes a long way into "filling in the lines".

For #1 : again, one of the major issues in the immigration order cases *is* the extent of executive power, as the enabling legislation gave the president the power to delay "at his discretion". There is still nothing in this tweet that concretely convinces or evidences this solely as a "he doesnt know the bounds of the court."

And to be honest, #1 actually acknowledges the power and role of the court, notwithstanding your assertion to the contrary. If you are po'ed that a litigant has the temerity to callout a court on what they think is a bad decision, that is one thing. But stretching this to a basic misunderstanding of the court is another horse of a different color.

As for #2, it is buried in WashPo site article. Sorry, used up all my free articles at this point. So I really can't comment.

I did find a reference in whole via Slate

Quote:“I have to be honest that, if these judges wanted to, in my opinion help the court in terms of respect for the court, they'd do what they should be doing,” Trump said. “It's so sad.”

Again this really doesn't seem to be a clear case of "not understanding the court system". If you don't like Trump making comments about cases not going his way, that is your preference and you would be correct on this. But again, it is at best unclear that he has no "fundamental knowledge" of the courts or court system through this statement.

As for the third, again, this sounds like a petulant person politicing in the way he knows best to reach an audience about his view of a wanted outcome or an outcome just decided. And again you would be correct perhaps for the 'decorum' factor. But, I cannot tell you how many times I have uttered "see you in court". I do not think that at any time the veracity of my knowledge of the working of the court system would be impacted by that statement, nor do I impute any understanding, or misunderstanding, of the role of the judiciary in that tweet.

As for decorum issues, agree with you 10000 per cent that it isn't really the job of a tweet from a president to be doing this. But it still seems an awfully long stretch to make this into a "lack if understanding in the role of judges" in particular, or of the judicial branch in general.

To be blunt, this belongs in the same crapola bin that Obama threw at the Supreme Court vis a vis the comment on Citizen's United ruling during the State of the Union address a while back. In both cases, the lack of decorum and politicization of a judicial issue was very high, but neither indicate to me a lack of understanding of the role.

Indicates a lack of decorum : yep, no doubt
Indicates a basic lack of understanding the role of judges : still a really long leap here for me

This morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, these two quotes were offered, the first from Lincoln and the latter a dialogue held between Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David about three months after JFK was inaugurated.

1. "The Presidency, even to the most experienced politicians, is no bed of roses. No human being can fill that station and escape censure".

2. JFK, to DDE: No one knows how tough this job is until he's been in it a few
months.
DDE: Mr. President, if you will forgive me, I think I mentioned that to you three
months ago.
JFK: I certainly have learned a lot since then.

(05-01-2017 12:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, these two quotes were offered, the first from Lincoln and the latter a dialogue held between Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David about three months after JFK was inaugurated.
1. "The Presidency, even to the most experienced politicians, is no bed of roses. No human being can fill that station and escape censure".
2. JFK, to DDE: No one knows how tough this job is until he's been in it a few months.
DDE: Mr. President, if you will forgive me, I think I mentioned that to you three months ago.
JFK: I certainly have learned a lot since then.

The second quote is an indication of how things have changed. Can anyone imagine GWB and Obama, or Obama and Trump, having a friendly sit-down at Camp David three months after either turnover of power?

IMO we would be well served by getting back to the days of this, or of Ike and LBJ and Mister Sam getting together over bourbon and branch water to run the country, but I don't see how we get there.

(05-01-2017 06:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2017 12:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, these two quotes were offered, the first from Lincoln and the latter a dialogue held between Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David about three months after JFK was inaugurated.
1. "The Presidency, even to the most experienced politicians, is no bed of roses. No human being can fill that station and escape censure".
2. JFK, to DDE: No one knows how tough this job is until he's been in it a few months.
DDE: Mr. President, if you will forgive me, I think I mentioned that to you three months ago.
JFK: I certainly have learned a lot since then.

The second quote is an indication of how things have changed. Can anyone imagine GWB and Obama, or Obama and Trump, having a friendly sit-down at Camp David three months after either turnover of power?

IMO we would be well served by getting back to the days of this, or of Ike and LBJ and Mister Sam getting together over bourbon and branch water to run the country, but I don't see how we get there.

I actually can kinda see it with GWB/Obama, just because I think that while Obama may have disagreed with W's re-election tactics and policies, I think he found W the person likeable.

At the very least, they were friendly enough toward the end of the term that they gave rise to my favorite CNN B-roll clip ever (which I can't find right now)...

It was at the dedication/opening of the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture (W was there since he signed the organizing legislation for the museum). After all the speechifying was done (while it was just collecting live B-roll), you can see a woman on the dais ask to take a selfie with W. He agrees, they get in position, and then she can't find a good angle for it...

...so he offers to take the phone, starts moving it around, can't find a good angle for it either...

...so he looks up, sees Obama nearby in the middle of a conversation, and goes [and you can read his lips while he says it] "Hey, Barack!"

And Obama turns, sees what's up, and takes the picture for them.

It's pretty fantastic, as B-roll goes.

(Sorry for the tangent.)

(04-29-2017 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 11:34 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.
Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.
I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?
That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

Did you read what he wrote?

Sorry, the "learning disability not otherwise specified" doesn't always help.

"I wonder which, if any, of these former Presidents would meet your criteria: Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Eisenhower."

Washington, Lincoln, and Eisenhower are in my top 10.

Given that sense of humor, articulateness, lack of self-importance, etc. are desirable, but not necessary,
I'll ask again, do you think Trump possesses them? Does it matter?

And off the to of my head:

trustworthy, loyal, helpful,
friendly, courteous, kind,
obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.

(05-01-2017 09:39 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 11:34 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.
Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.
I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?
That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

Did you read what he wrote?

Sorry, the "learning disability not otherwise specified" doesn't always help.

"I wonder which, if any, of these former Presidents would meet your criteria: Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Eisenhower."

Washington, Lincoln, and Eisenhower are in my top 10.

Given that sense of humor, articulateness, lack of self-importance, etc. are desirable, but not necessary,
I'll ask again, do you think Trump possesses them? Does it matter?

And off the to of my head:

trustworthy, loyal, helpful,
friendly, courteous, kind,
obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.

We don't have a long of qualifications to use as a checklist, although I think the Boy Scouts have a pretty one. So it becomes pretty much a subjective judgement as to what makes a given individual qualified/unqualified. I think it goes more to individual qualities and achievements than lines on a resume. But that's just me. I felt Obama was less qualified at the time of his first election than most of our Presidents have been. As most of the regulars here know, I place a high value on executive experience, but a higher value on personal qualities like trustworthy and brave.

So when two people say he is/was unqualified, are they even talking about the same thing(s)?

(05-01-2017 08:46 AM)baker-13 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2017 06:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2017 12:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, these two quotes were offered, the first from Lincoln and the latter a dialogue held between Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David about three months after JFK was inaugurated.
1. "The Presidency, even to the most experienced politicians, is no bed of roses. No human being can fill that station and escape censure".
2. JFK, to DDE: No one knows how tough this job is until he's been in it a few months.
DDE: Mr. President, if you will forgive me, I think I mentioned that to you three months ago.
JFK: I certainly have learned a lot since then.

The second quote is an indication of how things have changed. Can anyone imagine GWB and Obama, or Obama and Trump, having a friendly sit-down at Camp David three months after either turnover of power?

IMO we would be well served by getting back to the days of this, or of Ike and LBJ and Mister Sam getting together over bourbon and branch water to run the country, but I don't see how we get there.

I actually can kinda see it with GWB/Obama, just because I think that while Obama may have disagreed with W's re-election tactics and policies, I think he found W the person likeable.

At the very least, they were friendly enough toward the end of the term that they gave rise to my favorite CNN B-roll clip ever (which I can't find right now)...

It was at the dedication/opening of the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture (W was there since he signed the organizing legislation for the museum). After all the speechifying was done (while it was just collecting live B-roll), you can see a woman on the dais ask to take a selfie with W. He agrees, they get in position, and then she can't find a good angle for it...

...so he offers to take the phone, starts moving it around, can't find a good angle for it either...

...so he looks up, sees Obama nearby in the middle of a conversation, and goes [and you can read his lips while he says it] "Hey, Barack!"

And Obama turns, sees what's up, and takes the picture for them.

It's pretty fantastic, as B-roll goes.

(Sorry for the tangent.)

Pretty good tangent.

(05-01-2017 09:39 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2017 11:34 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2017 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am curious as to,what the qualifications for President are that Trump lacks/lacked.
Especially I would appreciate your thoughts, Rick, but anybody is free to chime in.
I think a President is clean, reverent, trustworthy...how does,the,rest,of,that go?
That may seem facetious, but all of us have personal qualities we would like to see in a Potus. For me, those qualities include but are not limited to, honestly, articulateness,, a sense of humor, a lack of a sense of self-importance. But I would not elevate this wish wish to the level of being qualifications.

Do you really think he lacks a sense of self-importance?

Did you read what he wrote?

Sorry, the "learning disability not otherwise specified" doesn't always help.

"I wonder which, if any, of these former Presidents would meet your criteria: Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Eisenhower."

Washington, Lincoln, and Eisenhower are in my top 10.

Given that sense of humor, articulateness, lack of self-importance, etc. are desirable, but not necessary,
I'll ask again, do you think Trump possesses them? Does it matter?

And off the to of my head:

trustworthy, loyal, helpful,
friendly, courteous, kind,
obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.

Trump does NOT possess all the personal qualities I would like in a President. He possesses SOME.

The former does not make him unqualified. The latter does not make him qualified.

But he is qualified under the Constitution, and after an extensive antiTrump campaign, enough voters thought he was qualified enough to cast their vote for him. Isn't that the ultimate vetting?

I like that he has executive experience. I don't like that he has never before had to deal with a fractious board (Congress) trying to derail his every project. This is why I favor Governors. Short of an incumbent, they are the few to have any experience in a similar situation. But they have little or no foreign policy experience.

Trump apparently unaware that President Andrew Jackson died well before the outbreak of the Civil War. The man's idiotic nature about basic facts is astounding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...a40ec68f0d