(02-12-2017 12:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 08:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tea Party protests had their fair share of people who were also just protesting Obama and what they believe he stood for and they were not as specific as I think you remember.

Just google "Tea Party Signs."

So on your thesis anything that referenced Obamacare, the bailout(s), Government Motors, or Obama's "promises" (you can keep your doctor type thingies) are included as a protest against Obama since you include "and what he stands for". That sentence pretty much swallows everything in the world, but the comparison was not "Trump and everything he supports" it was a "visceral dislike of Trump (period)."

You wave a magic wand and conflate every single issue into a visceral dislike into that in your perusal of signs. Sorry, the "Socialism" definitely is not a "visceral dislike of Obama" --- it signifies a dislike specifically of Obamacare, bailouts, Government Motors and all the anti-Randian thingies that the Obama and Democrats pulled out the hat in 2009; but not necessarily a visceral dislike of Obama ipso facto.

Same can be said for about half the signage you describe.

And to be blunt, I was at more than a couple of Tea Party events -- the vast majority were not fans of the policies, but were not knee-jerk visceral disliking of Obama during that time.

Of course, when Obama failed to tack center in any way shape or form, that might have changed. But the failure to tack only was apparent well after the Tea Party demonstration days and well into the 2010-2012 election cycle.

Sorry have to agree that the dislike on Trump is far more nearer a visceral response, much in the vein of the Bush Derangement People that haunted the left simply because of Florida in 2000.

And yes, some of it I see first hand. Let's just say me and my wife perhaps did not vote for the same candidate, and let's just say that neither of the candidates we voted for won. And the conversations I overhear at social gatherings with those whom seem to share my political choices really do fit the thesis of a visceral dislike -- the vast majority of them in fact.

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I was not trying to lump specific complaints about Obama's policies in with those who just had a visceral reaction against Obama. I specifically said what they BELIEVE he stood for, not what he actually stood for. A lot of people had distorted views of what Obama wanted to do, and the same can be said for those on the left at the moment. I lump those two groups together.

People who didn't like the idea of Obamacare, the bailouts, etc., very specific and factual policy goals/agendas are not the people I was trying to talk about - the ones who thought Obama was a secret Muslim Kenyan and such. I think the policy people were the backbone of the Tea Party, in the same way I think policy focused people are the backbone of this current movement.

(02-12-2017 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  the ones who thought Obama was a secret Muslim Kenyan and such.

Like, for example, the current President...

Just one example of why there is such a visceral dislike of him.

The blatant sexism, misogyny, not to mention the literal, it's right there on tape, bragging about sexually assaulting women. When Republicans act like that's not a big deal, they just further alienate a huge chunk of the populace. I have two daughters. This is not the sort of person I want leading our country. My god, he's also on tape meeting 10 and 11 year olds and bragging about how he's going to be dating them soon. And we know he liked to walk into the dressing room at the teen beauty pageants unannounced to see the contestants, as young as 15, naked. Again, he's bragged about it. (Let's not even get into his weird sexual comments about his own daughters.) One of my daughters, twelve, really followed this election for the first time and is very shocked and upset that a man grabbing women by the p***y can be elected president but a woman uses the wrong email server and people chant "lock her up". Then the p***y grabber and his staff commit just as bad email security violations and the "lock her up" crowd says nothing. My wife volunteers at Safe Place, to say that people who work to reduce violence against women are disgusted with Trump doesn't even begin to describe it.

One of my daughters has special needs. Trump mocked a disabled reporter. My wife cried when she saw him doing that. I will not ever forget that he did that. If he would admit it and ask for forgiveness that would be one thing, but he hasn't. (And yes, I've watched the ridiculous "truther" video trying to claim he didn't do it.)

And then there's the bigoted and racially divisive campaign he ran. He *tried* to divide people, it was his strategy. I still think radical leftist Mitt Romney said it best:

"I don't want to see trickle-down racism, I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

That's not even getting into the con-man stuff, with Trump U or the countless contractors he's stiffed over the years.

RiceLad is not wrong - there are lots of policy objections. But nor is OO or tangtonic wrong in that there is a very strong personal dislike of Trump. Why? Because, by all indications, he is a horrible human being.

I see a huge problem in that dislike of policies has morphed into visceral hatred whether the object was named Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump.

I never understood republicans' visceral hatred of all things Clinton, particularly considering that Bill Clinton was a pragmatist who would work with the.
GWB was a pragmatist as governor of Texas--he was endorsed for re-election by Bob Bullock--who turned into a ideologue as president. I remember Paul Burka's piece about, "Who are you and what have you done to my governor?" I think the who was Dick Cheney. But the opposition focused not on policies but on visceral hatred of the man. They made a movie about killing him, remember.
I disliked virtually every single one of Obama's policies. But I also called out the birther and Muslim parrots.
I like some of Trump's policies and hate others, pretty much the same as I felt about Hillary. But I think the over the top personal attacks have already gone way round the bend.

I don't think any of the above are truly despicable human beings. Well, maybe Cheney, who I think ruined what could have been a good presidency. And I really think it is out of line to attack any of them in that way.

Policies are fair game. Hyperbolic personal attacks, no.

(02-13-2017 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see a huge problem in that dislike of policies has morphed into visceral hatred whether the object was named Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump.

I never understood republicans' visceral hatred of all things Clinton, particularly considering that Bill Clinton was a pragmatist who would work with the.
GWB was a pragmatist as governor of Texas--he was endorsed for re-election by Bob Bullock--who turned into a ideologue as president. I remember Paul Burka's piece about, "Who are you and what have you done to my governor?" I think the who was Dick Cheney. But the opposition focused not on policies but on visceral hatred of the man. They made a movie about killing him, remember.
I disliked virtually every single one of Obama's policies. But I also called out the birther and Muslim parrots.
I like some of Trump's policies and hate others, pretty much the same as I felt about Hillary. But I think the over the top personal attacks have already gone way round the bend.

I don't think any of the above are truly despicable human beings. Well, maybe Cheney, who I think ruined what could have been a good presidency. And I really think it is out of line to attack any of them in that way.

Policies are fair game. Hyperbolic personal attacks, no.

I fully admit that this could be due to my own Trump disliking glasses, but have there been hyperbolic personal attacks on Trump that have gained ground, a la the birther or Muslim bologna with Trump?

I think viscerally disliking a political figure is OK if it's based on demonstrable personal characteristics/issues.

(02-13-2017 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see a huge problem in that dislike of policies has morphed into visceral hatred whether the object was named Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump.

I never understood republicans' visceral hatred of all things Clinton, particularly considering that Bill Clinton was a pragmatist who would work with the.
GWB was a pragmatist as governor of Texas--he was endorsed for re-election by Bob Bullock--who turned into a ideologue as president. I remember Paul Burka's piece about, "Who are you and what have you done to my governor?" I think the who was Dick Cheney. But the opposition focused not on policies but on visceral hatred of the man. They made a movie about killing him, remember.
I disliked virtually every single one of Obama's policies. But I also called out the birther and Muslim parrots.
I like some of Trump's policies and hate others, pretty much the same as I felt about Hillary. But I think the over the top personal attacks have already gone way round the bend.

I don't think any of the above are truly despicable human beings. Well, maybe Cheney, who I think ruined what could have been a good presidency. And I really think it is out of line to attack any of them in that way.

Policies are fair game. Hyperbolic personal attacks, no.

So, as the parent of a special needs child, the problem is not that Trump mocked the disabled, it's that I was offended by it? The problem with Trump bragging about sexual assault isn't the sexual assault part but that women were offended by it?

I don't think that's what you meant, but these are things he actually did, not made up BS like the birther stuff.

I don't disagree with your broader point, but Trump is really and truly a special case on so many levels. Again the previous Republican nominee condemned him, the two living Republican ex-presidents refused to endorse him, etc.

I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.

My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

I did want to get back to responding to OO's original question, which I (rightly of wrongly) had interpreted as being about what I wanted him to do regarding his conflicts of interest, etc.

First, release tax returns like every other modern president.

Second, follow the advice of independent ethics advisers and do things like set up a blind trust. Not this joke of an arrangement where his kids run the business which he still owns and "promise" not to talk to him about it. And where there is a clause saying none of this applies if it's a, you know, really good opportunity.

Third, don't tweet about companies doing business with your kids.

Fourth, don't have advisors go on national television and blatantly violate federal law by endorsing family members products.

Five, live up to the terms of his contract with his DC hotel.

Six, since he's so rich, reimburse taxpayers for things like the Secret Service and Defense department having to rent space in Trump tower, or any of the extra expenses caused by his wealth or his family's decisions.

Seven, too late now, but think about all this crap BEFORE deciding to run for president.

(02-13-2017 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.

My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

Incomprehensible to me that any parent of a special needs child could support Trump, especially now that we have an education secretary who wants to both gut public schools and doesn't support IDEA. And "alleged misogyny"? Good grief, it's on countless tapes.

But I don't know that we'll get anywhere with this conversation. Mostly wanted to address OO's and tangtonic's questions about the visceral dislike of Trump.

What does releasing tax returns actually accomplish?

I ask this as a tax professional (CPA/attorney). There seems to be this mantra that somehow releasing tax returns will shed light on all sorts of goings-on. It won't.

If you want full financial disclosure (and I don't oppose that idea) then ask for it. I would also want to see full paper trail (including transcripts) and other intellectual disclosure, which I believe would be far more useful in evaluating a presidential candidate. We required a transcript for every new hire. We never required tax returns.

(02-13-2017 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.

My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

Wait, you can't run with my comment without answering it.

Is there some gross mischaracterization of Trump I am missing? The only things you mentioned aren't mischaracterizations, it's just how willing someone is to stomach his crap.

(02-13-2017 10:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.
My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

Incomprehensible to me that any parent of a special needs child could support Trump, especially now that we have an education secretary who wants to both gut public schools and doesn't support IDEA. And "alleged misogyny"? Good grief, it's on countless tapes.
But I don't know that we'll get anywhere with this conversation. Mostly wanted to address OO's and tangtonic's questions about the visceral dislike of Trump.

Misogyny refers to a mental state, which means it won't be on any tape. I am willing to accept attacks on Trump's dealings with women from anyone who attacked Bill Clinton's dealings with women with equal vigor. Do you fit that description?

Some parents of special needs children are not happy with the way that their children are treated under the existing system, including IDEA. And many people don't see that making public schools compete is "gutting" them. If a public school is doing a crappy job, why shouldn't they lose funding?

My point is that this is way more in the eye of the beholder than anything else.

(02-13-2017 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.
My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

Wait, you can't run with my comment without answering it.
Is there some gross mischaracterization of Trump I am missing? The only things you mentioned aren't mischaracterizations, it's just how willing someone is to stomach his crap.

They are not mischaracterizations if isolated incidents are proof positive.

(02-13-2017 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know parents of special needs children who voted for Trump and supported him enthusiastically. I know people who took great offense at Trump's alleged misogyny, but looked the other way when Bill Clinton did worse, just as I know plenty who were outraged at Bill but looked the other way with Trump. Not to mention thatTrump's opponent basically enabled Bill.
My bottom line is that I am going to take RiceLad's comment and go with it. It all depends on what color glasses you are looking at things with.

Wait, you can't run with my comment without answering it.
Is there some gross mischaracterization of Trump I am missing? The only things you mentioned aren't mischaracterizations, it's just how willing someone is to stomach his crap.

They are not mischaracterizations if isolated incidents are proof positive.

Ok, then that gets back to my original post you referenced:

Quote:

(02-13-2017 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see a huge problem in that dislike of policies has morphed into visceral hatred whether the object was named Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump.

I never understood republicans' visceral hatred of all things Clinton, particularly considering that Bill Clinton was a pragmatist who would work with the.
GWB was a pragmatist as governor of Texas--he was endorsed for re-election by Bob Bullock--who turned into a ideologue as president. I remember Paul Burka's piece about, "Who are you and what have you done to my governor?" I think the who was Dick Cheney. But the opposition focused not on policies but on visceral hatred of the man. They made a movie about killing him, remember.
I disliked virtually every single one of Obama's policies. But I also called out the birther and Muslim parrots.
I like some of Trump's policies and hate others, pretty much the same as I felt about Hillary. But I think the over the top personal attacks have already gone way round the bend.

I don't think any of the above are truly despicable human beings. Well, maybe Cheney, who I think ruined what could have been a good presidency. And I really think it is out of line to attack any of them in that way.

Policies are fair game. Hyperbolic personal attacks, no.

I fully admit that this could be due to my own Trump disliking glasses, but have there been hyperbolic personal attacks on Trump that have gained ground, a la the birther or Muslim bologna with Trump?

I think viscerally disliking a political figure is OK if it's based on demonstrable personal characteristics/issues.

To your bold - were you talking about Trump receiving such attacks? If so, what ones? If not, then I can see how policy disagreements turning into visceral hatred would be concerning, but what if that person is acting in way that most people find abhorrent?

That's one of my biggest problems with Trump. Even for those who agree with some or most of his policies, a lot of people openly recognize that the behavior he has exhibited both during the primaries and as the POTUS isn't really in-line with the expected character/actions of a sitting head of state. I'm fine if Trump has had personal issues (such as multiple failed marriages and infidelity), but I was a POTUS that acts respectable in public (including on Twitter). Trump at least seems to be getting better about what he says/does in the public sphere.

But getting back to the original issue, has there been some hyperbolic or mischaracterization of Trump that the opposition has run with in the same vein of Birtherism?

(02-13-2017 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But getting back to the original issue, has there been some hyperbolic or mischaracterization of Trump that the opposition has run with in the same vein of Birtherism?

Yes.

Misogyny. Misogyny is hatred of women. Trump has demonstrated politically incorrect behavior toward women. So have a number of our most revered presidents. That does not constitute misogyny.

Racism. No proof whatsoever.

Mistreatment of persons with disabilities. As nearly as I can tell, this is based on one comment out of context.

Xenophobia. No proof whatsoever.

Arguing against all of those: It would be extremely difficult to succeed in business, particularly in the hospitality business, with any of those attributes.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, and did not vote for him, nor would I today. My disagreements with his positions on immigration, free trade, the 4th amendment, and others more than offset my support for his positions on reducing taxes and regulations. But I think the barrage of personal attacks on flimsy evidence is inappropriate, just as were the birther/Muslim attacks on Obama. I will admit that I'm troubled by some of the business dealings issues, although the nature of his holdings makes a blind trust pretty much unworkable.

Bottom line: The rule in this country, on both sides of the aisle, appear to be that if he/she is on the other team any criticism goes, but on your team you overlook everything. Team over country is all I see here.

(02-13-2017 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What does releasing tax returns actually accomplish?

I ask this as a tax professional (CPA/attorney). There seems to be this mantra that somehow releasing tax returns will shed light on all sorts of goings-on. It won't.

If you want full financial disclosure (and I don't oppose that idea) then ask for it. I would also want to see full paper trail (including transcripts) and other intellectual disclosure, which I believe would be far more useful in evaluating a presidential candidate. We required a transcript for every new hire. We never required tax returns.

OK, tax returns and full financial disclosure. Not a tax professionial. :-)

(02-13-2017 09:18 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  the ones who thought Obama was a secret Muslim Kenyan and such.

Like, for example, the current President...

Just one example of why there is such a visceral dislike of him.

The blatant sexism, misogyny, not to mention the literal, it's right there on tape, bragging about sexually assaulting women. When Republicans act like that's not a big deal, they just further alienate a huge chunk of the populace. I have two daughters. This is not the sort of person I want leading our country. My god, he's also on tape meeting 10 and 11 year olds and bragging about how he's going to be dating them soon. And we know he liked to walk into the dressing room at the teen beauty pageants unannounced to see the contestants, as young as 15, naked. Again, he's bragged about it. (Let's not even get into his weird sexual comments about his own daughters.) One of my daughters, twelve, really followed this election for the first time and is very shocked and upset that a man grabbing women by the p***y can be elected president but a woman uses the wrong email server and people chant "lock her up". Then the p***y grabber and his staff commit just as bad email security violations and the "lock her up" crowd says nothing. My wife volunteers at Safe Place, to say that people who work to reduce violence against women are disgusted with Trump doesn't even begin to describe it.

One of my daughters has special needs. Trump mocked a disabled reporter. My wife cried when she saw him doing that. I will not ever forget that he did that. If he would admit it and ask for forgiveness that would be one thing, but he hasn't. (And yes, I've watched the ridiculous "truther" video trying to claim he didn't do it.)

And then there's the bigoted and racially divisive campaign he ran. He *tried* to divide people, it was his strategy. I still think radical leftist Mitt Romney said it best:

"I don't want to see trickle-down racism, I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

That's not even getting into the con-man stuff, with Trump U or the countless contractors he's stiffed over the years.

RiceLad is not wrong - there are lots of policy objections. But nor is OO or tangtonic wrong in that there is a very strong personal dislike of Trump. Why? Because, by all indications, he is a horrible human being.

It is impossible to argue the character issue. I spoke with one of my cousins, a strong Democrat who supported Sanders, after the tapes came out with his discussion of grabbing women, and told her that there was no way Trump would be elected after that.

Human beings make mistakes and can change, so I'm reluctant to write anyone off completely as a human being. That said, I couldn't see how people who went after Bill Clinton (not so much about the affairs, but about the past allegations of assaults) could turn around and justify voting for Trump.

(JAAO - I will disagree that the dislike for Hillary is simply due to her mishandling a server. The DNC set up a very un-Democratic process, first with Super-Delegates and then by conspiring against Bernie Sanders, not to mention the huge disparity in funding. One can argue the merits of a straight Democratic process versus back-room politics, but it is incredibly ironic that the Republicans got stuck with a Trump nomination, thanks to his winning states early by plurality, because there process was more transparently 'Democratic' than the Democrats, while a lot of the disgust with Hillary and the DNC came out of rigged, old-school, special interests politics, something Republicans get criticized for traditionally. Both parties tried very hard to lose the election IMO.)

(02-13-2017 10:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What does releasing tax returns actually accomplish?
I ask this as a tax professional (CPA/attorney). There seems to be this mantra that somehow releasing tax returns will shed light on all sorts of goings-on. It won't.
If you want full financial disclosure (and I don't oppose that idea) then ask for it. I would also want to see full paper trail (including transcripts) and other intellectual disclosure, which I believe would be far more useful in evaluating a presidential candidate. We required a transcript for every new hire. We never required tax returns.

OK, tax returns and full financial disclosure. Not a tax professionial. :-)

And paper trail? You got a deal.

You want tax returns so you can tell if he/she's being bought. I want paper trail so I know where he/she's coming from if not bought.

(02-13-2017 10:09 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I did want to get back to responding to OO's original question, which I (rightly of wrongly) had interpreted as being about what I wanted him to do regarding his conflicts of interest, etc.

First, release tax returns like every other modern president.

Second, follow the advice of independent ethics advisers and do things like set up a blind trust. Not this joke of an arrangement where his kids run the business which he still owns and "promise" not to talk to him about it. And where there is a clause saying none of this applies if it's a, you know, really good opportunity.

Third, don't tweet about companies doing business with your kids.

Fourth, don't have advisors go on national television and blatantly violate federal law by endorsing family members products.

Five, live up to the terms of his contract with his DC hotel.

Six, since he's so rich, reimburse taxpayers for things like the Secret Service and Defense department having to rent space in Trump tower, or any of the extra expenses caused by his wealth or his family's decisions.

Seven, too late now, but think about all this crap BEFORE deciding to run for president.

What I would like to see, is the President relying on a broader cross-section of advisors, somehow controlling the emotional side of what I perceive to be his ESFJ personality in public, and allow moderate surrogates to defend some of his policy decisions that may be controversial, but are not 'personal'.

On a side note:

Harry Truman was defensive for his daughter's sake. I didn't find Trumps criticism of Nordstrom's out of line, in that context, and frankly not unexpected. Defending your family is a human response, and why I thought Cruz deserved a standing ovation at the Republican Convention for refusing to cave (at that time) and endorse the man who insulted his wife.

I did find Conway's endorsement of the product line grossly inappropriate.

I think the intent and motivation was different between the two responses. Don't expect those who already are going to assume the worst about Trump to look for that nuance.

(02-13-2017 11:19 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:09 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I did want to get back to responding to OO's original question, which I (rightly of wrongly) had interpreted as being about what I wanted him to do regarding his conflicts of interest, etc.

First, release tax returns like every other modern president.

Second, follow the advice of independent ethics advisers and do things like set up a blind trust. Not this joke of an arrangement where his kids run the business which he still owns and "promise" not to talk to him about it. And where there is a clause saying none of this applies if it's a, you know, really good opportunity.

Third, don't tweet about companies doing business with your kids.

Fourth, don't have advisors go on national television and blatantly violate federal law by endorsing family members products.

Five, live up to the terms of his contract with his DC hotel.

Six, since he's so rich, reimburse taxpayers for things like the Secret Service and Defense department having to rent space in Trump tower, or any of the extra expenses caused by his wealth or his family's decisions.

Seven, too late now, but think about all this crap BEFORE deciding to run for president.

What I would like to see, is the President relying on a broader cross-section of advisors, somehow controlling the emotional side of what I perceive to be his ESFJ personality in public, and allow moderate surrogates to defend some of his policy decisions that may be controversial, but are not 'personal'.

On a side note:

Harry Truman was defensive for his daughter's sake. I didn't find Trumps criticism of Nordstrom's out of line, in that context, and frankly not unexpected. Defending your family is a human response, and why I thought Cruz deserved a standing ovation at the Republican Convention for refusing to cave (at that time) and endorse the man who insulted his wife.

I did find Conway's endorsement of the product line grossly inappropriate.

I think the intent and motivation was different between the two responses. Don't expect those who already are going to assume the worst about Trump to look for that nuance.

One of my problem's with the Nordstrom issue and Trump is that it seems to exemplify a serious issue the president has - reacting to a news story impetuously without first reading the article or thinking about it critically. And when he does this, he often either tries to take credit for something he didn't do, attacks someone for something they didn't really do, or completely ignore the thesis of the article.

For the Nordstrom story, they said that the decision to drop Ivanka's line was made at the beginning of the year and due to sagging sales: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer...ne-n718396

He tried to take credit for a number of job moves that he had nothing to do with: https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/28/trum...to-the-us/ or http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/fo...on-n702761

But I think there may be no better example of Trump's lack of critical thinking and ability to read in-depth articles than this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-str...tial-tweet

In summary of the article above:

I've been thinking about this sequence of events all day—and it's a disturbing one, albeit in an amusing and harmless context:

Quote:The President saw a single line of an article on a television show.
- He tweeted that single line with apparently no idea who the author was or what the publication was, and indeed without reading the rest of the article.
- Nobody in the White House vetted the tweet to discover the readily apparent fact that the article in question sharply criticized the President and supported the decision about which he was angrily complaining.
- Nobody warned the President that the article was written by an author who had written numerous other articles ungraced by pleasant words about him—indeed, an author who has been calling him a threat to national security for nearly a year.
- Nobody warned the President that the site he was about to praise has had a great deal of such writing by other writers as well.

(02-13-2017 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 11:19 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 10:09 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I did want to get back to responding to OO's original question, which I (rightly of wrongly) had interpreted as being about what I wanted him to do regarding his conflicts of interest, etc.

First, release tax returns like every other modern president.

Second, follow the advice of independent ethics advisers and do things like set up a blind trust. Not this joke of an arrangement where his kids run the business which he still owns and "promise" not to talk to him about it. And where there is a clause saying none of this applies if it's a, you know, really good opportunity.

Third, don't tweet about companies doing business with your kids.

Fourth, don't have advisors go on national television and blatantly violate federal law by endorsing family members products.

Five, live up to the terms of his contract with his DC hotel.

Six, since he's so rich, reimburse taxpayers for things like the Secret Service and Defense department having to rent space in Trump tower, or any of the extra expenses caused by his wealth or his family's decisions.

Seven, too late now, but think about all this crap BEFORE deciding to run for president.

What I would like to see, is the President relying on a broader cross-section of advisors, somehow controlling the emotional side of what I perceive to be his ESFJ personality in public, and allow moderate surrogates to defend some of his policy decisions that may be controversial, but are not 'personal'.

On a side note:

Harry Truman was defensive for his daughter's sake. I didn't find Trumps criticism of Nordstrom's out of line, in that context, and frankly not unexpected. Defending your family is a human response, and why I thought Cruz deserved a standing ovation at the Republican Convention for refusing to cave (at that time) and endorse the man who insulted his wife.

I did find Conway's endorsement of the product line grossly inappropriate.

I think the intent and motivation was different between the two responses. Don't expect those who already are going to assume the worst about Trump to look for that nuance.

One of my problem's with the Nordstrom issue and Trump is that it seems to exemplify a serious issue the president has - reacting to a news story impetuously without first reading the article or thinking about it critically. And when he does this, he often either tries to take credit for something he didn't do, attacks someone for something they didn't really do, or completely ignore the thesis of the article.

For the Nordstrom story, they said that the decision to drop Ivanka's line was made at the beginning of the year and due to sagging sales: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer...ne-n718396

He tried to take credit for a number of job moves that he had nothing to do with: https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/28/trum...to-the-us/ or http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/fo...on-n702761

But I think there may be no better example of Trump's lack of critical thinking and ability to read in-depth articles than this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-str...tial-tweet

In summary of the article above:

I've been thinking about this sequence of events all day—and it's a disturbing one, albeit in an amusing and harmless context:

Quote:The President saw a single line of an article on a television show.
- He tweeted that single line with apparently no idea who the author was or what the publication was, and indeed without reading the rest of the article.
- Nobody in the White House vetted the tweet to discover the readily apparent fact that the article in question sharply criticized the President and supported the decision about which he was angrily complaining.
- Nobody warned the President that the article was written by an author who had written numerous other articles ungraced by pleasant words about him—indeed, an author who has been calling him a threat to national security for nearly a year.
- Nobody warned the President that the site he was about to praise has had a great deal of such writing by other writers as well.

ESFJ - React first, figure out later what it was you just said and did.

The guy needs good advisors, and they obviously need to be people he trusts. When you're wealthy and a celebrity, there's a point where you are immune to the consequences of your personality (if not immune, then the consequences aren't felt significantly because you can stomach a certain level of losses). Maybe because he's lacked significant consequences in the past, he doesn't see the benefit of listening to advisors? Maybe he doesn't inherently assume advisors have his best interests at heart.

To be clear, simply having a certain personality style doesn't result in the behavior Trump is prone towards. Normal people (of all personality types) have to deal with the consequences of their personality. Wise people modify their behavior and get the counsel of people who are wired differently to complement the strengths of their personality and mitigate their weaknesses.