On the subject of Trump

[vnatale]

Justice Department is independent by custom, but along with the rest of the executive branch, it is entirely under the command of the president.

Expand upon what you mean by "it is entirely under the command of the president". My understanding is that he can fire anyone within it. But he cannot dictate anything that they do.

Well that's not any different from any other subservient position. At your office, your boss can't make you do anything. But he sure can fire you if you don't.

But there will be all kinds of repercussions from a boss doing something like that. It does not go unnoticed and, generally, has negative consequences for the boss.

I'm... confused. Isn't that how the boss gets you to do anything? Like, your job?

The kind of boss you describe is the boss ... the one who commands you to do certain things. Who does not respect your professional judgement or your motivations.

The good kind of boss is a true leader. Who persuades you to do things. Who gets you onboard of what are the correct things to do.

First kind of boss is a terrible kind of boss and loses a lot of good employees and does not get maximum performance from them.

The second kind retains and attracts good employees and gets maximum performance from them.

Trump is definitely the first type of boss.

I have no first hand information with which to assess your assertion about President Trump. I do agree with your two types of bosses (I have first hand experience).

KGB can back me up on this ... but I now from reading a military training book that the military believes the best leaders lead by persuasion, not by using positional authority.

[vnatale]

One way to find out what sort of a leader a person is, is to listen to his former employees/officials:

There's far too many to recount, so let's recall just a few of the more high-profile veterans of the Trump White House:

Trump's former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, a former president and chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, reportedly called Trump a "professional liar."

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who prior to joining the Trump administration was the CEO of ExxonMobil, in a meeting at the Pentagon reportedly called Trump a "f**king moron."

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who previously served as an ambassador to the UN and has worked in three Republican presidential administrations, in his memoir called Trump "erratic" and "stunningly uninformed."

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a four star US Marine Corps general who commanded troops in three wars, in a statement in June said Trump "tries to divide us," that he makes "a mockery of the Constitution" and that "we are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership." He also told veteran journalist Bob Woodward: "The president has no moral compass."

Former White House Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, also a four star US Marine Corps general, has been the tightest-lipped about his time working for Trump. But he did say he agrees with Mattis' assessment of Trump, and he publicly disputed Trump's claim that he fired Mattis. That means Kelly effectively called Trump a liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/former- ... ohn-2020-9

The challenge here is for anyone to assemble a similar set of quotes regarding Obama from his former employees / officials. Which always leads back to the puzzle of why so many Evangelicals thought Obama was this evil Muslim while Trump was God's chosen one.

[joypog]

The challenge here is for anyone to assemble a similar set of quotes regarding Obama from his former employees / officials. Which always leads back to the puzzle of why so many Evangelicals thought Obama was this evil Muslim while Trump was God's chosen one.

When religion mixes with politics, policy begins to trump character.

Character was a convenient bludgeon when the Democratic president was a lecherous cad, but it is moral weakness to fret about the character of someone who will install three supreme court justices and trigger teh libs.

[Kbg]

Huge difference between Nixon and Trump...Republican Congressional/Senate members went to Nixon and told him you can resign or be impeached and you will be impeached and found guilty in the Senate. You know, back when integrity mattered and even the President didn't get to break the law knowingly.

And something we will never ever hear from Trump that Nixon said after the pardon...I was wrong.

Nixon, as some may know, came to be known later in life as a respected, wise elder statesman and particularly in the realm of foreign affairs.

Americans are generally fairly forgiving for those who own their mistakes. Unless Trump has a vision on the road to Damascus, I don't see him graduating to respected wise elder statesman as seen by a majority of Americans.

I think you misunderstood my question Kbg.

Reread. No got it, but a very oblique reply admittedly.

Simplifying my obliquity...Nixon was held accountable by the political process to include a significant part of his own party.

The law is the law but there are mitigating circumstances in terms of how harshly or softly it may be applied. This is what we have judges for. In my view, the FBI and Justice Department should enforce the law and let juries and judges make the decision as to guilt and penalty.

And a rhetorical...how was the decision to not go after Hillary working out now?

The short answer, no.

When you mix law and politics you damage both and I'd venture the FBI and Justice are wishing they had a couple of redos as they've hurt their institutional credibility and damaged the public's trust in them by trying to factor in politics. I don't think anyone is naïve enough to say there's zero mixing in the real world...but the downside of factoring in politics is you lose all cover of being impartial.

[Kbg]

KGB can back me up on this ... but I now from reading a military training book that the military believes the best leaders lead by persuasion, not by using positional authority.

Persuasion and personal example are always the first "go tos" for (good) military leaders or any leader for that matter.

On being Christian and voting or not voting for Trump. I never voted for the man because

A) from day one he seemed highly narcissistic which pretty much means a person is going to be incapable of being a good leader. I'm old school enough to believe/think that the President really does need to first and foremost realize he's above party at that point (though of course he still needs his/her party)

B) he's not actually a conservative for the vast majority of issues

I couldn't bring myself to vote for a Democrat due to their stance on abortion and so I wrote in Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in 2016 even though they weren't on the ballot.

[doodle]

Screenshot_20220830_191051.jpg (132.94 KiB) Viewed 2177 times

[joypog]

He's a man who's always had facts bend to his feelings.

[boglerdude]

Helpful, thanks Joe.

edit1: "As much as I dislike unnecessary division, one of the best things to come out of the past few years is it's become clear who you can trust and who you can't...Who will defend you vs who will turn on you when instructed to...Who will fight with you vs throw you into a gulag." https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/15 ... 3910693888

edit2: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1 ... 9036116994

[Kbg]

No secrets here...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... _permalink

[vnatale]

No secrets here...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... _permalink

What is the consensus here?

The Wall Street Journal articles are Always / Never to be trusted?

Or, only trusted when they agree with my opinion??!!

[Kbg]

WSJ

- Definitely right in outlook
- Actual conservative opinion
- Owned by Fox News Corp

Generally viewed as reputable and uses good journalistic practice

Unlike the NYT I don't think in recent history they've been accused of poor journalistic practices/ethics...but they clearly have a take on things.

[vnatale]

WSJ

- Definitely right in outlook
- Actual conservative opinion
- Owned by Fox News Corp

Generally viewed as reputable and uses good journalistic practice

Unlike the NYT I don't think in recent history they've been accused of poor journalistic practices/ethics...but they clearly have a take on things.

There IS a clear difference between the objectivity / slant in their articles as compared to the opinions / editorials?

[vnatale]

No secrets here...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru ... _permalink

Another item that normally would cause people to pause in supporting a given candidate but not Trump supporters? Again, speaks to both lack of character and judgement that so many qualified lawyers refuse to work for him. For how many other prior presidents would that be the case?



The hiring of Mr. Kise comes amid internal discussions in the former president’s circle over the quality of his legal team. A number of lawyers have been contacted recently to work on the case but have declined, the people said.


Several lawyers turned down the job because they didn’t think Mr. Trump would follow their legal advice and were concerned about his reputation for not paying his legal bills, according to people familiar with the matter.

[I Shrugged]

Yeah, Joe sure has been promoting unity the last few months. Keep up the good work!

If he's wondering why R's are angry, maybe acknowledging that the FBI told social media to suppress the Hunter laptop story at the behest of the D's so they could change the outcome of the election might have something to do with it. A senior FBI agent just resigned over this yesterday. But nothing to see here, move on please.

Ha, I see we used the same punchline.

[joypog]

Trump not paying his consultants is a standard practice in his repertoire.

Indeed, it's quite impressive how he keeps getting people to work for him in spite of that history.

I would've thought businessmen would be quicker to cancel a deadbeat than a bunch of snowflake college students...but what do I know.

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (51.75 KiB) Viewed 2059 times

[vnatale]

Did not hear a word of the speech and only have read a handful of comments about it. But did find this somewhat humorous. The background does look like something vintage Nazi Germany.

As usual Biden makes the pose of a person I'll just keep detesting.

Capture.JPG (38.55 KiB) Viewed 2056 times

[Mountaineer]

Did not hear a word of the speech and only have read a handful of comments about it. But did find this somewhat humorous. The background does look like something vintage Nazi Germany.

As usual Biden makes the pose of a person I'll just keep detesting.


Capture.JPG

.

Wow! What were his handlers thinking?


.

[vnatale]

Did not hear a word of the speech and only have read a handful of comments about it. But did find this somewhat humorous. The background does look like something vintage Nazi Germany.

As usual Biden makes the pose of a person I'll just keep detesting.


Capture.JPG

.

Wow! What were his handlers thinking?


.

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

[joypog]

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

His handlers are a bunch of 32 year olds who spend all their time on twitter. Nothing else makes sense.

[vnatale]

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

His handlers are a bunch of 32 year olds who spend all their time on twitter. Nothing else makes sense.

If they spend all that time on Twitter then they were quickly pointed out the error of their ways!

[barrett]

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

His handlers are a bunch of 32 year olds who spend all their time on twitter. Nothing else makes sense.

I guess a photo like that only speaks 1,000 words if one has no clue what the orator actually sounds like. It's not too hard for the brain to overlay a babbling, low-energy Biden that sounds nothing like a fiery Nazi.

Just realized that maybe the big difference between Biden & Trump is that one is babbling and low energy and the other is babbling and high energy. Go Sleepy joe!

[joypog]

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

His handlers are a bunch of 32 year olds who spend all their time on twitter. Nothing else makes sense.

If they spend all that time on Twitter then they were quickly pointed out the error of their ways!

Depends on the echo chamber that they follow....Those folks have their cranium up their posterior.

[vnatale]

Either his handlers are young or have no historical perspective or both.

His handlers are a bunch of 32 year olds who spend all their time on twitter. Nothing else makes sense.

If they spend all that time on Twitter then they were quickly pointed out the error of their ways!

Depends on the echo chamber that they follow....Those folks have their cranium up their posterior.

Oh, yes. I did not think of that aspect of it. I get a wide spectrum of everything from my "A" list of Twitter. Some people, like our own Mathjak here, believe that you also need to know what the "enemy" or other side is thinking.

[boglerdude]

yeah the oligarchs let an intern set that up. Tight budget. Biden is trying to unify, not distract from the crumbling pandemic narrative and resultant record inflation.

edit1: https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/f ... it-reveals