Page 1 of 3
On the subject of Trump
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 2:24 pm
by glennds
Someone mentioned Reddit in another thread. Yesterday Reddit hosted an AMA (Ask Me Anything) live with a British director named Alex Holder. He has produced a documentary called Unprecedented on Discovery+ that is based on the access he was granted by Trump and the Trump family during and after the 2020 election. His footage has been subpoena'd by the Jan 6th commission.
The extensive discussion was as fascinating as it was entertaining. Its for you to decide for yourself what his credibility level is. After all he's just a guy who is only special because he had temporary intimate access to Trump at a pivotal time, including Jan 6th. I have not seen the documentary.
Here are a few selected questions and answers that were particularly useful to me, most being questions I have always wanted to ask someone:
Q: How much did you get the sense that controlled chaos was a well crafted strategy, or was it truly a shit show with every day a new, unplanned catastrophe?
A: total shit show
Q: More specifically though, do you think the chaos was crafted strategy?
A: not crafted. total shit show.
Q: Based on your time with Trump, what do you believe his plans for the classified documents were? Selling them to the highest bidder? Organizing a coup? Something that is somehow more sinister or did he just do it for the lulz?
A: I think he just wanted them because he thinks they belong to him!
Q: If I may ask a follow-up to this, going off what he truly thinks; Do you think that he wholeheartedly believes the rhetoric he’s spitting out (anything from “Stop The Steal” to building the wall) or is he just saying whatever he can to get people riled up at the polls? Also, if the former rings true, do you feel there was ever a time where it was all an act?
A: there was a time when it was an act - but I think he has come to believe it. Which is terrifying.
Q: What was the vibe like for everyone in the WH leading up to Jan 6th? And after?
A: There was an uncomfortable atmosphere in the White House. President Trump’s staff came across as being very intimidated by him. They seemed scared.
Q: Are you under any NDAs that prevent answering certain questions about the former President?
A: No NDA's
Q: Do you think Trump is "all there" mentally?
A: I'm not a doctor but he is certainly a very unusual person.
Q: Does his energy come from pills? What was he like in the morning and how long did it take him to get that Revlon look?
A: So, he does his own makeup and I was told it took a couple of hours each morning.
Q: Does he actually believe the things he says, or is he just a masterful liar?
A: He is incapable of believing anything other than him being a "winner". He cannot accept that he lost and convinces himself that he won. It's pretty extraordinary to witness up-close.
Q: How fucked are we?
A: pretty fucked mate...but if there is one place that can always un-fuck themselves it's the USA. So, I'm hanging on to that.
For anyone interested, here's the link to the AMA where you can dive deeper:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... cumentary/
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2022 3:41 pm
by Kbg
My personal take is it is entirely plausible the full Jan 6 mob/group was spontaneous (though that was certainly not the case for a couple of small groups who were there and there was certainly a call that went out to come protest).
Where I cut the guy zero slack is not doing the right thing when the WH/Trump knew the Capitol building was being attacked.
A big F- on character.
I could also see the classified documents thing being for nothing more than that...and again, back to character.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:45 am
by Kbg
Couldn't have said it better...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mar-a- ... _permalink
I'd say this is pretty typical of what us deep staters think. And note we ain't happy about Hillary's get out of jail free pass either. In my view, she should be held accountable. I don't think anything went to trial so double jeopardy doesn't apply.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:59 am
by yankees60
Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:45 am
Couldn't have said it better...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mar-a- ... _permalink
I'd say this is pretty typical of what us deep staters think. And note we ain't happy about Hillary's get out of jail free pass either. In my view, she should be held accountable. I don't think anything went to trial so double jeopardy doesn't apply.
Does Hillary get any credit for standing up for 11 hours of testimony in one day compared to all the January 6th testimony evaders?
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:16 am
by Kbg
Vinny,
It's about equal application of the law or laws and no one being above the law.
IIRC the classified part of her server was negligible and more by the way of talking around things that shouldn't have been talked around. However, the personal server to do quite a bit of government work was completely illegal, inexcusable and definitely not the intent of Congress when they mandated all government work should be done on government servers. Does that mean government employees don't occasionally send stuff home to work on it and then send it back, nope they do (unless it is classified then they absolutely shouldn't). However, a whole personal server??? Her intent was pretty clear...(no public record).
And because she was not held accountable at the time R's can rightly point to a double standard now...which undermines the rule of law and fosters people thinking the entire system is corrupt.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:08 am
by yankees60
Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:16 am
Vinny,
It's about equal application of the law or laws and no one being above the law.
IIRC the classified part of her server was negligible and more by the way of talking around things that shouldn't have been talked around. However, the personal server to do quite a bit of government work was completely illegal, inexcusable and definitely not the intent of Congress when they mandated all government work should be done on government servers. Does that mean government employees don't occasionally send stuff home to work on it and then send it back, nope they do (unless it is classified then they absolutely shouldn't). However, a whole personal server??? Her intent was pretty clear...(no public record).
And because she was not held accountable at the time R's can rightly point to a double standard now...which undermines the rule of law and fosters people thinking the entire system is corrupt.
How do you factor in Colin Powell's (her predecessor?) advice to her here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... il-server/
Clinton responds to Navy vet who confronts her on handling classified info
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 8:21 am
by Kbg
I would have a problem with Powell as well. The Navy guy was exactly right...we shouldn't have two sets of rules; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. Obviously this has always been the case, but sometimes "everyone else" has had enough and then it's dangerous to be rich and powerful. I'd rather not go there when there's a legal system that could and should act.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:58 pm
by glennds
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 8:21 am
I would have a problem with Powell as well. The Navy guy was exactly right...we shouldn't have two sets of rules; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. Obviously this has always been the case, but sometimes "everyone else" has had enough and then it's dangerous to be rich and powerful. I'd rather not go there when there's a legal system that could and should act.
Let's say the Justice Dept's analysis concludes Trump has violated laws, enough to meet the threshold of indictment. But let's also assume that indicting him would trigger public unrest and increased polarization, because it will. The latter was the declared basis for Ford pardoning Nixon:
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
Should the same concerns be a factor in whether to indict Trump?
Or was Ford wrong and should the prosecution of justice stand independently of societal consequences?
Whether the court system finds him guilty or not is irrelevant to this particular question. I'm just asking about the consequences of indictment and whether they should bear on a go/no go decision.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:24 pm
by joypog
I think the Jonah Goldberg fancy of pardoning Trump in exchange for a promise to not run again would be a pretty awesome scenario. But we all (including Jonah) know this is political fanfiction.
The bigger problem is that we have a populace that is willing to give that guy another bite at the apple...and I'm not sure how we could fix that, cause apparently not even Jesus can do it.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 7:33 pm
by dockinGA
glennds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:58 pm
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 8:21 am
I would have a problem with Powell as well. The Navy guy was exactly right...we shouldn't have two sets of rules; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. Obviously this has always been the case, but sometimes "everyone else" has had enough and then it's dangerous to be rich and powerful. I'd rather not go there when there's a legal system that could and should act.
Let's say the Justice Dept's analysis concludes Trump has violated laws, enough to meet the threshold of indictment. But let's also assume that indicting him would trigger public unrest and increased polarization, because it will. The latter was the declared basis for Ford pardoning Nixon:
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
Should the same concerns be a factor in whether to indict Trump?
Or was Ford wrong and should the prosecution of justice stand independently of societal consequences?
Whether the court system finds him guilty or not is irrelevant to this particular question. I'm just asking about the consequences of indictment and whether they should bear on a go/no go decision.
This is an excellent question, and one that I've struggled with. I think that what Ford did was correct in that situation. I wasn't alive during Watergate, so I have no first hand knowledge, but what I read leads me to believe it was largely a political crime followed by a coverup that Nixon was caught in. A former president going to jail over a political crime probably isn't worth dragging the entire country through a messy trial.
I think Trump's cases may be different. His 1/6 behavior is dangerously close to treason, if it can be proven that he knowingly did and said the things he did while knowing that his stolen election flame-fanning rallies were grounded on complete fabrications. In addition, there's the whole dereliction of duty 'Pence is getting what he deserves' side of this that is also a very bad look for the president, needless to say. Do those clear the threshold of indictment-worthy (if the evidence is there to make a case), I don't know. I tend to think it has to be, so that we make it clear his behavior is not what we will tolerate from our leaders, especially not the supreme leader (pun intended).
The whole classified document fiasco is another completely different situation. I think there has to be proof of him trying to sell state secrets, knowingly holding nuclear secrets, etc. in order for that to be worth indicting him for. Most likely, he took home daily briefing snippets that he used as a napkin after lunch and stuffed in a magazine with his photo on the front or something, and they ended up at Mar-a-Lago. Then, instead of being a normal person, especially one with further political aspirations, and saying 'oh yeah, you're right, I do have these and I'll send them back immediately,' he can only play the game as the jerk he is, stonewall, lie, try to turn it into political gain, etc. Maybe the FBI/DOJ is hoping to come up with enough evidence, and Trump will be stupid enough to demand 'transparency' and release of some of the evidence, that his name will be further dragged through the mud to the point where even Republicans realize he's more toxic than a Superfund site and the party will be best served going a different direction.
Goldberg is right though. If you could convince him to be exiled permanently to Mar-a-Lago, with no Truth Social, no television interviews, etc., that would be ideal. Or possibly Congress grow a pair and decide he's disqualified from office via Amendment 14 Section 3 or something. I wonder if there are any Republican senators kicking themselves for not just voting to convict at the 2nd impeachment and being done with him. That seems like it was the perfect time to do it.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 7:41 pm
by joypog
dockinGA wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 7:33 pm
I wonder if there are any Republican senators kicking themselves for not just voting to convict at the 2nd impeachment and being done with him. That seems like it was the perfect time to do it.
Just as bad as pusamility of the GOP congress, has been the Dem's strategy to use Trumpism to as a useful bogeyman.
Pelosi and Schumer should have done everything they could to make it easy for GOPers to vote yes. Instead they used the opportunity to push the congresspeople into a tough vote and harden the opposition.
Doesn't excuse the cowardice of the Republicans, but Dem's are fools for continuing to pussyfoot with fire.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2022 7:52 pm
by boglerdude
we'll never get the truth/details from either side. I'd support preventing him from running by any means necessary.
Not clear Dems dont want him to run. He didnt do anything to redistribute oligarch wealth, except maybe slowed the war machine. Trump will bring out Dem voters (and there are more anti-trumpers than there are Trumptards) and DeSantis is a 3x better candidate.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:06 am
by yankees60
dockinGA wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 7:33 pm
glennds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 1:58 pm
Kbg wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 8:21 am
I would have a problem with Powell as well. The Navy guy was exactly right...we shouldn't have two sets of rules; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. Obviously this has always been the case, but sometimes "everyone else" has had enough and then it's dangerous to be rich and powerful. I'd rather not go there when there's a legal system that could and should act.
Let's say the Justice Dept's analysis concludes Trump has violated laws, enough to meet the threshold of indictment. But let's also assume that indicting him would trigger public unrest and increased polarization, because it will. The latter was the declared basis for Ford pardoning Nixon:
I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans, whatever their station or former station. The law, whether human or divine, is no respecter of persons; but the law is a respecter of reality.
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
Should the same concerns be a factor in whether to indict Trump?
Or was Ford wrong and should the prosecution of justice stand independently of societal consequences?
Whether the court system finds him guilty or not is irrelevant to this particular question. I'm just asking about the consequences of indictment and whether they should bear on a go/no go decision.
This is an excellent question, and one that I've struggled with. I think that what Ford did was correct in that situation. I wasn't alive during Watergate, so I have no first hand knowledge, but what I read leads me to believe it was largely a political crime followed by a coverup that Nixon was caught in. A former president going to jail over a political crime probably isn't worth dragging the entire country through a messy trial.
I think Trump's cases may be different. His 1/6 behavior is dangerously close to treason, if it can be proven that he knowingly did and said the things he did while knowing that his stolen election flame-fanning rallies were grounded on complete fabrications.
In addition, there's the whole dereliction of duty 'Pence is getting what he deserves' side of this that is also a very bad look for the president, needless to say. Do those clear the threshold of indictment-worthy (if the evidence is there to make a case), I don't know. I tend to think it has to be, so that we make it clear his behavior is not what we will tolerate from our leaders, especially not the supreme leader (pun intended).
The whole classified document fiasco is another completely different situation. I think there has to be proof of him trying to sell state secrets, knowingly holding nuclear secrets, etc. in order for that to be worth indicting him for. Most likely, he took home daily briefing snippets that he used as a napkin after lunch and stuffed in a magazine with his photo on the front or something, and they ended up at Mar-a-Lago. Then, instead of being a normal person, especially one with further political aspirations, and saying 'oh yeah, you're right, I do have these and I'll send them back immediately,' he can only play the game as the jerk he is, stonewall, lie, try to turn it into political gain, etc. Maybe the FBI/DOJ is hoping to come up with enough evidence, and Trump will be stupid enough to demand 'transparency' and release of some of the evidence, that his name will be further dragged through the mud to the point where even Republicans realize he's more toxic than a Superfund site and the party will be best served going a different direction.
Goldberg is right though. If you could convince him to be exiled permanently to Mar-a-Lago, with no Truth Social, no television interviews, etc., that would be ideal. Or possibly Congress grow a pair and decide he's disqualified from office via Amendment 14 Section 3 or something.
I wonder if there are any Republican senators kicking themselves for not just voting to convict at the 2nd impeachment and being done with him. That seems like it was the perfect time to do it.
1. That he did nothing for three entire hours should have been enough to convict him in the eyes of even some of his supporters.
2. Those senators could not vote for convicting because then they would have lost Trump voters voting for them.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:45 pm
by 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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:48 pm
by yankees60
Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:45 pm
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.
1. Not so fast on the integrity for Republicans back then. a. They supported Nixon throughout Watergate and only did not when the smoking gun emerged. b. They were not up against a Nixon cult following like Trump has. I don't think any of them lost re-election due to having gone to Nixon as described above.
2. Nixon, though relatively old, was only 61 when he left office. Trump, on the other hand, is 76. After 76 years of living a certain way there is little chance of him changing his ways. Plus, one could argue that for Nixon, the whole Watergate thing was somewhat out of character for him. There was nothing in his past to predict it. Plus, he could have contested Kennedy truly stealing the election in 1960 (Daley and Chicago) but he did not. Everything in Trump's character supports his behavior through today with nothing supporting him ever not behaving this way. Maybe on his deathbed he might come to a realization of how horrible a person he has been in so many aspects of his life and come to some form of repentance. But little chance anything prior to then.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:36 pm
by glennds
Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:45 pm
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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:06 pm
by yankees60
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:36 pm
Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:45 pm
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.
I reread what you last wrote.
Even though I lived through it I was not as tuned into the political process as I am now. I am remembering what Ford did and being against it. What I do know now is that the Justice Department is independent of the presidency. Therefore if they decide to proceed with charges against Trump I'm not sure if then the current President could step in and then stop the process.
Without researching it now my memory was that the Justice Department had not made any decisions and Ford's pre-emptive action took it out of their hands before they could do anything.
I do not see our current president doing that. I'd also not think that the Justice Department would take into account politics or the consequences of their actions.
The only way they would take into account the consequences of their actions is that they know that these are serious actions to take against a former president. Consequently, the only the way they go forward with it is if they are nearly 100% assured that they will not lose their case under any circumstances.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
by Xan
Justice Department is independent by custom, but along with the rest of the executive branch, it is entirely under the command of the president.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
by yankees60
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:50 pm
by Xan
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:18 pm
by yankees60
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:50 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:44 pm
by Xan
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:18 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:50 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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?
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 5:54 am
by Mountaineer
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:06 pm
I'd also not think that the Justice Department would take into account politics or the consequences of their actions.
Surely you jest!
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:17 am
by yankees60
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:44 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:18 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:50 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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.
Re: On the subject of Trump
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:47 am
by Mountaineer
yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:17 am
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:44 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:18 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:50 pm
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:49 pm
Xan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:08 pm
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).