Trump Transition - the ongoing saga
This is a continuation of the topic Trump Transition.
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
12wonderY
George F. Will seems to have recovered from the Obama years. He seemed to have to twist his logic there for a long while.
Trump has a dangerous disability
Trump has a dangerous disability
What is most alarming (and mortifying to the University of Pennsylvania, from which he graduated) is not that Trump has entered his eighth decade unscathed by even elementary knowledge about the nation’s history. As this column has said before, the problem isn’t that he does not know this or that, or that he does not know that he does not know this or that. Rather, the dangerous thing is that he does not know what it is to know something.
His fathomless lack of interest in America’s path to the present and his limitless gullibility leave him susceptible to being blown about by gusts of factoids that cling like lint to a disorderly mind.
2proximity1
I think it would help if more of the general public read more, informed themselves better, on the realities of high-level executives in so many areas of modern life--and, by modern life, I really mean trends that go back at least to the 1940s if not, indeed, a good deal earlier. If anything these trends have worsened, not lessened, with the advent of networked computer mass-communications.
Many high-level executives have little time to properly inform themselves and significantly reduce their many and large gaps of knowledge. Their schedules are too full to permit them sufficient time to read and then to reflect--and they're frequently sleep-deprived, which is a serious impediment to clear-thinking and to memory retention. Instead of syntopical reading, they get things compartmentalized--unless they are fortunate enough to have some staff who possess both unusual insight and a generalist knowledge that most narrowly-focused experts don't usually possess (the very sort of people typically advising the executives) they're swamped in minute detail in stacks of briefing books--and, out of near-necessity (again due to the tyrany of time constraints) they often skim or skip reading even these digests, prepared for them by sycophantic and dependant staff who are not likely to press points of information which they well understand are welcome in the entourage's group-think.
Obama is a good example of a man who had a much-overrated reputation for his intelligence--and the same should be said of his supposed areas of "expertise." He was neither a very good or a very imaginative thinker and his depth and range in reading, in knowledge of history and social and political affairs were and are, frankly, not rightly very impressive. Although both Speaker Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, who, God knows, made their share of political blunders, lacked the paper credentials in formal education which Obama had framed and hanging on his home or office walls, these former had a great deal better understanding of human affairs, of people and their complexities. Obama could not negotiate, seems never to have known the phrase, "Drive a hard bargain," didn't fight for anything which wasn't easily won and, very simply, was one IMMENSE eight-year-long "Nothing.burger" waste-of-extradordinarily-precious-time, as well as the assurer of his personally-approved successor, the morally-disgusting and similarly intellectually light-weight, Hillary Clinton.
There are studies on these points. Some scholarly experts have studied and published on these main points.
Trump is somewhat different in character from both Clintons and from Obama. Thank Sweet Jesus that he is in certain respects different.
As for Trump's comparing badly in either intelligence or world-political understanding with Clinton and Obama, most of it is due to people's over-estimation of the talents and intellects of Trumps former adversaries (people he showed he could out-manoeuver in an electoral contest which ran over a year) ; all I've seen are relatively minor lacunae in his set of ready-knowledge of detail in certain historical facts--names, dates, events. Things which are most remediable by others who can fill him in on these. However, what he may have over Obama and Clinton is better general judgement and the sense and the nerve they lacked to apply it. That cannot be filled in by one or more advisors sitting around a table.
I am sick to death of overrated experts like Obama. In typical fashion, reinforcing the very last thing which he needed in reinforcement--the expectation of getting praise and honors in advance, for nothing--he got a Nobel Peace Prize just for fucking "showing up to 'work' --after which, really, he did damn little real work.
Now, if most people are too stupid to see and understand these things, then that would help explain why we're suffering from them.
Many high-level executives have little time to properly inform themselves and significantly reduce their many and large gaps of knowledge. Their schedules are too full to permit them sufficient time to read and then to reflect--and they're frequently sleep-deprived, which is a serious impediment to clear-thinking and to memory retention. Instead of syntopical reading, they get things compartmentalized--unless they are fortunate enough to have some staff who possess both unusual insight and a generalist knowledge that most narrowly-focused experts don't usually possess (the very sort of people typically advising the executives) they're swamped in minute detail in stacks of briefing books--and, out of near-necessity (again due to the tyrany of time constraints) they often skim or skip reading even these digests, prepared for them by sycophantic and dependant staff who are not likely to press points of information which they well understand are welcome in the entourage's group-think.
Obama is a good example of a man who had a much-overrated reputation for his intelligence--and the same should be said of his supposed areas of "expertise." He was neither a very good or a very imaginative thinker and his depth and range in reading, in knowledge of history and social and political affairs were and are, frankly, not rightly very impressive. Although both Speaker Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, who, God knows, made their share of political blunders, lacked the paper credentials in formal education which Obama had framed and hanging on his home or office walls, these former had a great deal better understanding of human affairs, of people and their complexities. Obama could not negotiate, seems never to have known the phrase, "Drive a hard bargain," didn't fight for anything which wasn't easily won and, very simply, was one IMMENSE eight-year-long "Nothing.burger" waste-of-extradordinarily-precious-time, as well as the assurer of his personally-approved successor, the morally-disgusting and similarly intellectually light-weight, Hillary Clinton.
There are studies on these points. Some scholarly experts have studied and published on these main points.
Trump is somewhat different in character from both Clintons and from Obama. Thank Sweet Jesus that he is in certain respects different.
As for Trump's comparing badly in either intelligence or world-political understanding with Clinton and Obama, most of it is due to people's over-estimation of the talents and intellects of Trumps former adversaries (people he showed he could out-manoeuver in an electoral contest which ran over a year) ; all I've seen are relatively minor lacunae in his set of ready-knowledge of detail in certain historical facts--names, dates, events. Things which are most remediable by others who can fill him in on these. However, what he may have over Obama and Clinton is better general judgement and the sense and the nerve they lacked to apply it. That cannot be filled in by one or more advisors sitting around a table.
I am sick to death of overrated experts like Obama. In typical fashion, reinforcing the very last thing which he needed in reinforcement--the expectation of getting praise and honors in advance, for nothing--he got a Nobel Peace Prize just for fucking "showing up to 'work' --after which, really, he did damn little real work.
Now, if most people are too stupid to see and understand these things, then that would help explain why we're suffering from them.
3jjwilson61
>2 proximity1: Oh yeah, that wonderful judgement that it doesn't matter what's in a bill we just gotta pass something. I think the word you may be reaching for is judgemental.
52wonderY
John Kelly, a principled man?
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-resign-comey-firing-2017-7
"After getting confirmation that he was, in fact, fired, Comey left Los Angeles for Washington and took a phone call from Kelly on the way, CNN reported. When he learned that Kelly may resign over the events that had transpired, Comey urged him not to."
So, Kelly, a previous unknown to me, has already earned two plusses, for this and for ridding us of Scaramucci.
It'll be interesting to see whether he can hold Mr. Trump's attention and good behavior.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-resign-comey-firing-2017-7
"After getting confirmation that he was, in fact, fired, Comey left Los Angeles for Washington and took a phone call from Kelly on the way, CNN reported. When he learned that Kelly may resign over the events that had transpired, Comey urged him not to."
So, Kelly, a previous unknown to me, has already earned two plusses, for this and for ridding us of Scaramucci.
It'll be interesting to see whether he can hold Mr. Trump's attention and good behavior.
6davidgn
He's a favorite of Lang's as well (as Lang makes clear in a post that clearly illustrates the chasm between many of his political positions and my own.) http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/kelly-vs-the-mooch.ht...
I imagine he's pleasantly surprised by events.
I imagine he's pleasantly surprised by events.
7DugsBooks
>5 2wonderY: I am sure I would not agree with Scaramucci about much but he is a great communicator. I think he has the wit and charisma that Trump wishes he had.
8timspalding
>5 2wonderY:
I want to know's behind that story. I'm assuming it's true, but there's a reason it came out now. Logically it's either Comey, Kelly or someone very close to them.
I want to know's behind that story. I'm assuming it's true, but there's a reason it came out now. Logically it's either Comey, Kelly or someone very close to them.
9davidgn
>8 timspalding: An astute observation.
102wonderY
>8 timspalding: Agreed. The timing of it is precise.
11theoria
Everyone who said Trump was unfit to be President was correct. Those who equivocated (for whatever reason) were wrong.
122wonderY
Here's a story from yesterday that compares Kelly to Alexander Haig
Why John Kelly may be destined to repeat history
Why John Kelly may be destined to repeat history
13Tid
Anyone who thinks Obama did very little during his time in office should remember that he was continuously opposed in both Congress and Senate for his entire Presidency. A "President may be a President", but as even Trump - who naively believes that that means he can do anything he wants - is discovering, even repealing Obamacare is no easy matter.
14RickHarsch
And, though Tid is right as far as that goes (Obama had too little energy to appeal directly to people via telly, for instance--overwhelm with poll numbers...), we must all remember how many people died in illegal bombings while Obama was in office.
15StormRaven
2: Wow, you managed to say about three dozen amazingly stupid things in one post. Good job. You are "sick of experts", but the absolute inanity of your post shows that you really have no basis to judge anyone on anything.
162wonderY
>8 timspalding: And today, Fox News declares it to be a leak meant to damage Kelly's relationship with the president.
17timspalding
>16 2wonderY:
Maybe so. I don't know about you, but I think that's obviously the most likely explanation. I don't see Kelly immediately stepping on his appointment news by telling some reporter "Oh, by the way, did you know I called Comey to tell him I thought the firing was a bad idea? Because I did. Because I'm a good guy."
It might be some sort of slip by someone, with no intent. Nor do I see this being generally known, but nobody prints it because it's not that important until he's appointed from HS to Chief of Staff. Leaving those explanations aside, there aren't a lot of parties that would know this info. And there's a clear cui bono and cui malo. If I were Comey, I'd be phoning Kelly up to insist it wasn't me that leaked this, but must have been someone who heard about it elsewhere.
Maybe so. I don't know about you, but I think that's obviously the most likely explanation. I don't see Kelly immediately stepping on his appointment news by telling some reporter "Oh, by the way, did you know I called Comey to tell him I thought the firing was a bad idea? Because I did. Because I'm a good guy."
It might be some sort of slip by someone, with no intent. Nor do I see this being generally known, but nobody prints it because it's not that important until he's appointed from HS to Chief of Staff. Leaving those explanations aside, there aren't a lot of parties that would know this info. And there's a clear cui bono and cui malo. If I were Comey, I'd be phoning Kelly up to insist it wasn't me that leaked this, but must have been someone who heard about it elsewhere.
