Trump's failed leadership

[commonsense]

40,478 and counting...

That was the count when you posted it.

3 min later it was 41,379.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

40,478 and counting...

As England doesn't seem to exist any more; UK population 67 million. Wuhan China virus deaths 16K.
US population 331 million. Wuhan China virus deaths 40.5K
331 divided by 67 = 5 (rounded). 40.5 divided by 16 = 2.5

Spain population 47 million. Wuhan China virus deaths 20.5K

Then you have Sweden, which has no lockdown, yet the new cases and daily death rates are proportionally lower than the UK's.

I will keep you updated darling.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. That’s a manager.

A manager is a leader, but then not all leaders are managers.

A leader of a religious cult for example is not a manager per se, but merely leads a group of people by emotional impulses.
A leader of a gang is not a manager, but is a leader to anyone who want to follow him.

A manager on the other hand is very specific in relation to some sort of organization;

• Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a not-for-profit organization, or government body.
  Management includes the activities of setting the strategy of an organization and coordinating the efforts of its employees (or of volunteers) to accomplish its objectives through the application of available resources, such as financial, natural, technological, and human resources.
  The term "management" may also refer to those people who manage an organization - individually: managers.

Trump was elected by the Electoral College with a minority of the voters. He won the election. He simply was not the choice of the majority of voters.

Note my point in reply to Lacewing on the same;

It is a strawman and that is a fallacy of equivocation.
Again you are not objective.
Trump won the election by the rules defining 'what is the majority' based on the Electoral College system which had been deliberated to be fair long ago, taken into account various circumstances, enacted in the Constitution.

If the criteria for winning is based on popular votes,
those competing would have changed to different strategies to win.

When based on electoral college, many [not so fanatical voters] from the strong majority districts may not have bothered to vote because they know the other fanatical voters will vote and they are sure to win.
If based on popular votes, then the strategies will be changed by each side who will takes steps to ensure everyone [100%] goes to vote.
They might even rent ambulance to take the sick and in nursing homes to vote and other extreme measures.

In this case and the election was officially based on popular instead of the electoral college, how sure are you that Hilary would have won if the rules are based on the popular votes?
Point is you cannot make any conclusion bute you are equivocating and conflating here.

It is not a straw man argument. Trump did indeed win by the rules, however the rules specify a unique definition of the majority. I have refuted your initial argument that if Trump were objectively unsuitable he would not have been supported by a majority of the voters. I have not attempted to refute your argument once you moved the goalposts to include the Electoral College in defense of your bastardization of the word, majority. You are the one who conflated majority with majority according to the rules of the Electoral College. As such it is no equivocation to demand that the difference be maintained. One might even say that your argument is subjective in that you selected a specific case of majority not included in its objective meaning. You cannot claim that Trump won by an actual, absolute majority.

Where did I ever say, Trump won by an actual absolute majority?
It is obvious, the President is assumed to have won by a majority as defined by the agreed rules.
It is the same with 'winning' everywhere, when the win is always won against the rules set, e.g. tennis, basketball, diving, gymnastic, beauty contests, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You admitted that there is a distinction between leaders and managers. Managers do not lead troops in battle. They manage and deploy resources such as soldiers, but they can do that from the safety of their corner office.

Yes, manager do not lead troops in battle, here you are changing the topic.

Point is managers are leader of the team of people they manages.

Note the theory with the fundamental of 'what a leader' is;
as long as there is one person-X following another-Y, the one followed, Y is the leader.

Trump by default as a President of a Nation is a leader.
The only point you can argue re Trump is whether he is an efficient leader or not.
To find out, we need to do an Employee Appraisal on Trump's performance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believed you are blinded to note, Trump is MERELY a government employee who had signed a contract with the US Government for the stated terms to perform in accordance his the terms of employment as President of the USA.

Trump was not employed; he was elected according to the rules of the Electoral College. He is not an employee; he is an elected official. He does not work for the people he leads; he represents all his supporters and detractors.

Trump was elected thus qualified to be employed as President of the USA.
The election is a prequalification.
It is only official when both Trump accept the offer and signed the contract.

Despite all the flowery terms,
In plain and simply term, Trump is an employee of the Government of the USA.
Surely there are terms and conditions within an Employment Contract of employment for Trump where his responsibility, salaries, various conditions are stated which has to be agreed and signed by Trump and the government.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Trump is MERELY a government employee...

MERELY?

Yes, merely .. a contracted employee.

[Veritas Aequitas]

40,478 and counting...

That was the count when you posted it.

3 min later it was 41,379.

This number, larger than any other countries' is a negative point and an embarrassment for the US.

Whilst the President is ultimately responsible, in the case of the US, the President do not have full control like other dictatorial countries - thus cannot be blamed primarily.

Note for example the large number of homeless people in the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and elsewhere increasing with illegal immigrants and others. This terrible conditions and slums made the US look worse than many 3rd World countries.
Surely it is obvious from what is the structure of governance, we cannot blame the Federal Government nor the President for this terrible states within the cities stated.

This is the same with the large number of death due to Covid19, is cannot be immediately blamed on the Federal Government or the President.

As such in the case of the US specifically, we need to trace to the critical root causes for such a large number of deaths and infection re Covid19.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

''In August 2017, in an article published on his website, Pilger wrote about Trump again. "A coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia. This glimpse of sanity, or simple pragmatism, is anathema to the 'national security' managers who guard a system based on war, surveillance, armaments, threats and extreme capitalism". According to Pilger, The Guardian has published "drivel" in covering the claims "that the Russians conspired with Trump". Such assertions, he writes, are "reminiscent of the far-right smearing of John Kennedy as a 'Soviet agent'".''

[Sculptor]

A manager is a leader, but then not all leaders are managers.

A leader of a religious cult for example is not a manager per se, but merely leads a group of people by emotional impulses.
A leader of a gang is not a manager, but is a leader to anyone who want to follow him.

A manager on the other hand is very specific in relation to some sort of organization;

• Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a not-for-profit organization, or government body.
  Management includes the activities of setting the strategy of an organization and coordinating the efforts of its employees (or of volunteers) to accomplish its objectives through the application of available resources, such as financial, natural, technological, and human resources.
  The term "management" may also refer to those people who manage an organization - individually: managers.

Note my point in reply to Lacewing on the same;

It is a strawman and that is a fallacy of equivocation.
Again you are not objective.
Trump won the election by the rules defining 'what is the majority' based on the Electoral College system which had been deliberated to be fair long ago, taken into account various circumstances, enacted in the Constitution.

If the criteria for winning is based on popular votes,
those competing would have changed to different strategies to win.

When based on electoral college, many [not so fanatical voters] from the strong majority districts may not have bothered to vote because they know the other fanatical voters will vote and they are sure to win.
If based on popular votes, then the strategies will be changed by each side who will takes steps to ensure everyone [100%] goes to vote.
They might even rent ambulance to take the sick and in nursing homes to vote and other extreme measures.

In this case and the election was officially based on popular instead of the electoral college, how sure are you that Hilary would have won if the rules are based on the popular votes?
Point is you cannot make any conclusion bute you are equivocating and conflating here.

It is not a straw man argument. Trump did indeed win by the rules, however the rules specify a unique definition of the majority. I have refuted your initial argument that if Trump were objectively unsuitable he would not have been supported by a majority of the voters. I have not attempted to refute your argument once you moved the goalposts to include the Electoral College in defense of your bastardization of the word, majority. You are the one who conflated majority with majority according to the rules of the Electoral College. As such it is no equivocation to demand that the difference be maintained. One might even say that your argument is subjective in that you selected a specific case of majority not included in its objective meaning. You cannot claim that Trump won by an actual, absolute majority.

Where did I ever say, Trump won by an actual absolute majority?
It is obvious, the President is assumed to have won by a majority as defined by the agreed rules.
It is the same with 'winning' everywhere, when the win is always won against the rules set, e.g. tennis, basketball, diving, gymnastic, beauty contests, etc.

But the rules are broken, and he only ends up with 62,984,828 votes, out of a possible 250,056,000, nearly half did not think enough of either candidate to walk to a polling booth or post a vote.
I figure that's about 25%, not including those not allowed to vote, and homeless; disenfranchised those with no valid ID, who can't get registered.
This does not constitute a mandate.
As Gil Scott Heron used to say " A MANDATE MY ASS"
I supposed someone has to do the job, but such a small turnout should council some sort of humility; not this bull headed and moronic "fire first think maybe later" dictatorship.

[commonsense]

You have to present the whole picture to arrive at your conclusion.
It is irrational to jump to conclusion based on what one feels.

A leader is always prepared, stakes his honor on doing his duty to his constituents, keeping himself morally straight, physically strong and mentally awake, and on helping others at all possible times. A leader is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, knows how to be a follower, is cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. A leader always leads by example. A leader focuses on two valuable priorities: the welfare of his constituents and the accomplishment of their goals. A leader is never self-glorifying, self-centered or self-infatuated. A leader is not narcissistic, pompous or smug. A leader must not be egomaniacal, vain or conceited. A leader has tendencies to be selfless, generous, warm-hearted, beneficent, charitable, altruistic, valorous, gallant, unswerving and reassuring.

Trump is no leader.

A leader is simply one who leads a group of people toward some objectives or goals.

leader = the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
-Google dictionary

In the case of the President of the USA, his leadership and objectives are defined within his 'signed and agreed' terms of employment.

Before the leader is chosen, his moral character may count.
But after the leader is chosen, his moral characters and other not so pleasant traits are put aside [assumed to be accepted to a degree] and the focus is then on whether the leader can lead the group, organization, or country to the agreed objectives within his terms of employment with his employer.
Most people are not mindful of the above points bolded.

I did extensive and was very into 'leadership theory,'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
One of the types of leadership is 'Situational Leadership' where the moral character of the leader is not the most critical but rather his abilities to perform "optimally" within the specific situations, note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershi ... y_theories
Note this fact and requirement for a leader in the specific situation;

Individuals who take on leadership roles in turbulent situations, such as groups facing a threat or ones in which status is determined by intense competition among rivals within the group, tend to be narcissistic: arrogant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident.
-wiki

Trump with his warts and all, is a situational-leader as chosen and contracted for the current situation the US is placed within the world at present.
If Trump is that so very bad obviously and evidently, he would not have been elected by the 'majority' of the US.

[commonsense]

40,478 and counting...

That was the count when you posted it.

3 min later it was 41,379.

CNN has since revised its count. I do not blame Trump solely for this number. Although there may have been fewer deaths at this point, there are likely a multitude of factors involved.

[henry quirk]

I hired Trump to wreck shit, plain and simple... Some, like me, hired him as hand grenade...

Anarchists!

Anarchist, by inclination; minarchist by way of reason.


The intention of government is to allow each of us to live amicably among other guys without them infringing on us or what’s ours.

That indeed is the purpose of American governance.

How far we've strayed...

[henry quirk]

How do you stop the destroyer you put into power, from destroying things that matter?

I'm thinkin' we -- you and me -- probably don't see eye to eye about what matters.

That's not the point. Do you think there's nothing he could destroy that matters to you? Are you really that dead in your brain and your soul?

I'm thinkin' a President H. Clinton woulda been absolutely nightmarish, if for no other reason than she woulda done nuthin' but maintain the status quo. She woulda further eroded what's truly important to me: my autonomy.

[commonsense]

I hired Trump to wreck shit, plain and simple... Some, like me, hired him as hand grenade...

Anarchists!

Anarchist, by inclination; minarchist by way of reason.


The intention of government is to allow each of us to live amicably among other guys without them infringing on us or what’s ours.

That indeed is the purpose of American governance.

How far we've strayed...

True and true.

[Lacewing]

Do you think there's nothing he could destroy that matters to you? Are you really that dead in your brain and your soul?

I'm thinkin' a President H. Clinton woulda been absolutely nightmarish, if for no other reason than she woulda done nuthin' but maintain the status quo. She woulda further eroded what's truly important to me: my autonomy.

Why do Trump supporters always have to bellow about Clinton when asked questions about Trump? Regardless of who the person is in the role of president, if they are an idiotic destroyer, we should be able to discuss it. You say that you WANTED him to come in and destroy everything. Great. I want a lot of stuff destroyed too. I want Congress EMPTIED of everyone who has been there longer than 8 years... and I want more than two parties and branches and all of that directly oppositional bullshit. My question to you is whether or not you can acknowledge that things you care about could be destroyed because of a madman who has no discernment over what he destroys? Instead of you just acting cocky and farting and saying you "hired him", do you have any broader awareness than that?