Trump's failed leadership

[Lacewing]

Irrational idiots like Sculptor and Lacewing loathe him and think that this means that everything he says and does is automatically wrong. They are the kind of people who turn politicians into either saints or demons--there are no grey areas with them.

Ah see, now there's more of those irrational statements that Commonsense was so astute to point out. No, I do not think that everything Trump says and does is automatically wrong. But when things are obviously wrong, why can't we point it out? He does a lot of really stupid stuff, and acts like an idiot much of the time. That's not MY fault! I do not turn any politicians into either saints or demons... I don't know what part of your tiny dark brain is coming up with that, but you're spewing dishonest venom as if you're so FULL of it that you can't hold it all in or you'll burst. Poor stupid toxic spider.

[Lacewing]

The mandate [literally] is conditioned upon the agreed rules of the election process.
The rules are in accordance to the constitution.

We get it. According to the rules expressed by the US Constitution, the winner of a presidential election shall be the presidential candidate with the majority of votes from the Electors in the Electoral College.

It is quite honest to say that Mr. Trump won the 2016 presidential election, or that Trump was the winner of that election.

Listen up! It is a fact that a presidential candidate can be the winner of a presidential election without a the support of the majority of voters or of votes cast.

It is also quite honest to say that Donald Trump, although he won the election, did not have the support of the majority of American voters nor the majority of votes cast.

Furthermore, Trump does not enjoy the ongoing support of the majority of citizens who are polled regarding his job approval.

If the rules were to change to the Popular Vote System, there is a possibility the voter turned out could be 80% or more. The parties will surely change their strategies to ensure a greater turn out. We cannot be sure who will win in this format.

Larger turnout always favors the Democrats. That is why it is Republican doctrine to promote legal gerrymandering and legal voter suppression.

Nicely explained! Reasonable, truthful, common sense. V.A. doesn't seem able to value such. He has some kind of subjective agenda that requires ignoring those kinds of broader-thinking "details".

[Sculptor]

Johns Hopkins

Approximate total U.S. Coronavirus deaths: 40,683

Approximate U.S. non-Coronavirus deaths from 1-1-20 to 4-20-20: 858,071

That's an average DAILY death toll of 8580.
Given that nearly 1200 are dying every day of Corona, I'd say that was a massive statistic.
Currently deaths corona account for 1 in 7 deaths, and growing.
Once again you showing a failure of cognition.
What proportion of death due to corona are you going to sit up and take notice of?

You got no perspective: best stay sequestered at home where (you think) it's safe.

Don't forget your mask.

Like you are you mean?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Irrational idiots like Sculptor and Lacewing loathe him and think that this means that everything he says and does is automatically wrong. They are the kind of people who turn politicians into either saints or demons--there are no grey areas with them.

Ah see, now there's more of those irrational statements that Commonsense was so astute to point out. No, I do not think that everything Trump says and does is automatically wrong. But when things are obviously wrong, why can't we point it out? He does a lot of really stupid stuff, and acts like an idiot much of the time. That's not MY fault! I do not turn any politicians into either saints or demons... I don't know what part of your tiny dark brain is coming up with that, but you're spewing dishonest venom as if you're so FULL of it that you can't hold it all in or you'll burst. Poor stupid toxic spider.

I love spiders

[Lacewing]

I love spiders

Well you've probably birthed thousands of them.

(Just having fun... no harm meant, really!)

[commonsense]

I’d like to backtrack to a couple of things where Veritas & I differed about managers and leaders.

In a strict or proscriptivist sense of the words, managers can be leaders and leaders can be managers. So, that’s 2 points for Veritas and none for Richard.

But from a descriptivist perspective, it might be fair to say that a leader per se is not necessarily a good manager, and a manager per se is not a good leader.

Prescriptively, Trump is both a manager and a leader. Descriptively, he is neither a good manager nor a good leader.

I cite his management of the COVID 19 pandemic with regard to liberating states while advising phased reduction of mitigation as a representative example of his poor managerial judgment.

I cite his thousands of untruths as evidence of his lack of leadership qualities with regard to honesty.

[Lacewing]

Prescriptively, Trump is both a manager and a leader. Descriptively, he is neither a good manager nor a good leader.

I cite his management of the COVID 19 pandemic with regard to liberating states while advising phased reduction of mitigation as a representative example of his poor managerial judgment.

I cite his thousands of untruths as evidence of his lack of leadership qualities with regard to honesty.

Good points!

Some Trump supporters have said that non-supporters simply don't like Trump's "personality". Such claims are obviously a misrepresentation (and deflection tactic) since it is NO SECRET that there are MANY real issues and ongoing reasons for NOT supporting him. His own claims and decisions are in constant conflict, and are often carried out randomly and impulsively, against all intelligence to the contrary. Even if his supporters still see just cause for supporting him, they should be able to acknowledge that it's understandable how many people cannot do so for completely valid reasons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The mandate [literally] is conditioned upon the agreed rules of the election process.
The rules are in accordance to the constitution.

Which is clearly BS

If the opposition did not agree to the rules, they should not have participated in the election then.


The current condition anywhere is, not everyone qualified will vote and thus 100% perfection voters is not expected.

It is not to Trump, the one who won the Presidency is the one who has the majority according to the enacted rules of the election.

It is noted only about half of the qualified voters turned out to vote in the 2016 election which is based on the Electoral College System.

If the rules were to change to the Popular Vote System, there is a possibility the voter turned out could be 80% or more. The parties will surely change their strategies to ensure a greater turn out. We cannot be sure who will win in this format.

This is why we cannot conflate the higher number of votes for Hillary within the electoral college system as the "winner" by popularity as claimed by many.

Non Sequitur

You are very ignorant.

Mandate: = the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

Trump won the 2016 election in accordance to the rules as enacted via the Constitutional process.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The mandate [literally] is conditioned upon the agreed rules of the election process.
The rules are in accordance to the constitution.

We get it. According to the rules expressed by the US Constitution, the winner of a presidential election shall be the presidential candidate with the majority of votes from the Electors in the Electoral College.

It is quite honest to say that Mr. Trump won the 2016 presidential election, or that Trump was the winner of that election.

OK

Listen up! It is a fact that a presidential candidate can be the winner of a presidential election without a the support of the majority of voters or of votes cast.

It is also quite honest to say that Donald Trump, although he won the election, did not have the support of the majority of American voters nor the majority of votes cast.

True but only based on majority of votes cast in that 2016 election.

Furthermore, Trump does not enjoy the ongoing support of the majority of citizens who are polled regarding his job approval.

??
Remember all the polls before the result of the 2016 election point to Hillary winning with a large majority, but then you know what is the reality then ..
It is the same with the current polls which cannot be trusted based on what happened previously.

Besides, it depend on which poll you are referring to.

Larger turnout always favors the Democrats. That is why it is Republican doctrine to promote legal gerrymandering and legal voter suppression.

Are you an omniscient God in this case?

You just cannot be certain.
What is certain is the various parties will definitely change their strategies [legally] to adapt to the Popular Vote System if that option is made legal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the opposition did not agree to the rules, they should not have participated in the election then.

Don’t be ridiculous. They should attempt to change the rules if they don’t agree.

You missed the point.
We are referring to the 2016 election based on the Electoral College System.
The point is that the Democrats participated in that 2016 election without complaining about the rules then and more so with high confidence they will win hands down.

[Sculptor]

The mandate [literally] is conditioned upon the agreed rules of the election process.
The rules are in accordance to the constitution.

Which is clearly BS

If the opposition did not agree to the rules, they should not have participated in the election then.


The current condition anywhere is, not everyone qualified will vote and thus 100% perfection voters is not expected.

It is not to Trump, the one who won the Presidency is the one who has the majority according to the enacted rules of the election.

It is noted only about half of the qualified voters turned out to vote in the 2016 election which is based on the Electoral College System.

If the rules were to change to the Popular Vote System, there is a possibility the voter turned out could be 80% or more. The parties will surely change their strategies to ensure a greater turn out. We cannot be sure who will win in this format.

This is why we cannot conflate the higher number of votes for Hillary within the electoral college system as the "winner" by popularity as claimed by many.

Non Sequitur

You are very ignorant.

Mandate: = the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

Trump won the 2016 election in accordance to the rules as enacted via the Constitutional process.

DUH.
Just because you keep saying that does not mean that the system is not broken. If a 7 foot gorilla with a machine gun takes up residence in your house, he establishes the right to sleep where he likes. That does not mean its a good thing.

[Sculptor]

If the opposition did not agree to the rules, they should not have participated in the election then.

Don’t be ridiculous. They should attempt to change the rules if they don’t agree.

You missed the point.
We are referring to the 2016 election based on the Electoral College System.
The point is that the Democrats participated in that 2016 election without complaining about the rules then and more so with high confidence they will win hands down.

The I don't care, don't want either candidate party won the election with over 100 million votes.

[commonsense]

You are very ignorant.

Are you running out of objective and professional comments?

[commonsense]

Trump won the 2016 election in accordance to the rules as enacted via the Constitutional process.

Enough already. You’ve belabored this. No one disputes this fact. Nonetheless, Trump is not a popular president.

[commonsense]

Remember all the polls before the result of the 2016 election point to Hillary winning with a large majority, but then you know what is the reality then ..
It is the same with the current polls which cannot be trusted based on what happened previously.

Besides, it depend on which poll you are referring to.

Good point. Thanks for the reminder.