From MP Debate. Constance drew some pretty negative conclusions from "how the candidates chose to prepare for the debate". Being a person who usually manages problem solving Teams by dragging them all into a room where I help to facilitate them through anger, frustration, confusion, etc to consensus, I offer a different view.
By the way, my style rubs some managers the wrong way. They like to have lots of "one on one" discussions where they work to try to broker a deal. Neither is right or wrong. I like my way because almost never do I have a personal agenda, being an analytical nerd,,, It is just a problem and other people know more than I do about the possible root causes and solutions, what I add to the process is team tools, data tools, logic, restating / translating, peace making, etc.
My one team was a bunch of Financial Managers and IT people, they looked so disappointed when I said that I knew almost nothing about the issue we were there to address. I thought they were going to revolt and ask for a new 6 Sigma Black Belt. Then I started to explain the roles, process, tools, etc and they figured it out.
By the way, my style rubs some managers the wrong way. They like to have lots of "one on one" discussions where they work to try to broker a deal. Neither is right or wrong. I like my way because almost never do I have a personal agenda, being an analytical nerd,,, It is just a problem and other people know more than I do about the possible root causes and solutions, what I add to the process is team tools, data tools, logic, restating / translating, peace making, etc.
My one team was a bunch of Financial Managers and IT people, they looked so disappointed when I said that I knew almost nothing about the issue we were there to address. I thought they were going to revolt and ask for a new 6 Sigma Black Belt. Then I started to explain the roles, process, tools, etc and they figured it out.
"Which one respects the office.
Many news outlets have commented on how unprepared Trump seemed for this debate, the first one-on-one he's ever had to participate in. He actually criticized Hillary Clinton for "staying home" to prepare for the debate (and she took great advantage of that dumb comment).
What does it mean for our country that Clinton was so well-prepared and Trump so ill-prepared for this debate? It means that she respects the office of President of the United States. He regards the presidency as a vehicle of his self-importance and his power to exact revenge on those who oppose him or contradict him. For Trump, to be president is to be Number One--it's all about him. That's why he hasn't bothered to make and offer plans to us about how he would handle this or that problem.
For Clinton, the presidency means taking responsibility for the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans, and of others around the word. Working to improve lives, save lives. It's not all about her. For her, it's all about US." Constance
Really: "For her, it's all about US."
Now please remember that the Clinton's are the couple who went from broke to being worth $100+ million and having a large charity with questionable donors over a ~16 year period. And she maintained a home server so she could control public access to "her" affairs and communications. She is not a Jimmy Carter who seeks to give and help wherever he can.
I offer a different view, she believes that preparing for a debate is the best way for her to attain the power and influence that she has been pursuing for decades. I mean I understand, she is so close to attaining that power and it may be pulled away from her like it was in 2008. That would be terrifying and I would work hard to prepare.
Clinton is more of an analytical introvert and therefore to store up energy and focus she tends to seek privacy. Trump is more of a extroverted collaborator and therefore being with people listening to them is what works for him.
Having worked with both personalities for decades, neither is good or bad... They are just different." G2A
"Planning vs Reality
Since I don't like Clinton or Trump, some of my readers are telling me I should vote for Clinton because she is the safe bet. I mean she has adopted many of the far Left planks from Bernie's Social Democracy platform, and she has spent a lot analytical effort creating detailed plans for how she would do them which scares me to death. However my readers remind me that nothing she is selling will come to pass as long as the GOP controls the House, which is likely to happen.
I mean their reasoning is very logical and practical. It is very likely that a vote for Hillary is a vote for 4 more years of gridlock. Which ironically I am a big fan of. If they would only freeze governmental spending for a couple of years, force the government to become more effective / efficient and let GDP growth raise the tax revenues so we could start paying down the debt... It would be perfect !!!
So I asked the following questions: Why is Hillary making all of these promises that she will not be allowed to implement? Shouldn't she be honest with her voters and explain this reality?
Is it a bad or good thing that Trump does not sell a detailed plan that he knows may not become reality? Remember he is a deal maker so long term detailed plans are pointless to him... He will get between the GOP / DFL and see where they can agree to take things. Thoughts? " G2A
53 comments:
I am going to quote my 19 year old son who I just spoke to briefly "I don't get how people can even consider Trump a valid option" meaning he (Trump) is tremendously unqualified. His roommates are all over the map in terms of their views on the election, which I find a bit disappointing, except for the one who is extremely liberal and is planning to vote for Jill Stein (I can at least understand that.)
How can someone watch the recent debate and see Trump as a plausible president? I met with some friends tonight and talked about recent feelings of significant anxiety at the thought Trump could win.
about part of your post- you really said the words "I know almost nothing about the issue"? Were you feeling sick that day?
Maybe you could write a letter to Hillary and tell her she could get more centrist voters if she cut back on all the promises made to cater to the desires of the DSA Party...
Now that was very funny... Yes, I accept that I do not know everything.
However I do know analysis, facts, data, logic, methods, human nature, etc.
While a doctor might retain a lawyer to negotiate a dispute with a patient, it would be a really bad idea to ask an attorney to perform surgery. They just don't plan well and lack an understanding of the details.
--Hiram
With that in mind, does it make sense to have a somewhat introverted rigid analyst planner as the President?
Or the gregarious extraverted flexible deal maker?
What do we think the job description of the President should read?
Which job skills are most important? Remembering that they accomplish little when they lock horns with Congress.
Just because you either haven't paid attention to Trump's detailed policy speeches and published proposals (the media have been remarkably quiet on them) does not mean they do not exist. And if you HAVE paid attention and just don't like them because they might actually solve the problem, also does not mean they do not exist.
Perhaps I have an advantage in having worked with (and been, I think) one of those "collaborative" managers. You don't HAVE to know anything or even, to a degree, express yourself well while unprepared. You DO have to be able to recognize smart people and listen to them, wherever you find them. Time after time, at the convention, I heard people describe Mr. Trump that way. All I heard from the Democrats was how they would "fight for us." I don't WANT people to fight for me, I want the problems fixed and I don't want them fighting AGAINST me to do it.
With that in mind, does it make sense to have a somewhat introverted rigid analyst planner as the President?
To me, it seems obvious to have as president someone who is capable of understanding and focusing on issues, than someone who is not.
==Hiram
"Yes, I accept that I do not know everything."
Yet, here you are offering amateur psychology.
"With that in mind, does it make sense to have a somewhat introverted rigid analyst planner as the President?
Or the gregarious extraverted flexible deal maker?"
We've had successful Presidents that have had characteristics of both. Lincoln, for example, was noted to be at times painfully introverted. Eisenhower was an introvert/analyst/planner, too, and he did OK.
The problem with Trump isn't about where he lands on the Myers-Briggs test. It's the fact that he has no core, no common decency, and ridiculous policies.
Sean,
I started out as a test and design engineer. I lasted there for about 3 years before my Managers decided that I was much better with people, facilitation, communication and organization. And over the past 20+ years I have worked with production, sales, engineering, procurement, marketing, etc personnel of all personality types.
On top of that I focused on people skills class during my MBA and most of my personal study has been in that area. Finally, since I suffered a severe panic attack 12 years ago and got to learn about / experience meds & counseling, I think I am probably as qualified as most of the psychologists, counselors, coaches, etc I have ever worked with.
Please remember that many of them are in that area of study because they have problems of their own...
Of course I do have one big flaw with regard to counseling /coaching... My emotional quotient is a bit low... I make a better Drill Sergeant than a shoulder to cry on.
It's telling that now preparing for something important is now treated as suspicious and a sign that one is power-hungry instead of merely what smart, successful people have done for thousands of years.
"I think I am probably as qualified as most of the psychologists, counselors, coaches, etc I have ever worked with."
Having had chronic sinus problems doesn't make me an otolaryngologist.
"You DO have to be able to recognize smart people and listen to them, wherever you find them."
Yet, the story of Trump's debate preparations runs exactly counter to that. He had Roger Ailes there ready to get him ready, but Trump couldn't or wouldn't focus on the task.
Sean,
Please remember that it was Constance throwing the rocks.
"What does it mean for our country that Clinton was so well-prepared and Trump so ill-prepared for this debate? It means that she respects the office of President of the United States. He regards the presidency as a vehicle of his self-importance and his power to exact revenge on those who oppose him or contradict him. For Trump, to be president is to be Number One--it's all about him. That's why he hasn't bothered to make and offer plans to us about how he would handle this or that problem."
I just said that they both prepared as fit their personal styles. And that this method has nothing do it with their motivations or what they value.
As for "preparing for something important is now treated as suspicious and a sign that one is power-hungry". I don't think preparing is suspicious given her personality.
I think her 20+ years of position climbing, the big money foundation, the private server, the high dollar speeches to the money men, putting up with a lecherous husband, etc are what indicates that she is power hungry. The preparation is just how she thinks, energizes, etc.
From our friends at Power Line, lamenting the complete lack of substance in this conversation:
"As the change agent, Trump ticked off the things he will accomplish. I note that he has the capacity to do them as the GOP will control Congress. Hillary won’t be able to pass her legislation. We will get gridlock and extra-constitutional executive actions from her. You know his items: build a wall, end sanctuary cities, lower taxes, better trade deals, repeal Obamacare, repeal Common Core, school choice, cut regulations, kill the Green agenda, promote American energy, build infrastructure and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.
[On the other side] How about our declining military, the Iran deal, Hillary Clinton’s criminal mishandling of classified information, the weakest recovery since WWII, stagnant wages, the war on cops and a suddenly rising crime rate, the Libya fiasco, and Obamacare, a failure by any accounting? Where have all the issues gone? Off the front pages, every one, and so far, out of the debates."
Now if you had chronic sinus problems, a talent to understand medicine, spent 25 years studying the topic and others with different sinus problems... Could you be a capable "amateur otolaryngologist"? (ie without the surgery capability...)
By the way emotional intelligence and psychology are greatly different from the physical sciences. People like me have had to study for decades to understand it, whereas some sales type people just have it naturally.
Jerry,
I really am praying the Congress stays gridlocked. (ie Dems take Senate if Trump wins)
Both of these idiots are going to grow the deficit/debt and/or kill our GDP if they get their way...
No, no, no! Gridlock has always given us leftward drift, and it would be especially true with Dems in the Senate blocking Trump's conservative SCOTUS nominees. Obamacare would never get repealed and many people would die as a result. It will be more "kicking the can down the road" and we're at a dead end already.
"I think her 20+ years of position climbing, the big money foundation, the private server, the high dollar speeches to the money men, putting up with a lecherous husband, etc are what indicates that she is power hungry. "
The whole subtext here is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton has been so consumed by "position climbing" that she went from Yale Law School to a nonprofit focused on children. Helping people is a bad thing (and the Clinton Foundation has routinely been highly rated by groups that rate nonprofits for their low overhead and -- get this -- their transparency)? Fighting for her marriage is a bad thing? It's just absurd.
Gridlock has always given us leftward drift, and it would be especially true with Dems in the Senate blocking Trump's conservative SCOTUS nominees.
For the moment, this is projection. Democratic senate majorities have often approved conservative nominees appointed by Republican presidents. I do recommend the HBO movie "Confirmation" available on their streaming service for an example of that.
I think there is a significant chance that if Hillary is elected with a Republican senate, Justice Scalia's position will not be filled in the next four years. I find it hard to visualize a situation how a Republican senator could survive a primary after allowing a Democratic president to shift the balance of the Supreme Court.
--Hiram
I don't think her work with a non-profit belies that she is power-hungry, and I think (as most rich folks are accused of) being "money-grubbing" is just the way of keeping score. What she really wants to do is to bring all of us under her ideological thumb. Why else would she insist on different rules for herself than for others?
Latest example: her faux outrage at what Trump said about Miss Universe as being "nasty to women," while she ironically handled the "bimbo eruptions" for Bill and viciously attacked several of those women.
Jerry,
No one is going to die from ACA, except maybe my Father. He may pass away from continually seeing his huge tax bill. (being self employed, he has to actual write checks)
Unless the idiot GOP folks figure out how to actually cut government when they cut taxes, we will see more debt build up. If they truly want to be fiscally responsible and real financial Conservatives... Let's see it.
Constance replied...
"Wonderful, to see how some people defend Trump's lack of preparation for a debate watched by upwards of 90 million viewers as A Good Thing, because it means he's not ambitious [oh, my]. Defend his lack of coherent plans for implementing anything he claims he's going to do by saying Trump knows nothing will get passed anyway, so why should he bother?
Let's not forget that it is Hillary Clinton who has legislative experience, not Trump. Trump has never been elected to anything, never has acted in the public interest, never has worked for anyone but himself, and probably has paid very few federal income taxes in his time, so he's not been contributing to even the military functions of our government. He stiffs his contractors, who are the ones maybe creating jobs. He wants to be Number One so he can get back at the people who don't think he's as great as he thinks he is. Please watch "The Choice," the Frontline production for PBS that examines the lives of both these candidates.
There is something in several comments in this thread that resents the fact that Hillary Clinton knows more about the job she and Trump are seeking than he has ever imagined about it. That she is really well-prepared while he is limited to throwing verbal spit-balls. She's ambitious, and Why Not? She's bright, well-educated, articulate, knows how to make a case and argue points effectively, she can put two and two together in public policy matters. And budgets.Can we stop criticizing women who outshine men, please? Can we stop attacking Hillary Clinton for her years'-long strategic planning to be President? And, please: stop confusing Bill with Hillary? Hillary can only be responsible for stuff since 2000, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York and then became Secretary of State." Constance
"Constance,
Please remember that it is you who praised Hillary and attacked Trump.
" It means that she respects the office of President of the United States. He regards the presidency as a vehicle of his self-importance and his power to exact revenge on those who oppose him or contradict him."
I have no problem with Hillary choosing to do as her preparation method dictates. I am simply noting that their methods do not indicate their motives, intent, etc.
Now I have a Mother, a Wife and 3 Daughters, I am absolutely comfortable with having Women in charge. That does not mean that I need to support Hillary just because she is a woman.
By the way, if I remember correctly Hillary was a pretty politically active spouse before 2000. And she had know problem dragging up dirt on Trump from the 1970's during the debate." G2A
about the flexible deal maker- I am pretty sure if you were to make a study of Trumps's deals you would learn that he is not a very good deal maker. I know that I have read reports of this but I am not going to take the time to find them for you (because as a dedicated teacher I still have work to do tonight.) Have you seen the reports that he would have made as much or more $ off his inheritance if he had just received average returns on the $ in the stock market? Once again I could find you links about this but I won't because you never believe my inks anyway.
I pretty much discount those "could have made as much reports". The analyst would need to know a lot of private details to do an accurate analysis.
I mean just supporting his wife, ex-wives, kids, etc would be a huge amount of money.
Interesting. We're constantly told that we cannot reform Social Security with private accounts because people would "risk their money in the stock market." Yet when somebody builds a business, creating jobs and wealth, we think they should have "played the market" and let somebody else do it? Sounds like somebody doesn't like Trump and is casting about for a rational justification. I think most of the objections to him have to do with his "style" more than his proposals. For example, the news is filled with his comments about Miss Universe, and nothing about his detailed policy proposals-- all excellent, by the way. We aren't trying to figure out who should be voted off the island; we're trying to pick somebody that might actually be able to turn this country in the right direction. Two-thirds of us seem to think we're headed in the wrong direction and Hillary promises more of the same. My objections to her are matters of policy, not style. The first debate seems to confirm that.
And about Miss Universe... Can we talk about media bias a bit? First of all, it is distracting us from the serious issues of the campaign. Second, the facts do not warrant even a bit of uproar. It is a simple contractual matter. Miss Universe agrees to serve as an "ambassador" of sorts upon winning, showing off her "ideal beauty" everywhere she goes. A woman that puts on 60 pounds no longer represents that ideal and is thus in breach of the contract. She got called on it, so what's the problem? Do you see anybody wanting to keep under contract a WNBA player that suddenly gains 60 pounds?
"First of all, it is distracting us from the serious issues of the campaign."
Do you think insulting people with whom you have a contract makes one a good executive?
"Miss Piggy"
"Miss Housekeeping"
It's not even really about the contract. It's about his misogyny, his xenophobia, and his character.
Joel
Not correct. You are converting what is a contract dispute into an excuse to attack Mr. Trump for "misogyny...." I find that hilarious. He gets accused of misogyny on the one hand, and then of having affairs during his first two marriages before settling on a third. Seems he likes women well enough.
And if you look at what actually happened in this matter, his comments were the odd piece of the puzzle. What he actually DID was far more gracious and practical.
You are converting what is a contract dispute into an excuse to attack Mr. Trump for "misogyny...."
Another case where Trump is claiming, "The lawyers made me do it." Is this an excuse he plans to rely on if and when he is elected president? Maybe it's his lawyers who should be running for office.
--Hiram
"He gets accused of misogyny on the one hand, and then of having affairs during his first two marriages before settling on a third."
You are setting these up as opposites, yet they are one and the same.
Joel
Trump seems to lack empathy. He seems incapable of seeing things from anyone else's point of view, at least with respect to his public persona. He says things, no ordinary person would dream of saying, or would allow to be said in one's presence.
--Hiram
One thing I find kind of amazing is that Trump believes that his lawyers have the power to give him permission to do or not do certain things. I didn't know law schools or bar associations had the capability to endow such powers on lowly lawyers.
--Hiram
What a misuse of words...
Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.
It seems to me that Trump likes and trusts a great number of women.
Xenophobia: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
Please remember that 2 of Trump's wives are "foreigners. And he does business with many many foreigners.
Now if you said he had cacomorphobia, I may agree. Apparently that stands for the irrational fear of fat people.
But I am pretty sure it would not slow him down if the fat foreign woman had money or property and was ready to make a deal.
And he did not "fear" the "miss piggy." He used strong language to point out that she had made herself unable to fulfill her contract, and was unwilling to rectify the situation.
By the way, is Trump really making this argument? That the Miss Universe signed a contract with a weight clause, one that allowed him to publicly humiliate her? Can anyone quote or refer me to the language?
---Hiram
Such are standard contracts with beauty pageant winners. He isn't "allowed" to "publicly humiliate her," but he can tell a contract employee to "get their act together" in whatever language he chooses. And what was public about it, anybody know? Is this a "he said, she said" situation? Does she deny gaining the 60 pounds?
The big question is why is Trump escalating this news story rather than letting it die away?
Such are standard contracts with beauty pageant winners. He isn't "allowed" to "publicly humiliate her," but he can tell a contract employee to "get their act together" in whatever language he chooses.
So no one can produce a contract which Miss U violated?
This is a free country. Contract or not, pretty much everyone can say what they like. The question here is what sort of person would say in public what Trump is saying.
--Hiram
Someone who responds honestly to someone who public insults them first, after having caused the problem in the first place. In other words, an honest and compassionate person.
"The big question is why is Trump escalating this news story rather than letting it die away?" Perhaps because he isn't a professional politician, focus-grouping every word and hiding his real agenda. Annoying yet refreshing.
"What a misuse of words...
Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.
It seems to me that Trump likes and trusts a great number of women."
You don't see serial adultery as misogynistic.
Duly noted.
Joel
Joel,
Are you actually judging someone based on their sexual choices?
What adults do in their marriage and their beds is not my concern.
And I am pretty sure these women were adult and willing. No harm no foul.
"And I am pretty sure these women were adult and willing."
Their willingness or lack thereof has no bearing on whether or not Donald is misogynistic.
And just how many women do you suppose are willingly cheated on?
Joel
I would guess many given the two benefits in this case:
1. A big cash payout
2. Not having to sleep and spend time with "The Donald" anymore...
And remember the definition...
Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.
Repeated adulterous actions, not to mention his awful remarks about other women, show a severe lack of respect for women with which he conducts business, including marriage. If you don't see that as misogynistic, then you just don't get it.
Joel
You are correct, I don't get it.
I have the sense of humor of an 18 year old. I love dirty jokes, appreciating beautiful women, flirting on the rare opportunity that I get to, etc.
Does this mean I practice Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women?
Yet I really like and respect women who are smart, friendly and capable. And I deeply trust most of the women I interact with.
I have to wonder if Trump is truly so bad, it is a miracle that he has so many women who support him. Even with 3 wives he seems to have a pretty supportive family.
Now I agree that he has a "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women" is just silly.
I ask again, would you rather elect the one who has made 3 women happy enough to marry him, or the one defending a criminal sexual predator and rapist? Or would you rather discuss the real issues? We're not being asked to marry Trump, just to vote for him.
"...criminal sexual predator and rapist?"
I assume you're talking about Donald?
Donald the Rapist
Joel
"I ask again, would you rather elect the one who has made 3 women happy enough to marry him, or the one defending a criminal sexual predator and rapist?"
I'd rather elect someone who knows how to see something through, to stick to a task when the going gets rough, who understands the importance of her marriage (something I thought you right-wingers were supposed to be the champions of) and is willing to work...hard...over the one who is easily distracted by shiny baubles and the allure of the next beautiful thing, the one who has a pattern on defaulting on his obligations, the one who says vile and disgusting things about the people he proposes to govern.
Joel
"I assume you're talking about Donald?"
No, I am talking about the actual rapist that Hillary "got off" in court. And alluding to allegations of rape by Bill Clinton, whom Hillary also defended by attacking these women as liars and worse.
Post a Comment