03-13-2018, 10:16 PM
(03-13-2018, 09:25 PM)Dill Wrote:
A "deep bench" is what Trump obviously doesn't have. Many see work in that White House as a career killer. And we see all these people publicly humiliated and fired on a whim. That is indeed "leading differently."
He certainly wants "chaos," but the competition part is not clear. He can't pick good people. The best do not flock to his WH, despite what he says.
Any leader in his position requires experts around him who are not afraid to tell him what he doesn't know and when he is wrong. But that is exactly what gets you canned, and that is why this "style" of leadership isn't working here. It is not really a style at all, just a frustrated guy acting on random impulses as he is blocked by a system he does not understand. Month by month, the people who speak truth to power are gone, leaving him surrounded by yes men.
While I've got your attention Lucy, I'd like to know what you think of the apparent Russian attack on our NATO ally. Should the U.S. president be rallying all of NATO for a response or sitting quietly back and firing anyone in his administration who condemns the Russian attack on our oldest and most solid ally?
What would "weak" Obama do in such a situation?
Every president has a deep bench. It’s the most coveted jobs of all. They lead to great jobs after your done.
Trumps leadership style leads to everyone speaking up. It’s cut throat. The bad part is there just isn’t job security, which people like, but it could be argued that public jobs should shouldn’t ever be long term.
As for Russia, if the facts show they attacked the UK then yes we should stand by them as they are our oldest allies.
Obama would probably call it workplace violence if a Muslim was involved if a white person was involved he would go after the nra and try and take away citizens rights. He would also arrack local police across the country.
