Trump's failed leadership

[commonsense]

It is true every individual will have their personal views about something.

You make a good argument, VE. It is persuasive in as much as it is possible it will persuade others to your point of view. As I see it, you are making a number of important points in support of your view.

You point out that individuals indeed have individual (sometimes selfish) views. These views must be balanced by what is best for the greater good.

What better way is there to determine the greater good than to tally the individual views, even the selfish ones? The greater good implies that the majority rules.

You indicate that there are CEOs who are disliked but are effective at bringing profits to their organizations. Nonetheless, the CEO’s employees and managers must subjugate their needs and views to the CEO’s policies.

No surprise there. Businesses are autocracies.

You also state that Jack Welch was an iconic example of effective corporate leadership, despite being described as an unpleasant person. So what?

Yes, there are CEOs who are unlikable, but great profit earners. So what?

Furthermore, you declare that Lee Kuan Yew and Paul Kagame are among examples of government leaders who would be considered unliked but effective. So what?

Yes, there are government leaders who are unlikable but effective at implementing their policies. So what?

You said that Trump should be evaluated by performance appraisal regarding how well he serves the greater good, not by individual preferences.

The totality of individual preferences is the greater good. How well Trump satisfies the majority of individual preferences should stand as his report card.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is true every individual will have their personal views about something.

You make a good argument, VE. It is persuasive in as much as it is possible it will persuade others to your point of view. As I see it, you are making a number of important points in support of your view.

You point out that individuals indeed have individual (sometimes selfish) views. These views must be balanced by what is best for the greater good.

What better way is there to determine the greater good than to tally the individual views, even the selfish ones? The greater good implies that the majority rules.

You indicate that there are CEOs who are disliked but are effective at bringing profits to their organizations. Nonetheless, the CEO’s employees and managers must subjugate their needs and views to the CEO’s policies.

No surprise there. Businesses are autocracies.

You also state that Jack Welch was an iconic example of effective corporate leadership, despite being described as an unpleasant person. So what?

Yes, there are CEOs who are unlikable, but great profit earners. So what?

Furthermore, you declare that Lee Kuan Yew and Paul Kagame are among examples of government leaders who would be considered unliked but effective. So what?

Yes, there are government leaders who are unlikable but effective at implementing their policies. So what?

You said that Trump should be evaluated by performance appraisal regarding how well he serves the greater good, not by individual preferences.

The totality of individual preferences is the greater good. How well Trump satisfies the majority of individual preferences should stand as his report card.

So what??

So whatever they [Welsch, Lee, Kagame, Trump ] had contributed are evidently net-positive to humanity.
Can you prove what they have contributed then was evidently net-negative to the greater good like say, what Hitler, Muhammad, pol pot and other terrible despots did.

What is net-positive for the greater good is not based on the majority views but in alignment with what is objective absolute moral principles of the highest good. I had argued for this in the Philosophy of Morality section.

[commonsense]

To be fair, you'll need to do an objective appraisal of Trump's performance for the greater good of the USA on each of the policies you brought up rather than relying solely on personal preference [which is selfish].

Selfish personal preferences of a society inform what the majority of society sees as the greater good. Some individual opinions are altruistic. Some are not.

• "I don’t like his immigration policy because its implementation is inhumane."

There is always as trade off to the various policies.
In this case, if open border is the norm, then if there is an epidemic like now, it would be difficult to confine the epidemic at the start to National boundaries, state boundaries, district, homes, etc. and control the epidemic from such a basis.

At the time children were first separated from the security of their caregivers, it was neither known nor predict that there would be a pandemic. Nor was it known how many of the human beings attempting to enter the United States would be positive for Covid 19. When initiated, the cold purpose of the policy was to punish parents for bringing children with them, in hopes of informing would-be ex-pats not to enter the United States.

• I don’t like his economic policies because I am not in the 1%.

Do we really know with facts that his economic policies only benefit the 1%?
What about the decreased in unemployment and other economic positives? [before the pandemic].

50% of Americans have no savings, owe $50,000 in credit card debt and are living paycheck to paycheck. This is after the Trump administration’s tax reform.

As I had stated, to be fair to an employee of a Government, in this case the President, we ought to do an objective performance appraisal taking into account all the relevant criteria [properly weighted] and note the resultant whether it is net-negative or net-positive.

Net-negative or net-positive depends on the objective collection of personal American attitudes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be fair, you'll need to do an objective appraisal of Trump's performance for the greater good of the USA on each of the policies you brought up rather than relying solely on personal preference [which is selfish].

Selfish personal preferences of a society inform what the majority of society sees as the greater good. Some individual opinions are altruistic. Some are not.

What is the greater good must be aligned with the highest good.
As stated above, I have explained the highest good in the Philosophy of Morality Section.
This will be very detailed with proper weightages given to the list of criteria.

• "I don’t like his immigration policy because its implementation is inhumane."

There is always as trade off to the various policies.
In this case, if open border is the norm, then if there is an epidemic like now, it would be difficult to confine the epidemic at the start to National boundaries, state boundaries, district, homes, etc. and control the epidemic from such a basis.

At the time children were first separated from the security of their caregivers, it was neither known nor predict that there would be a pandemic. Nor was it known how many of the human beings attempting to enter the United States would be positive for Covid 19. When initiated, the cold purpose of the policy was to punish parents for bringing children with them, in hopes of informing would-be ex-pats not to enter the United States.

If I am not mistaken the separation of children and putting them into cages was a blindly follow-on from the past administration.
What is critical here and morally right was corrective steps were taken to change and improve upon criticisms of the practices.

• I don’t like his economic policies because I am not in the 1%.

Do we really know with facts that his economic policies only benefit the 1%?
What about the decreased in unemployment and other economic positives? [before the pandemic].

50% of Americans have no savings, owe $50,000 in credit card debt and are living paycheck to paycheck. This is after the Trump administration’s tax reform.

The no savings, high credit card debt and living from paycheck and to paycheck was sort of inherent in the American society from long ago. It is did not happened out of the blue within the Trump administration.
However Trump's tax cut will provide many the opportunity to save but this is unlikely due to ingrained habits of most Americans to spend, spend and spend.
So we cannot blame Trump for this, but it would have be a plus point if Trump were to call on more American to spend efficiently and maintain sufficient and optimal savings for a rainy day.

As I had stated, to be fair to an employee of a Government, in this case the President, we ought to do an objective performance appraisal taking into account all the relevant criteria [properly weighted] and note the resultant whether it is net-negative or net-positive.

Net-negative or net-positive depends on the objective collection of personal American attitudes.

Note I pointed out what is Net-negative or net-positive must be grounded with the greater good in alignment with the highest-good [deliberated in the morality section].

OUGHT from IS is Possible
See viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245
and various other threads I raised on the same issue.

[Sculptor]

Suetonius demonstrates that your claim is false, since the most insane and inbred emperors such as Caligula led not to any sort of "rot" but led to an empire that went from strength to strength.

To repeat, Suetonius, who only wrote up to the 11th emperor, has nothing to do with it having lived when the Rome was at its height long before the end came.

You might want to try GIbbon, since his analysis pointed to the adoption of Christianity as the failing of the empire, which made it ill prepared for centuries of Germanic expansion. Again very little to do with their choice of emperor.

You may want to try to read something more up to date. Gibbon's view of Christianity as the major culprit of Rome's decline has long been overhauled. If it had any effect it was the least compared to everything else that was happening during the decline period.

What is really stupid in this is that ALL I said was...

As in ancient Rome, which could easily survive a succession of incompetent half-insane emperors, but once the rot set in nothing could stop it from degenerating.

...which is true when reading histories of Rome's decline. There were a number of factors contributing to it from the outside but the main one was Rome's own internal corruption and incompetent leadership precisely at a time when such was critical. Also regarding the relationship between the Germanic tribes and the Romans one often has to wonder who the real barbarians were!

Interesting subject but there's only frustration in discussing anything with someone who can't tell the difference between a beginning, a middle and an end. It's like trying to communicate a thought to someone with a two-by-four nailed to his forehead. There's also no point in further encouraging you to fuck yourself since you've done that innumerable times without knowing it...not unlike what you know of history.

So since you think you have more knowledge about this than me. Please furnish me with the details of all the "insane and inbred" emperors that started the rot that led to the fall of the empire.
The fact is that there have been insane emperors throughout Rome's history and through periods of peace and expansion. The fall of Rome had nothing whatever to do with their choice of emperors.

[commonsense]

To be fair, you'll need to do an objective appraisal of Trump's performance for the greater good of the USA on each of the policies you brought up rather than relying solely on personal preference [which is selfish].

Selfish personal preferences of a society inform what the majority of society sees as the greater good. Some individual opinions are altruistic. Some are not.

What is the greater good must be aligned with the highest good.
As stated above, I have explained the highest good in the Philosophy of Morality Section.
This will be very detailed with proper weightages given to the list of criteria.

• "I don’t like his immigration policy because its implementation is inhumane."

There is always as trade off to the various policies.
In this case, if open border is the norm, then if there is an epidemic like now, it would be difficult to confine the epidemic at the start to National boundaries, state boundaries, district, homes, etc. and control the epidemic from such a basis.

At the time children were first separated from the security of their caregivers, it was neither known nor predict that there would be a pandemic. Nor was it known how many of the human beings attempting to enter the United States would be positive for Covid 19. When initiated, the cold purpose of the policy was to punish parents for bringing children with them, in hopes of informing would-be ex-pats not to enter the United States.

If I am not mistaken the separation of children and putting them into cages was a blindly follow-on from the past administration.
What is critical here and morally right was corrective steps were taken to change and improve upon criticisms of the practices.

• I don’t like his economic policies because I am not in the 1%.

Do we really know with facts that his economic policies only benefit the 1%?
What about the decreased in unemployment and other economic positives? [before the pandemic].

50% of Americans have no savings, owe $50,000 in credit card debt and are living paycheck to paycheck. This is after the Trump administration’s tax reform.

The no savings, high credit card debt and living from paycheck and to paycheck was sort of inherent in the American society from long ago. It is did not happened out of the blue within the Trump administration.
However Trump's tax cut will provide many the opportunity to save but this is unlikely due to ingrained habits of most Americans to spend, spend and spend.
So we cannot blame Trump for this, but it would have be a plus point if Trump were to call on more American to spend efficiently and maintain sufficient and optimal savings for a rainy day.

As I had stated, to be fair to an employee of a Government, in this case the President, we ought to do an objective performance appraisal taking into account all the relevant criteria [properly weighted] and note the resultant whether it is net-negative or net-positive.

Net-negative or net-positive depends on the objective collection of personal American attitudes.

Note I pointed out what is Net-negative or net-positive must be grounded with the greater good in alignment with the highest-good [deliberated in the morality section].

OUGHT from IS is Possible
See .php?f=8&t=27245
and various other threads I raised on the same issue.

Children in cages was expanded by the Trump administration. Whatever policies any previous administration implemented does not affect my assessment of the Trump White House.

Trickledown economics does not work for commoners.

The sum of everyone’s satisfaction is the satisfaction of the whole. It is determined by those it affects, rather than by a much smaller number of philosophers. This is the true definition of the highest good. After all, who am I to decide what everyone ought to do?

[commonsense]

It is true every individual will have their personal views about something.

You make a good argument, VE. It is persuasive in as much as it is possible it will persuade others to your point of view. As I see it, you are making a number of important points in support of your view.

You point out that individuals indeed have individual (sometimes selfish) views. These views must be balanced by what is best for the greater good.

What better way is there to determine the greater good than to tally the individual views, even the selfish ones? The greater good implies that the majority rules.

You indicate that there are CEOs who are disliked but are effective at bringing profits to their organizations. Nonetheless, the CEO’s employees and managers must subjugate their needs and views to the CEO’s policies.

No surprise there. Businesses are autocracies.

You also state that Jack Welch was an iconic example of effective corporate leadership, despite being described as an unpleasant person. So what?

Yes, there are CEOs who are unlikable, but great profit earners. So what?

Furthermore, you declare that Lee Kuan Yew and Paul Kagame are among examples of government leaders who would be considered unliked but effective. So what?

Yes, there are government leaders who are unlikable but effective at implementing their policies. So what?

You said that Trump should be evaluated by performance appraisal regarding how well he serves the greater good, not by individual preferences.

The totality of individual preferences is the greater good. How well Trump satisfies the majority of individual preferences should stand as his report card.

So what??

So whatever they [Welsch, Lee, Kagame, Trump ] had contributed are evidently net-positive to humanity.
Can you prove what they have contributed then was evidently net-negative to the greater good like say, what Hitler, Muhammad, pol pot and other terrible despots did.

What is net-positive for the greater good is not based on the majority views but in alignment with what is objective absolute moral principles of the highest good. I had argued for this in the Philosophy of Morality section.

Sorry. I had missed this post earlier.

I don’t intend to prove any net-negativity on the part of Welch, Lee or Kagame. Their net-polarity does not affect Trump’s.

I also do not care to argue for Trump’s net-negativity. I don’t care for him or his administration even if I am not in the majority or if Trump’s polarity is extremely positive.

[Dubious]

So since you think you have more knowledge about this than me.

Oh yes! A hell of lot more and I'm by no means an expert. You've shown how ignorant you are by claiming it was Christianity which caused the fall of Rome when that isn't even half true. The deficiency was far less due to Christianity than to near total corruption and incompetence in leadership and the military.

Please furnish me with the details of all the "insane and inbred" emperors that started the rot that led to the fall of the empire.

Where did I say "insane and inbred"? And where did I say that they started the rot that led to the fall even though that conclusion would not be entirely false since the first signs of decline already appeared in the 3rd century.

The fact is that there have been insane emperors throughout Rome's history and through periods of peace and expansion.

That's long been obvious to anyone who's read anything on Roman history. Nothing new here. But since you believe that why so against this simple statement...

As in ancient Rome, which could easily survive a succession of incompetent half-insane emperors, but once the rot set in nothing could stop it from degenerating.

...which any modern textbook delineating Rome's long decline will confirm? There's a contradiction and you don't even notice it!

The fall of Rome had nothing whatever to do with their choice of emperors.

Triple A Bullshit, that's your real BA in history. There were many reasons for Rome's decline as most already know. However political and military factors played an enormous and ultimately fatal part. Do you really think - which hardly happens - if the likes of Trajan, Hadrian, Nerva had been in charge during a period of such massive internal and external challenges AND dissensions, that Rome would have fallen especially in the pathetic way it did?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If I am not mistaken the separation of children and putting them into cages was a blindly follow-on from the past administration.
What is critical here and morally right was corrective steps were taken to change and improve upon criticisms of the practices.

Children in cages was expanded by the Trump administration. Whatever policies any previous administration implemented does not affect my assessment of the Trump White House.

I don't think Trump administration changed the policies.
The Federal Administration changed but the immigration officers were not changed so they carried on as previously.
What is critical is there were changes and improvements upon criticisms.

It was the Democrats who condone illegal immigration and thus the number of illegal immigrant increased thus the 'caging' was more noticeable.

Trickledown economics does not work for commoners.

Note the then significant reduction in unemployment in all demographics.

The sum of everyone’s satisfaction is the satisfaction of the whole. It is determined by those it affects, rather than by a much smaller number of philosophers. This is the true definition of the highest good. After all, who am I to decide what everyone ought to do?

The "highest good" can be justified from empirical evidence.

One of the elements of the highest good is simply;
"All human ought to breathe" which is taken for granted but it is rather a very significant moral ought.
Thus you and anyone can express, 'every human ought to breathe' and you will not be wrong nor condemned.
The above is one clue we can morally justified the 'highest good' via reason with evidence from the empirical. I am not going into the details here, I have done so in the Moral Section.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what??

So whatever they [Welsch, Lee, Kagame, Trump ] had contributed are evidently net-positive to humanity.
Can you prove what they have contributed then was evidently net-negative to the greater good like say, what Hitler, Muhammad, pol pot and other terrible despots did.

What is net-positive for the greater good is not based on the majority views but in alignment with what is objective absolute moral principles of the highest good. I had argued for this in the Philosophy of Morality section.

Sorry. I had missed this post earlier.

I don’t intend to prove any net-negativity on the part of Welch, Lee or Kagame. Their net-polarity does not affect Trump’s.

I also do not care to argue for Trump’s net-negativity. I don’t care for him or his administration even if my preferences are not in the majority or if Trump’s polarity is extremely positive.

In fact, Trump may be anyone’s hero, but I do not adore him. Recognizing that there are various opinions about his policies and about his personality, I have given my personal assessments.

You’re entitled to yours, however I sincerely doubt that either of us will change the other’s mind. Nor do I intend to. However, I at least gave the reasons I think as I do.

From my personal reaction, Trump [brash, narcissistic, egoistic, boorish] is not a likeable person like say Carter, Reagan and the likes.

However at the present, the US circumstances is such that it require a leader of 'Situational Leadership' and Trump [with his warts and all] fit the bill.

My approach is professional and objective and it is applicable to whoever is to be appraised fairly with the relevant due process [employment].

[Sculptor]

So since you think you have more knowledge about this than me.

Oh yes! A hell of lot more and I'm by no means an expert. You've shown how ignorant you are by claiming it was Christianity which caused the fall of Rome when that isn't even half true. The deficiency was far less due to Christianity than to near total corruption and incompetence in leadership and the military.

Please furnish me with the details of all the "insane and inbred" emperors that started the rot that led to the fall of the empire.

Where did I say "insane and inbred"? And where did I say that they started the rot that led to the fall even though that conclusion would not be entirely false since the first signs of decline already appeared in the 3rd century.

The fact is that there have been insane emperors throughout Rome's history and through periods of peace and expansion.

That's long been obvious to anyone who's read anything on Roman history. Nothing new here. But since you believe that why so against this simple statement...

As in ancient Rome, which could easily survive a succession of incompetent half-insane emperors, but once the rot set in nothing could stop it from degenerating.

...which any modern textbook delineating Rome's long decline will confirm? There's a contradiction and you don't even notice it!

The fall of Rome had nothing whatever to do with their choice of emperors.

Triple A Bullshit, that's your real BA in history. There were many reasons for Rome's decline as most already know. However political and military factors played an enormous and ultimately fatal part. Do you really think - which hardly happens - if the likes of Trajan, Hadrian, Nerva had been in charge during a period of such massive internal and external challenges AND dissensions, that Rome would have fallen especially in the pathetic way it did?

You are talking bullshit. You simply cannot know if someone like Hadrian would have made a difference.
What you could do - but have not - is to furnish this thread with the names of the Inbred emperors that were IN FACT responsible for the decline of Rome. The fact that you have done nothing of the sort speaks volumes.
Worst still you want me to simply reject the analysis of a great scholar like Gibbon in the face of your ignorance.
You are a joke.

[Sculptor]

My approach is professional and objective and it is applicable to whoever is to be appraised fairly with the relevant due process [employment].

ROTFLMFHO.

Objective??
And how do you objectively assess cutting funding for WHO in the face of an international health crisis?

[commonsense]

If I am not mistaken the separation of children and putting them into cages was a blindly follow-on from the past administration.
What is critical here and morally right was corrective steps were taken to change and improve upon criticisms of the practices.
I don't think Trump administration changed the policies.
The Federal Administration changed but the immigration officers were not changed so they carried on as previously.
What is critical is there were changes and improvements upon criticisms.

What’s critical here is that criticism was needed to bring about those changes and improvements.

Note the then significant reduction in unemployment in all demographics.

Unemployment is deceptive. What we need to know is why any American would need to have more than one job in order to make ends meet.

[Lacewing]

My approach is professional and objective...

According only to you.

You have not provided an objective appraisal of Trump which considers his impact on the greater good from all angles. You're just stating that your narrow opinions and focus are objective. They are not; they are narrow.

Trump continually makes very stupid and dangerous decisions and statements. Withholding funding from the WHO in the middle of a global pandemic is the latest. That's just how he rolls. Trying to demonstrate his power and authority by creating another scene and blowing things up to divert attention. Why not investigate/assess the WHO AFTER the crisis? No, he must childishly claim right NOW that they are responsible for his own inaction. When all the warnings were unmistakably critical and obvious to anyone paying attention, he was still claiming that everything was under control for the USA and it would all pass. Many Americans understand that he is more of an obstacle and hinderance for our survival and the greater good. Only a completely self-absorbed idiot leader would stand there acting cocky (and in denial) and not preparing a country that's part of such an inter-connected planet (from all directions). And as we're in the middle of the pandemic... thousands of people dying... distancing crucial to reduce the spread... he publicly announces that he wants to see churches full by Easter. (Naturally, some of his supporters go ahead and do that, against all other reputable guidelines.) Why can't he stop saying stupid shit? Seriously! It is not charming and bold... it is idiotic and dangerous, and people DIE because of it. He needs to be held accountable for all of his crazy and dangerous crap... not excused and babied.

[commonsense]

So what??

So whatever they [Welsch, Lee, Kagame, Trump ] had contributed are evidently net-positive to humanity.
Can you prove what they have contributed then was evidently net-negative to the greater good like say, what Hitler, Muhammad, pol pot and other terrible despots did.

What is net-positive for the greater good is not based on the majority views but in alignment with what is objective absolute moral principles of the highest good. I had argued for this in the Philosophy of Morality section.

Sorry. I had missed this post earlier.

I don’t intend to prove any net-negativity on the part of Welch, Lee or Kagame. Their net-polarity does not affect Trump’s.

I also do not care to argue for Trump’s net-negativity. I don’t care for him or his administration even if I am not in the majority or if Trump’s polarity is extremely positive.

From my personal reaction, Trump [brash, narcissistic, egoistic, boorish] is not a likeable person like say Carter, Reagan and the likes.

However at the present, the US circumstances is such that it require a leader of 'Situational Leadership' and Trump [with his warts and all] fit the bill.

My approach is professional and objective and it is applicable to whoever is to be appraised fairly with the relevant due process [employment].

Trump’s irrationality causes the situation to change unexpectedly. He is not a leader of any kind.