And The Trumptards Shall Shriek "Fake News!"

[downbeatplumb]

True but it gives a feel for how safe the world feels and the Trump made it worse.


Trump skipped security meetings and the ones he attends they:
A: have to just give him short notes because his attention span is so short and B: have to mention his name every few lines otherwise he drifts off mentally.
On other occasions ignores advise and just outright circumvents procedure.


Those people took advise. Trump just wings it with astoundingly misplaced arrogance. He is, and lets be generous here, a completly fuckwitted mentally deficient arsehole.

Can you point me to a BBC article that says Trump doesn't listen to advice, and just wings it in regards to military action?

Here you go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38297532

Officials from the CIA and other intelligence agencies provide a briefing each day to the president, telling him about potential threats, in a tradition that goes back decades.
But President-elect Trump said he plans to treat the briefings in a novel way. He has received only four of them since the election.
He said he doesn't need to receive the briefings in the way his predecessors did. Instead, he wants to hear from the officials every now and then (not five times a week).
"I'm a smart person," he said. "I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day.
For those who have worked in the intelligence community, a constellation of federal agencies that encompasses the Central Intelligence Agency, this comes as a shock.

Intelligence officials say the daily brief helps the president keep people in the US safe from another terrorist attack - and could prevent a nuclear war.

The intelligence provided in the briefings was crucial during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Randall Woods, the author of Shadow Warrior: William Egan Colby and the CIA, said the intelligence officials found out about what Russians and Cubans were doing - and informed President John F Kennedy in their briefings.
Afterwards Mr Kennedy was able to communicate with his adversaries and in this way, Mr Woods said, was able to "avoid a nuclear showdown".
The daily briefings also helped President Bill Clinton avoid a nuclear war with North Korea, said Mr Woods, discussing a little-known chapter in US history. (The fact that this incident was not widely known, he said, is "deliberate").

And heres one from the times.

Speeches at President Trump’s first Nato summit next week will be limited to four minutes, in order to keep him engaged.
Nato officials may also adopt tactics from the White House, such as repeating the president’s name and using maps and graphs, to keep him interested in proceedings. Mr Trump asks his staff to restrict memos to one page and few of his meetings last more than 15 minutes.
The National Security Council officials have taken to including Mr Trump’s name in “as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned”, a source said yesterday.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donal...-972f0vg89

It doesn't sound like they are briefing an adult does it.

But these are the tip of a very scary iceberg.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think Trump is better than Hillary for Russia,

Yeah..he is better...for russia.  That's why Putin picked him to be our president.  The american people certainly didn't.

[henryp]

It doesn't sound like they are briefing an adult does it.

But these are the tip of a very scary iceberg.

I see what you're saying about the BBC.  That article was quite fair.  The CEO style approach to government seems intuitively unsettling to a lot of people.  Having Pence and the Secretary of State take the daily briefs doesn't seem like a problem to me. 

And short high level reports is just how things are done in business.  The higher up the chain, the less detail is needed.  Because in the end, you don't want the CEO doesn't need to know all the details of a plant in Topeka, Kansas.  

That's my takeaway.  Then there's the "Has to put the name in to keep him reading" stuff from anonymous sources, and that he is distracted like a puppy chasing butterflies.  That, to me, sounds like conjecture from people who don't like the president or don't like/understand the new setup.  The difference between factual accounting in the BBC article, and the opinions of unnamed people presented as facts in the Times.

[downbeatplumb]

It doesn't sound like they are briefing an adult does it.

But these are the tip of a very scary iceberg.

I see what you're saying about the BBC.  That article was quite fair.  The CEO style approach to government seems intuitively unsettling to a lot of people.  Having Pence and the Secretary of State take the daily briefs doesn't seem like a problem to me. 

And short high level reports is just how things are done in business.  The higher up the chain, the less detail is needed.  Because in the end, you don't want the CEO doesn't need to know all the details of a plant in Topeka, Kansas.  

That's my takeaway.  Then there's the "Has to put the name in to keep him reading" stuff from anonymous sources, and that he is distracted like a puppy chasing butterflies.  That, to me, sounds like conjecture from people who don't like the president or don't like/understand the new setup.  The difference between factual accounting in the BBC article, and the opinions of unnamed people presented as facts in the Times.

You are just making excuses for someone who is obviously half arsing complex issues.

The business set up is not suitable for what he is in there to do.

He is not a CEO he is president of a country, the two jobs require different skill sets.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Decisions of import should be based on plentiful information from multiple sources.

[henryp]

Decisions of import should be based on plentiful information from multiple sources.

I think the argument for CEO style governing, is that the decisions should be made by the experts.  Experts is not quite the word I'm looking for, but I'm hoping you will get the gist of it.

If there's a programming problem with some software, the CEO doesn't need to know more than that there's a problem, and it's being solved.  We had a bug, we've allocated some more resources, it'll be fixed in a week.  

Contrast with the details you'd need down at the programmer's level, where you'd have the code specifics.  Or the management level, on who will be assigned the task, resource allocation specifics, budget implications, etc...

---

I see what you're saying about the BBC.  That article was quite fair.  The CEO style approach to government seems intuitively unsettling to a lot of people.  Having Pence and the Secretary of State take the daily briefs doesn't seem like a problem to me. 

And short high level reports is just how things are done in business.  The higher up the chain, the less detail is needed.  Because in the end, you don't want the CEO doesn't need to know all the details of a plant in Topeka, Kansas.  

That's my takeaway.  Then there's the "Has to put the name in to keep him reading" stuff from anonymous sources, and that he is distracted like a puppy chasing butterflies.  That, to me, sounds like conjecture from people who don't like the president or don't like/understand the new setup.  The difference between factual accounting in the BBC article, and the opinions of unnamed people presented as facts in the Times.

You are just making excuses for someone who is obviously half arsing complex issues.

The business set up is not suitable for what he is in there to do.

He is not a CEO he is president of a country, the two jobs require different skill sets.

Maybe.  I think finding out is part of what this election was about.

[Minimalist]

I think the argument for CEO style governing, is that the decisions should be made by the experts.  Experts is not quite the word I'm looking for, but I'm hoping you will get the gist of it.

I hope the word you are looking for is "shitheads," because with the WLB and his gang of fascist pricks that is what you have wrought.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Decisions of import should be based on plentiful information from multiple sources.

I think the argument for CEO style governing, is that the decisions should be made by the experts.  Experts is not quite the word I'm looking for, but I'm hoping you will get the gist of it.

If there's a programming problem with some software, the CEO doesn't need to know more than that there's a problem, and it's being solved.  We had a bug, we've allocated some more resources, it'll be fixed in a week.  

Contrast with the details you'd need down at the programmer's level, where you'd have the code specifics.  Or the management level, on who will be assigned the task, resource allocation specifics, budget implications, etc...

And this is why business experience is not very relevant to government. You're right that the wise business leader delegates decisions (and hence, the detailed knowledge needed to make most decisions) to subordinates. As a district manager for a Fortune 100 company a few years back, I regularly delegated, because I didn't have the time to meet every customer for their preferences, and suchlike.

A political leader, on the other hand, exposes himself to manipulation in delegating too much. After all, he (ideally) must answer for the decisions taken by his subordinates not only to the polity, but in many instances, to the wider world -- and to history. It stands to reason, then, that the smart political leader delegates decisions which carry fewer ramifications, but retains control of those decisions which may resound far wider than a specialist really understands. Because of that, it behooves the political leader to understand some issues in good detail.

Contragate is a great case study in the dangers of thoughtless delegation.

[Aroura]

The purpose of a corporation and a government are not the same.
In fact, they are extremely different.

A corporation exists to make money, and profit for the shareholders. If people are also employed and are able to make ends meet, that is incidental, but certainly not the ultimate goal. Ala Walmart.

Governments exist to serve the people and, well, govern. It should also do so on a budget, but having the main function to make profit for those at the top would be considered a very corrupt government that isn't serving its true purpose. Why would anyone in their right minds desire our goverment to be run more like a corporation?

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe.  I think finding out is part of what this election was about.

Then maybe those interested should have picked...you know, a decent CEO?

Consider this.  After Trump, we still won't know whether or not the skillset required to be a ceo is transferable to the presidency.  Many will, however, and already do have a permanently bad taste in their mouth about it, due to the abject failures and incompetence of the current administration (and just think..he has at least some of a whole term left ahead of him - to add to that pile).

If what america needs at the helm of government is a ceo...the trump adminstration may permanently damage the chances of that ever coming to fruition. It will delay it, at the very least. GJ Trumpsters.