Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting

[cramx3]

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?

This question has been answered at least 10 times.  It's not that hard to understand. 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Yes.  The answer is "because it wasn't all the ZOMG that everybody made it out to be".

[cramx3]

 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

That brings another issue to light.  I wonder if the prevalence of social media nowadays is resulting in higher instances of people presenting with concussions at the emergency room due to face palming.

[hefdaddy42]

The Comey Misfire

As for the President, White House officials insisted that he was amazed by the hostile reaction to the firing. Where have Americans heard that before? Shocked by the protests against his travel ban, surprised by the complexity of health care, wowed by the nuances of Asian geopolitics. There’s no end to the discoveries a person can make when he pursues a high office without bothering to learn what it entails. Everyone seemed to like it when Trump barked, “You’re fired!” once a week on The Apprentice. So what happened?

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.

Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".

I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.

Well, of course you're not "some".   You're rational, calm, and analytical.   I know it doesn't seem it, but I'm all for scrutiny, under the logic of, if you're not willing to show how the sausage is being made, then I'm not willing to eat it.   But I'm really torn and conflicted.  We seem to have two different standards, and I don't really understand that.   Process isn't for shit when Trump's winging it from his couch while watching "Dancing With The Stars", but the second Hillary goes off book it's as if the Caesar plundered another virgin.  It either is or it isn't.   Trump is "the lyingest liar that ever lied" when he has two tweets five years apart that aren't in exact unison, but Hillary lies UNDER OATH and it's nothing to see here?  It either matters or it doesn't. 

Continue the investigation.  And if it turns out that Comey was shit-canned because of his role in that, it will come out and it will be another fact to be accounted for (and likewise, if Trump is telling the truth and this was in the works for a while, so be it). 

[Chino]

Gets really good around 2:45.

https://youtu.be/OnPyq3afvGY



#MAGA

[Stadler]

That brings another issue to light.  I wonder if the prevalence of social media nowadays is resulting in higher instances of people presenting with concussions at the emergency room due to face palming.

I know I now have a dent in my forehead, and I'm not even ON social media. 

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there

I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.

Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".

I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.

Well, of course you're not "some".   You're rational, calm, and analytical.   I know it doesn't seem it, but I'm all for scrutiny, under the logic of, if you're not willing to show how the sausage is being made, then I'm not willing to eat it.   But I'm really torn and conflicted.  We seem to have two different standards, and I don't really understand that.   Process isn't for shit when Trump's winging it from his couch while watching "Dancing With The Stars", but the second Hillary goes off book it's as if the Caesar plundered another virgin.  It either is or it isn't.   Trump is "the lyingest liar that ever lied" when he has two tweets five years apart that aren't in exact unison, but Hillary lies UNDER OATH and it's nothing to see here?  It either matters or it doesn't. 

Continue the investigation.  And if it turns out that Comey was shit-canned because of his role in that, it will come out and it will be another fact to be accounted for (and likewise, if Trump is telling the truth and this was in the works for a while, so be it).

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, and I get your frustration with the double standards. They seem to be all over the place. The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.

[PowerSlave]

That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit

Sorry for taking the thread off topic for a moment, but I wanted to ask if you're a George Carlin fan. He used the phrase "stunningly full of shit" on occasion, and some of your posts remind me of him.

[El Barto]

Big fan. I'm sure that's where I picked it up as it has a nice flow to it.

[jingle.boy]

My belief is the current political climate really boils down to one topic - the crumbling of Democracy.  Because that's really all that Putin/Russia want - to prove that democratic institutions are worse than autocratic regimes - which helps him keep his power and citizens in check.  Russia investigation or not, I don't know how anyone can't see that's what is going on here.  US meddling in other governments or not, are you ok with the standing 8-count that Lady Democracy is taking right now?  Checks/balances are bullshit at the moment, because Congress is so partisan, the only "check" comes from the majority party.  Grabby is also lining his ducks up in the Judicial Branch.  The mere notion of firing the FBI Director in the midst of his 10-year term, and an investigation towards those around the President is unprecedented.  I think I heard that only one FBI Director has been fired in the history of the FBI?  For ethical reasons.

If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

These are very slippery slopes that your country is on, and if you don't think so, all the best to you.

Also, anyone see some of the commentary on his interview with The Economist?  Wow... he's absolutely clueless.

[hefdaddy42]

The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.

Bolded for emphasis.

Also, at this point, it doesn't matter if Clinton lied or not (and I know that she did, but certainly not with seemingly every breath, as Trump does), because she isn't the President.  We are discussing the President of the United States.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.

Bolded for emphasis.

Also, at this point, it doesn't matter if Clinton lied or not (and I know that she did, but certainly not with seemingly every breath, as Trump does), because she isn't the President.  We are discussing the President of the United States.

But, her emails.

[hefdaddy42]

I knew it

[bosk1]

In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite. 

Well, hold on just a minute.  In one of the rare instances where I will post here while wearing my employment lawyer hat, I need to chime in to say:  Yeah, sometimes you do.  And I'm not talking about the rogue executive suite that fires the HR Manager to try to cover up.  I'm not endorsing that.  But sometimes, as bad as it may look, you DO fire the HR Manager for perfectly legit reasons.  For example, where the HR Manager is incompetent and/or crooked and, due to his/her incompetence/crookedness, is creating even greater liability, and the company needs to show good faith to limit the damage by promptly [excuse the expression] draining the swamp.  Yeah, sometimes you do, and for perfectly valid reasons.

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?

As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, and I get your frustration with the double standards. They seem to be all over the place. The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?

[hefdaddy42]

Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on James Comey Firing

I'm shocked.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

5/12/17 Headline:  McCabe fired.

[bosk1]

As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?

I don't know that that is the REAL reason or not.  And I'm not necessarily defending it.  But that seems to indicate that there is a LOT about Comey's actions that justify a firing for BIG reasons.  And often, when that is the case, and you've got the sort of public perception problem that we've been discussing, you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place.  And that can sometimes take a lot longer than 4 months.  As someone who provides advice in these types of situations, I can tell you that all the reasons you might [correctly] think would be valid reasons to fire someone on the spot in a situation like this are the same reasons why someone in my shoes will say, "Okay, let's just SLOW DOWN--there is a LOT of vetting of this situation that we need to do, because there are lots of potential land mines here that could potentially blow up and make this even worse if we act too quickly."  And, again, that can sometimes take many, many months.

I can't pretend to know what actually went on here and whether this is, in fact, one of those situations.  None of us can.  I'm just saying that the fact that it may have taken so long is normal and, contrary to what you might think, necessary.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place

We're talking about Donald Trump, someone who doesn't understand the idea of restraint. 

[bosk1]

you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place

We're talking about Donald Trump, someone who doesn't understand the idea of restraint. 

In many situations, I would agree.  But when it comes to handling issues like the handling of a high-level firing, I have the utmost confidence that he has more than enough experience to know better than to act on his own and act too quickly.  Say what you want about his lack of restrain in many areas.  But you don't get to where he has gotten in the business world if you don't know how to slow down and follow advice on this type of thing.  He does.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.

[bosk1]

I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.

I'm not saying I trust him.  I don't.  I'm just saying that he is business-savvy in that area, and that that likely directly translates to this situation--at least on the process side (again, I can't address the merits of it all).


EDIT:  And it is extremely annoying that, again, anti-Trump bias is SO high and SO strong that any time anyone with experience and a reasoned argument chimes in to say, "Hey, anti-Trump crowd, I get where you are coming from; but on this one issue, you are mistaken in your argument, and here's why," the automatic assumption is, "Oh, well that person is obviously a Trump supporter."  I swear, I just don't get why the hate is so strong that it makes people I otherwise genuinely enjoy interacting with act like complete irrational asses that they can't even acknowledge the flaws in their own arguments or their own overzealousness in their witch-huntery.

[RuRoRul]

Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on James Comey Firing

I'm shocked.

This is an excellent article that covers quite a few points that have come out bit by bit after the initial firing - definitely worth a read for more context on the situation in general as well as just for the acting FBI director's testimony. Not least of which is the fact that this occurs not long after Comey requested more resources for the Russia investigation.

Also for those who would rather trust the words of Donald himself, here he is speaking on the firing of Comey and whether it was because of the reasons given in the memo written by deputy AG:

"I was going to fire Comey, my decision. ... I was going to fire Comey. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. ... He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-reveals-he-asked-comey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

So straight from the horse's mouth, it was done because Donald wanted to do it - Deputy AG's memo criticising Comey was just a pretense to make it appear slightly more acceptable.

[hefdaddy42]

Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

My cell phone is powered by steam, I'm not sure what the argument here is.

[jingle.boy]

In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite. 

Well, hold on just a minute.  In one of the rare instances where I will post here while wearing my employment lawyer hat, I need to chime in to say:  Yeah, sometimes you do.  And I'm not talking about the rogue executive suite that fires the HR Manager to try to cover up.  I'm not endorsing that.  But sometimes, as bad as it may look, you DO fire the HR Manager for perfectly legit reasons.  For example, where the HR Manager is incompetent and/or crooked and, due to his/her incompetence/crookedness, is creating even greater liability, and the company needs to show good faith to limit the damage by promptly [excuse the expression] draining the swamp.  Yeah, sometimes you do, and for perfectly valid reasons.

Fair enough... I'm just not sure that - that there has been such "incompetence" or 'crookedness' creating greater liability to the FBI.  Plus, that's not the rational in Grabby's termination letter to him.

I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.

I'm not saying I trust him.  I don't.  I'm just saying that he is business-savvy in that area, and that that likely directly translates to this situation--at least on the process side (again, I can't address the merits of it all).

Normally, I would say it's be logical to think so.  But for all the mis-steps we've seen out of 'The Donald' - as a businessperson, candidate, President-elect, and now President - I'm unsure what basis any trust in his "business-savvy" can be warranted.

[jingle.boy]

Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Seriously... this isn't a link to The Onion?

[Adami]

I'm with jingle......all the way.

[RuRoRul]

Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers

On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

What the fuck? 

Honestly it took me a couple of lines to realise what that quoted text was. At first I thought it was a badly formatted interview or comedy sketch. Or even just a nonsensical word salad. But feeling like I was reading a nonsensical word salad made me think "Wait a minute, I've had this feeling before..." So I started imagining it in a particular voice and it clicked.

I hope when they study this period in history they get a lot of chance to read plenty of transcripts of Donald speaking rather than only videos. Obviously almost everyone's speech looks worse when it's transcribed word for word, but Donald's quotes in particular are hilarious in written form.

[jingle.boy]

I hope when they study this period in history they get a lot of chance to read plenty of transcripts of Donald speaking rather than only videos. Obviously almost everyone's speech looks worse when it's transcribed word for word, but Donald's quotes in particular are hilarious in written form.

Particularly hilarious when written in the hand-writing and spelling of a 4-year old, like that meme that went around the interwebz a couple weeks ago about the "Sivel War"   

[Stadler]

My belief is the current political climate really boils down to one topic - the crumbling of Democracy.  Because that's really all that Putin/Russia want - to prove that democratic institutions are worse than autocratic regimes - which helps him keep his power and citizens in check.  Russia investigation or not, I don't know how anyone can't see that's what is going on here.  US meddling in other governments or not, are you ok with the standing 8-count that Lady Democracy is taking right now?  Checks/balances are bullshit at the moment, because Congress is so partisan, the only "check" comes from the majority party. 

You have me.  Hook line and sinker.  100% in agreement.     Couldn't have less to argue with.

But you keep going to: 

Grabby is also lining his ducks up in the Judicial Branch.  The mere notion of firing the FBI Director in the midst of his 10-year term, and an investigation towards those around the President is unprecedented.  I think I heard that only one FBI Director has been fired in the history of the FBI?  For ethical reasons.

None of those go to the first point, are unique to Trump, or make the point you want to make.     The FBI was started in 1908, and there have been only 11 directors in that time (not counting Acting Directors).   One served for the better part of 50 years, and if you believe the rather well-substantiated rumors, no President in their right mind would have fired HIM given his files.   The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President (though must be confirmed by the Senate) and so you'll note that THREE of the six Directors since Hoover (who died in 1972) were dismissed or left office at the change of the President.   

As for "lining his ducks in the Judicial Branch", his one major appointment - Gorsuch - is a moderate that was palatable to both sides of the aisle (or would be, under normal circumstances) and that was a big part of the reason he was elected to begin with.  Even some Liberals are uneasy with the activist judiciary that has been threatened over the past decade or so. 

If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

Uh, if we agree that democracy is cracking, and we're fine with it, why would we move???

These are very slippery slopes that your country is on, and if you don't think so, all the best to you.

Also, anyone see some of the commentary on his interview with The Economist?  Wow... he's absolutely clueless.

Missed it, but I wouldn't pay attention to the commentary anyway; I'd read the article and draw my own conclusions.  ? 

[Stadler]

Normally, I would say it's be logical to think so.  But for all the mis-steps we've seen out of 'The Donald' - as a businessperson, candidate, President-elect, and now President - I'm unsure what basis any trust in his "business-savvy" can be warranted.

"All the missteps"?    Jack Welch - arguably the greatest American CEO of the 20th century, and if not, at least a legend in the business world (I read more articles about Jack Welch in business school than all other CEOs COMBINED, and consider it an honor and privilege to have worked (indirectly) for him, and met him once) - has freely admitted that about half of his business deals went south, but when they did, he jettisoned them immediately and went on to the next one.  You only need a few to hit big to continue your growth.   So what "missteps"?  Atlantic City? Ever been there?  NO ONE succeeds in Atlantic City.   Wine? Steaks?  Okay, offset with raging success in the hardest real estate environment in the world (NYC).  Offset that with a successful global golf course and resort business.   

Look, you either give him the benefit of the doubt or you don't.   I get that being good at one thing doesn't make you good at another (Sean Penn, stick to acting; Phil Collins, stick to music) but to suggest that a multibillionaire and Ivy League graduate hasn't had some successes is just being petty. 

[jingle.boy]

If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

Uh, if we agree that democracy is cracking, and we're fine with it, why would we move???

Touche

The "mis-steps" I'm talking about are not his failings - we all learn from our failures.  What I'm referring to is things like stiffing contractors, not taking the advice of his predecessor and (essentially) chief counsel in warnings about Flynn, his character, his demeanor, his xenophobia, his misogyny, his nepotism, his racism... Regardless of financial or economic success, these are things I personally don't think qualify him as an even mediocre businessman.

Oh, and he completely contradicted his own letter, and the WH spin on the reasons for firing Comey.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-reveals-he-asked-comey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

The president reiterated his claim that he had been planning to fire Comey even before he received Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's recommendation to do so.

So, he setup his own VP, press secretary, WH staff, Deputy AG, and AG to deliver a message that he knew was BS.  He simply wanted Comey fired - allegedly over how the Russia investigation was rolling out.