The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.
I can't fathom the disconnect between the "creative leader" Trump described by people like Scott Adams, and the "petty vindicative egomaniac" Trump that manifests in his own speech (and in descriptions given by most of those who have worked with him over the decades).
Is there any evidence that the first Trump exists? Or is it just a hopeful projection of Adams's own dreams of creative destruction?
I don't think evidence would help at this point. The only solace I have is thinking that a petty, vindictive person won't be able to unravel decades of positive strides in the global arena. Either way, we are now left to the whims of a 'hopefully' unknown person.
Warning - Rationalization ahead:
I would like to think that the reason for a lot of the petty jabs were to dominate the echo chamber for his own benefit. Is it possible to think that he is an ego-maniacal self serving sociopath? Absolutely.
But, is it also possible to believe that he used the system against itself to further his candidacy and tap into a deep seated anger within the population? Probably.
And do we really think he wants to watch the world burn? Doubtful.
4 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 15.5 ms ] threadThe ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases.
[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second-america...
Is there any evidence that the first Trump exists? Or is it just a hopeful projection of Adams's own dreams of creative destruction?
Warning - Rationalization ahead: I would like to think that the reason for a lot of the petty jabs were to dominate the echo chamber for his own benefit. Is it possible to think that he is an ego-maniacal self serving sociopath? Absolutely.
But, is it also possible to believe that he used the system against itself to further his candidacy and tap into a deep seated anger within the population? Probably.
And do we really think he wants to watch the world burn? Doubtful.