Does being racist, sexist, narcissistic, preclude you from presidency?

[thewop]

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt, but so are many leaders.

Let's say for argument's sake he IS racist, sexist, and guilty of all the character flaws his opponents levy against him...

Could he still be a good leader? As the other thread points out, Bill Clinton wasn't all that bad was he? Yet he's had his "off field issues" as well. Even if he were sexist, it's not as if he could actually act out against women, it would be illegal.

He's not provided near enough detail on how he plans to 'make america great again,' and there are PLENTY of concerns about how he might handle foreign relations, but couldn't he be guilty of all the personal character flaws people credit him with, and still be a decent leader?

I hypothesize: He might be somebody I don't identify with and wouldn't want around my children, but might still improve America's lot in the world.

 

[cigaretteman]

Not if enough people are stupid enough to vote for him. I'm sure the country would muddle through a Trump presidency, but there's absolutely no chance that it would improve America's lot in the world.

 

[Raglefant]

In theory, you could have all of those flaws and still be a great president. It seems as if NOT having those flaws would help achieve greatness in that part of the job is representing America abroad, but it is possible. The question is what else has he shown despite having those flaws that leads us to believe he will be a great president? It seems as if those flaws are actually the primary reason for his popularity. That is what's so astonishing about his candidacy.

 

[naturalmwa]

I imagine most Presidents had these qualities. So if you want more of the same, stick with that formula.

 

[DrVenkman]

I have been astonished by Trump's true lack of intelligence. I thought early on his tactics were all show to get peoples attention and then he would settle in an be able to have at least a few discussions. Maybe throw in some humor, but have some modicum of intelligent conversation

Holy sh*t was I wrong.

Alll we have seen is that as the heat has been turned up and more questions have arisen that he is ill-prepared for, he simple lashes out and insults and or spews whatever comes to mind- like the David Duke discussion. Trump is all the things mentioned including being a phony and rampant liar. What scares me the most is just his impressive lack of brain power.

 

[Raglefant]

I have been astonished by Trump's true lack of intelligence. I thought early on his tactics were all show to get peoples attention and then he would settle in an be able to have at least a few discussions. Maybe throw in some humor, but have some modicum of intelligent conversation

Holy sh*t was I wrong.

Alll we have seen is that as the heat has been turned up and more questions have arisen that he is ill-prepared for, he simple lashes out and insults and or spews whatever comes to mind- like the David Duke discussion. Trump is all the things mentioned including being a phony and rampant liar. What scares me the most is just his impressive lack of brain power.

I also think that he has such an enormous sense of self-confidence, he truly believes that winging it is the best strategy. How hard would it be to prepare yourself better for questions you know are coming? It takes massive balls to just fly by the seat of your pants, but he is supremely confident that the details don't matter and that just being assertive, loud, and confident when speaking is enough. This is how he closes deals in his business, he just says so and they can take it or go fvck themselves. It's actually pretty scary thinking about using this strategy in global politics, but his base freaking loves it... America, fvck yeah!

 

[TunzaHawk]

Warren Harding seems to fit this description.


Teddy Roosevelt was a huge narcissist.

 

[thewop]

I imagine most Presidents had these qualities. So if you want more of the same, stick with that formula.

Never thought of it that way...but you're probably right.

 

[shank hawk]

To answer your question: No.

How about taking creepy to a whole new level? Still no, but there's no way I'd vote for the guy. His name was in convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's little black book, has made several comments about 'dating' his daughter and how hot she is (), and has these quasi-incestuous photos of him with his daughter out there. Pretty sure that he and the Clintons have a gentlemen's agreement not to use the Epstein association against each other in the general election, but how awesome would that be! (http://theantimedia.org/one-question-the-media-refuses-to-ask-donald-trump/)

 

[shank hawk]

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump-mocked-bang-daughter-ivanka-trump-daily-show-video/

 

[thewop]

I have been astonished by Trump's true lack of intelligence. I thought early on his tactics were all show to get peoples attention and then he would settle in an be able to have at least a few discussions. Maybe throw in some humor, but have some modicum of intelligent conversation

Holy sh*t was I wrong.

Alll we have seen is that as the heat has been turned up and more questions have arisen that he is ill-prepared for, he simple lashes out and insults and or spews whatever comes to mind- like the David Duke discussion. Trump is all the things mentioned including being a phony and rampant liar. What scares me the most is just his impressive lack of brain power.

It's a good point, but here's another angle just to play devil's advocate. He hasn't had to settle down and have a real discussion. He's still winning, and the moment he lays it all out on the table is the moment he peaks, and from that point forward, it's about tearing down his plan and making it, and him, irrelevant. If he can get all the way to the general without having a real conversation, he'll already have some of the republican vote locked up, and will then just need to rail against the establishment, and Hillary to garner the extra support he needs to win. I mean, if you're a person with serious character flaws, who would you rather run against than Hillary?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt, but so are many leaders.

Let's say for argument's sake he IS racist, sexist, and guilty of all the character flaws his opponents levy against him...

Could he still be a good leader? As the other thread points out, Bill Clinton wasn't all that bad was he? Yet he's had his "off field issues" as well. Even if he were sexist, it's not as if he could actually act out against women, it would be illegal.

He's not provided near enough detail on how he plans to 'make america great again,' and there are PLENTY of concerns about how he might handle foreign relations, but couldn't he be guilty of all the personal character flaws people credit him with, and still be a decent leader?

I hypothesize: He might be somebody I don't identify with and wouldn't want around my children, but might still improve America's lot in the world.

No. . . a huge part of the president's job is foreign relations. How in the world is a racist/sexist person suppose to enhance the US's relationship with nations that are led by people who arn't white men?

Even if the other country is led by a white man, the image it creates with the citizens of these other countries is going to be very negative.

To say a Trump being president would be a negative on our foreign relations is an understatement. Besides his racism and sexism which is understandably going to piss off a lot of people before they even meet him, his persona and nature would turn off people even more. In this campaign all he has really done is personally insult a lot of people. This isn't about policy disagreements mind you, it's personal insults that for the most part have nothing to do with policy. And these are people that are suppose to be IN HIS OWN PARTY!

He can't be a good leader because he will not be able to form working relationships.

 

[DrVenkman]

It's a good point, but here's another angle just to play devil's advocate. He hasn't had to settle down and have a real discussion. He's still winning, and the moment he lays it all out on the table is the moment he peaks, and from that point forward, it's about tearing down his plan and making it, and him, irrelevant. If he can get all the way to the general without having a real conversation, he'll already have some of the republican vote locked up, and will then just need to rail against the establishment, and Hillary to garner the extra support he needs to win. I mean, if you're a person with serious character flaws, who would you rather run against than Hillary?

All may very well be true. Yes Hillary is the perfect candidate.
I don't think Trump can beat Hillary, but at this point, I feel like it cant be ruled out. Its a sad pairing. The debates will be must see TV. After that we will be stuck with Hillary or Drumpf.

 

[BelemNole]

It's one thing to have those qualities and another to govern based on them. Trump is campaigning solely on racism, sexism, and celebrity. It's frightening how many people are lapping it up.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

All may very well be true. Yes Hillary is the perfect candidate.
I don't think Trump can beat Hillary, but at this point, I feel like it cant be ruled out. Its a sad pairing. The debates will be must see TV. After that we will be stuck with Hillary or Drumpf.

Debates might be a tough one for her or for anyone who's tried to debate him for that matter. Most of the time the politicians know where the other one is going to go and can debate prep for the issues.

With Trump you never know what he's going to do or where he's going to go. He may just spend the whole night insulting you. He may invent statistics out of thin air.

On his part it's brilliant because he's just taking to the extreme the problems that presidential TV debates have had for a long long time. No one at least during the debate time fact checks you or anything and no one even makes sure your actually debating the right issue. You can pretty much do anything you want. And Trump does that. . . he's impossible to prep for.

The question is how do you respond if Trump decides to just dedicate the whole debate to insulting you. Do you try to appear above it all and stick to the issues or do you start insulting him back hoping to counter to faux show of strength?

 

[Huey Grey]

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt, but so are many leaders.

Let's say for argument's sake he IS racist, sexist, and guilty of all the character flaws his opponents levy against him...

Could he still be a good leader? As the other thread points out, Bill Clinton wasn't all that bad was he? Yet he's had his "off field issues" as well. Even if he were sexist, it's not as if he could actually act out against women, it would be illegal.

He's not provided near enough detail on how he plans to 'make america great again,' and there are PLENTY of concerns about how he might handle foreign relations, but couldn't he be guilty of all the personal character flaws people credit him with, and still be a decent leader?

I hypothesize: He might be somebody I don't identify with and wouldn't want around my children, but might still improve America's lot in the world.

Theoretically Trump could be a good leader. Theoretically Jared Fogle could start like grownups, too. I think we both know neither will happen.

Trump can't talk about anything beyond himself for more than two minutes. He would drown if he ever got into office. This is the same man who complained that having to speak for 19 minutes during a three hour debate was too long. Can you imagine how much pouting he would do if he ever had to stay past 5:00 over the same issue his advisers had been discussing the whole day?

 

[thewop]

Theoretically Trump could be a good leader. Theoretically Jared Fogle could start like grownups, too. I think we both know neither will happen.

Trump can't talk about anything beyond himself for more than two minutes. He would drown if he ever got into office. This is the same man who complained that having to speak for 19 minutes during a three hour debate was too long. Can you imagine how much pouting he would do if he ever had to stay past 5:00 over the same issue his advisers had been discussing the whole day?

The bold part above is solid gold!

I will say though, that the best company president I ever worked for approached meetings like this: You started the meeting, he showed up a few minutes late. He'd say "what's this meeting about and what do we need to decide." He expected the answer to be given in 20 seconds or less. He would then respond "here's what I think...." and give his opinion on how it should end. He expected you to fight him, if you didn't then why do we need a meeting? He would argue a point or two, and then say "well you know how I feel, you guys are smart, figure it out. Make sure our bank account is bigger at the end of this month than it was at the end of last month."

I don't think I ever saw him stay in a meeting longer than 5 minutes though. He wanted no part of the details, and expected/trusted us to handle that. We grew like crazy, he passed away, we went public, new leaders were brought in, and it all went downhill from there.

I'm not advocating Trump would be like that, but you reminded me of a great experience in my professional career...

 

[Huey Grey]

The bold part above is solid gold!

I will say though, that the best company president I ever worked for approached meetings like this: You started the meeting, he showed up a few minutes late. He'd say "what's this meeting about and what do we need to decide." He expected the answer to be given in 20 seconds or less. He would then respond "here's what I think...." and give his opinion on how it should end. He expected you to fight him, if you didn't then why do we need a meeting? He would argue a point or two, and then say "well you know how I feel, you guys are smart, figure it out. Make sure our bank account is bigger at the end of this month than it was at the end of last month."

I don't think I ever saw him stay in a meeting longer than 5 minutes though. He wanted no part of the details, and expected/trusted us to handle that. We grew like crazy, he passed away, we went public, new leaders were brought in, and it all went downhill from there.

I'm not advocating Trump would be like that, but you reminded me of a great experience in my professional career...

Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sure the same applies for Prez. There are so many things flying around in so many directions, that it would be impossible for him/her to discuss it all at length. So being able to listen and fire off quick answers is ideal. But sometimes, Presidents do have to spend a lot of this time on just one issue. Deciding to go to war, deciding how to handle sensitive negotiations, ect. So we also need someone who can go super in-depth over a lot of areas if and when that need comes up.

 

[Lone Clone]

Yes, unless you were born in Kenya.