There are apparently a couple early polls which show that she holds a small lead against Trump with voters, which for me is grounds for a bit of cautious optimism. Right now my only concern is her ability to get elected; questions of her competency as a professional and a leader seem silly to even consider, when she’s up against someone as clearly incompetent as Trump.
She isn’t exactly competent when speaking extemporaneously. Her term as VP has been full of oratory flubs. While such things don’t reflect one’s ability to govern, they do impact one’s ability to get elected. Conversely, while Trump is an incompetent president, it’s unfortunately hard to argue that he’s an incompetent leader. Ability to get elected is the ability to lead.
It doesn’t seem hard at all to argue Trump is an incompetent leader. He’s charismatic to a certain set of people, but that’s about it. He can’t make policy, he can’t hire competent assistants, he’s easily manipulated by people who cater to his ego, all of which scream incompetence. Ability to lead is not the same as the ability to convince people to follow.
The ability to get someone to go (or behave) a particular way is precisely what is to lead. As in, that’s literally the first dictionary definition. It’s not a prerequisite for the thing. It’s the thing itself. Getting millions of people to vote for you and putting an entire political party under your thumb requires leadership on a grand scale.
Shaq was incompetent (more like terrible) at jump shots and free throws, but he was anything but an incompetent basketball player. He was, however, a bad shooting guard and a worse point guard. Jake Lamotta had poor footwork and punching technique, but he wasn’t a bad boxer. Kurt Warner had feet of stone, and watching him run was painful, but he wasn’t a bad football player. One can easily argue that Trump is horrible at certain facets and categories of leadership or that he’s incompetent within many domains of leadership, but that doesn’t mean he’s incompetent qua [specifically and pedantically as a] leader.
To make that claim is to underestimate the opponent and even undermine the basis for criticizing Trump’s platform. If he is truly incompetent and ineffectual as a leader, then he shouldn’t be able to do what he says he’ll do, and neither platform nor promises matter. He can’t get anything done anyway.
Oh, I dunno. He showed initiative when he changed his surnname from Drumpf to Trump. The former rhymes with ‘bumf,’ short for ‘bum fodder’ aka dunny (lavatory) paper. Whereas ‘trump’ as in card games means ‘beats all.’ So I say give whatever credit you can where it might just possibly, and by a slight chance, be due.
There are apparently a couple early polls which show that she holds a small lead against Trump with voters, which for me is grounds for a bit of cautious optimism. Right now my only concern is her ability to get elected; questions of her competency as a professional and a leader seem silly to even consider, when she’s up against someone as clearly incompetent as Trump.
Yes, Time is arguably on her side, as is Trump’s proven ability to put his foot in it, dictatorial ambition-wise.
See https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
She isn’t exactly competent when speaking extemporaneously. Her term as VP has been full of oratory flubs. While such things don’t reflect one’s ability to govern, they do impact one’s ability to get elected. Conversely, while Trump is an incompetent president, it’s unfortunately hard to argue that he’s an incompetent leader. Ability to get elected is the ability to lead.
No it isn’t. It’s a prerequisite for leading, but it’s not itself competent leadership.
It doesn’t seem hard at all to argue Trump is an incompetent leader. He’s charismatic to a certain set of people, but that’s about it. He can’t make policy, he can’t hire competent assistants, he’s easily manipulated by people who cater to his ego, all of which scream incompetence. Ability to lead is not the same as the ability to convince people to follow.
The ability to get someone to go (or behave) a particular way is precisely what is to lead. As in, that’s literally the first dictionary definition. It’s not a prerequisite for the thing. It’s the thing itself. Getting millions of people to vote for you and putting an entire political party under your thumb requires leadership on a grand scale.
Shaq was incompetent (more like terrible) at jump shots and free throws, but he was anything but an incompetent basketball player. He was, however, a bad shooting guard and a worse point guard. Jake Lamotta had poor footwork and punching technique, but he wasn’t a bad boxer. Kurt Warner had feet of stone, and watching him run was painful, but he wasn’t a bad football player. One can easily argue that Trump is horrible at certain facets and categories of leadership or that he’s incompetent within many domains of leadership, but that doesn’t mean he’s incompetent qua [specifically and pedantically as a] leader.
To make that claim is to underestimate the opponent and even undermine the basis for criticizing Trump’s platform. If he is truly incompetent and ineffectual as a leader, then he shouldn’t be able to do what he says he’ll do, and neither platform nor promises matter. He can’t get anything done anyway.
The first dictionary definition in what dictionary? It’s not as if there’s only one.
Anyway ok, he’s a leader in the sense you’re talking about – a Führer if you like. But the word has other connotations.
I’d say Trump is more of an inciter than a leader.
Oh, I dunno. He showed initiative when he changed his surnname from Drumpf to Trump. The former rhymes with ‘bumf,’ short for ‘bum fodder’ aka dunny (lavatory) paper. Whereas ‘trump’ as in card games means ‘beats all.’ So I say give whatever credit you can where it might just possibly, and by a slight chance, be due.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumpf
He didn’t change the name. That was done by ancestors as early as the 17th century.
@ #9: Be that as it may. But he did not change it back again. So he is not, strictly speaking, a complete reactionary. ;-)