parabelum wrote:All of the enmity towards Trump in this thread ought to be directed at Hillary.
Trump did everything that RNC wanted him to do, and now that he's pulling ahead they are in panic trying desperately to pull the rug from underneath him.
As far as "my level of respect towards Cruz and his supporters just went down a notch"
comment; Well, the sentiment I'm getting from this thread is that no matter what Trump does will be enough for Cruz supporters to coalesce around him if and when he gets the nomination, and that's disturbing as it will surely hand the WH over to HRC, ensuring the slow dance of death for our Country.
We've already had one male pig in the White House (Bill Clinton), we don't need another one. When Trump refused to denounce the KKK he alienated a LOT of people. The Dems have worked hard to brand the GOP and conservatives as racists, and Trump handed that issue to them on a silver platter. If we don't defeat Trump in the primaries, he will lose in the general. He has provided the Dems with enough fodder to shoot him down a hundred times, and the media won't be so friendly to him once he gets the nomination. They're already turning on him.
I don't want a foul mouthed Andrew Dice Clay for President, and there are millions of conservatives who feel the same way. If we're going to destroy the country, we might as well get on with it and elect Hillary.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
Baldeagle, That is a very good analysis of Cruz's position at https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=2136. It takes emotion and pride out of the equation and gives a good analysis of how things actually went down. Thanks for sharing.
It is so easy for people to twist what others say. That's why I like looking at exactly what comes from the horses mouth. Trump is the best debater against Trump.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
So not to derail the conversation, but I think it goes along with this one.
Do you think Kasich, Carson, and Rubio will gracefully bow out and give conservatives a chance at the nomination in the form of Cruz ?
Carson doesn't have a path to win the primary, which is sad because he was one of my favored choices early on, but his numbers have been dwindling since Voting started. Its time for him to bow out. The conspiracy theorist in me think's he's staying in to hurt Cruz because he's butthurt over the perceived slight in Iowa. No empirical evidence, just a gut feeling.
Kasich ... I know his father was a mailman, and he's hoping to let me know that a few more times in hopes to win the primary. But his numbers are just as bad as Carson's - may be worst. He'll probably win Ohio, but even then, his path to win the primary is slim to none. Of course him staying in could be a good thing, some of the new polling data suggests that his pool of supports comes from the same pool as the Trumpkin pool - they are essentially competing for some of the same base camp of supporters. Him staying in could actually hurt Trump more then anyone else.
I'm not sure that I see Rubio bowing out before Florida, but if the polling data is still accurate/correct, he won't win his home state, which would be worst for him IMO then just gracefully bowing out and throwing his support behind whomever. I would hope it would be Cruz, but I think Rubio is enough of a snake and beholden to the establishment, so he'll probably get behind whoever they suggest.
Thoughts ?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
parabelum wrote:All of the enmity towards Trump in this thread ought to be directed at Hillary.
Trump did everything that RNC wanted him to do, and now that he's pulling ahead they are in panic trying desperately to pull the rug from underneath him.
As far as "my level of respect towards Cruz and his supporters just went down a notch"
comment; Well, the sentiment I'm getting from this thread is that no matter what Trump does will be enough for Cruz supporters to coalesce around him if and when he gets the nomination, and that's disturbing as it will surely hand the WH over to HRC, ensuring the slow dance of death for our Country.
We've already had one male pig in the White House (Bill Clinton), we don't need another one. When Trump refused to denounce the KKK he alienated a LOT of people. The Dems have worked hard to brand the GOP and conservatives as racists, and Trump handed that issue to them on a silver platter. If we don't defeat Trump in the primaries, he will lose in the general. He has provided the Dems with enough fodder to shoot him down a hundred times, and the media won't be so friendly to him once he gets the nomination. They're already turning on him.
I don't want a foul mouthed Andrew Dice Clay for President, and there are millions of conservatives who feel the same way. If we're going to destroy the country, we might as well get on with it and elect Hillary.
Here is just a taste of Cruz flip flopping, just so we're all clear that a saint he is not:
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
Right2Carry wrote:Trump is nothing more than FOOLS GOLD.
Are you suggesting that some very prominent persons in the LE, conservative, evangelical community, along with national black republican association etc. who support Trump are all fools, that somehow they all as a body of whole are just fools who can't see something that clearly Cruz supports only can see?
By the way, above it was mentioned that Trump is a male pig a la Bill. Why would NRA reach out and invite such a pig to speak at their events?
More interestingly, why would Cruz rally with Trump the male pig all over the place, until the race got heated?
By the way, as for KKK "endorsement", even Mark Levin agreed that Trump went above and beyond to disavow Duke. Stop the lies already.
So, your source of information comes form three liberal news networks, one questionable news network, a pot website, an entertainment website and youtube videos. If I got my info from those I probably would support Trump also.
Are You Sure You Want to Buy What Donald Trump is Selling?
Sydney Finkelstein
Author: Superbosses & Professor: Dartmouth Tuck School of Business
Mar 1, 2016
“We will have so much winning if I get elected,” Donald Trump exclaimed this past September, “that you may get bored with winning.” The line worked so well, that he now repeats it at virtually every campaign stop.
It’s a bold claim, and an alluring one—who wouldn’t want a winner as president? For that matter, who wouldn’t want to elect “the greatest jobs president that God ever created,” as Trump has also predicted he’d be?
It sounds alluring, but is it actually the case that people who proclaim themselves so loudly and so often to be winners actually succeed the most?
My research into business leaders suggests they don’t. On the contrary, it suggests that such bombast is one of a slew of behaviors embraced by spectacularly unsuccessful business executives. Unfortunately, many of these habits are part and parcel of the Trump leadership playbook.
For my book Why Smart Executives Fail, I interviewed some 200 people at fifty companies to learn why some people in business didn’t merely lose, but lose big. I discovered an interesting pattern: Spectacularly unsuccessful people tend to display a number of behavior patterns in common.
One of the most common is a tendency to see themselves and their companies as dominating their industry, regardless of what is happening around them. For example the co-CEOs of Research in Motion, the maker of the Blackberry smartphone, failed to appreciate the rise of the iPhone, going so far as to laugh off Apple’s new product as a nonstarter because it didn’t have a “real” touch keyboard. As we’ve seen with Donald Trump, denigrating your competition is one of the best ways to see this syndrome in action. Like Trump, the RIM CEOs felt certain they would win, and it cost them big-time.
Spectacularly unsuccessful executives also tend to think that they have all the answers. To all the questions. CEO Wolfgang Schmitt drove Rubbermaid into a ditch during the 1990s. A former colleague remembered that under Schmitt, "the joke went, 'Wolf knows everything about everything.'” Not surprisingly, know-it-all executives suffer because they fail to consider other points of view that might have merit. In fact, no one is always right, yet spectacularly unsuccessful executives act as if they are. In this regard, Trump’s impression of his own judgment and intelligence is telling. As he tweeted in May 2013: “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest – and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault.” In September 2015, he made a similar statement on The Tonight Show, telling host Jimmy Fallon, “I think apologizing’s a great thing, but you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”
And then there’s a related behavior, the tendency to underestimate obstacles. Unsuccessful CEOs are so confident that they blithely wave away the challenges that might impede them from realizing their visions. When these challenges materialize, do they backtrack? No! They double-down and get in even deeper.
In announcing his run for president, Trump proclaimed that he would solve the immigration issue by building a wall on the Mexican border: “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” Yet by most estimates, the cost of fencing in all 2,000 miles of border would be expensive, perhaps as high as $25 billion. Trump has talked about building a wall, not a fence, which would push the cost even higher. As for Mexico footing the bill, a spokesman for Mexico’s president has scoffed at the idea, noting that it "reflects an enormous ignorance for what Mexico represents, and also the irresponsibility of the candidate who's saying it."
But hasn’t Trump actually been very successful – in fact, a billionaire? Leaving aside the four bankruptcies, mostly due to problems at his Atlantic City casinos, there’s no question that his net worth today is in the billions. While no one can predict with certainty whether his business empire will remain intact in the years to come, CEOs who embrace many of the unsuccessful habits, as Trump does, are particularly vulnerable to a downturn. It’s almost like there’s a geological fault line beneath the surface, ready to erupt when the pressure becomes too unbearable. In my research, triggers like a major business downturn, a huge acquisition, and a strong new competitor were all responsible for turning seemingly thriving companies, run by leaders living the failing habits, into disasters in record time. Stress points typically bring out the worst in spectacularly unsuccessful leaders; habits that didn’t foul them up in better times can become fatal.
What might trigger those fault lines under a President Trump? Where to begin? Anything from a global crisis for which he lacks both personal experience and the makeup to be schooled by experts who may well have a different take than that of the intuitive deal maker who insists that he’s the smartest guy in the room; to even new economic crises that can’t be resolved with bluster.
Other research I have conducted raises still more concerns. In writing my current book Superbosses, I turned the table and explored why some executives succeeded more fabulously than others. In particular, I spent ten years probing the secrets of leaders who not only amassed great wealth, but who developed a generation of leaders in their industries. Here again I managed to identify a number of behaviors that these leaders had in common, including the willingness to share the spotlight with subordinates, the willingness to work closely with protégés and learn from them, and the willingness to hang back and give subordinates room to make their own decisions.
Trump’s answer to a moderator’s question in the most recent Republican candidate debate in South Carolina was telling:
Question: Can you tell us of an instance where somebody has said, “Donald Trump, you’re wrong,” and you listened to them?
Answer: Well, I would say my wife tells me I’m wrong all the time. And I listen.
Question: About what?
Answer: Oh, let me just say – look, I am very open – I hired top people. I’ve had great success. I built a great, great company. I don’t need to do this.
Superbosses have big egos, but the one thing they still do is make room for other people – their opinions, their ideas, and their influence. That’s how great organizations stay great. Trump not only appears to have a different leadership mindset, he also seems oblivious to the risks that often come with unadulterated egos.
These are all questions that cry out for more considered analysis by the press and the electorate alike. There is little we’ve seen about candidate Trump to ease these legitimate concerns. Predicting leadership behavior on the basis of past leadership behavior is smart, but not foolproof. But at a minimum, Trump’s adherence to key habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives should be a warning sign. Does this mean that a President Trump will necessarily fall prey to the same weaknesses that have brought down previously successful leaders like Ken Lay of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, and Martin Winterkorn of Volkswagen? No. But is this a big-time risk that warrants close attention? As Bernie Sanders might say, you better believe it.
Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of management and Director of the Leadership Center at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. His new book is Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Manage the Flow of Talent (Portfolio/Penguin, 2016)
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח
Bitter Clinger wrote:Are You Sure You Want to Buy What Donald Trump is Selling?
Sydney Finkelstein
Author: Superbosses & Professor: Dartmouth Tuck School of Business
Mar 1, 2016
“We will have so much winning if I get elected,” Donald Trump exclaimed this past September, “that you may get bored with winning.” The line worked so well, that he now repeats it at virtually every campaign stop.
It’s a bold claim, and an alluring one—who wouldn’t want a winner as president? For that matter, who wouldn’t want to elect “the greatest jobs president that God ever created,” as Trump has also predicted he’d be?
It sounds alluring, but is it actually the case that people who proclaim themselves so loudly and so often to be winners actually succeed the most?
My research into business leaders suggests they don’t. On the contrary, it suggests that such bombast is one of a slew of behaviors embraced by spectacularly unsuccessful business executives. Unfortunately, many of these habits are part and parcel of the Trump leadership playbook.
For my book Why Smart Executives Fail, I interviewed some 200 people at fifty companies to learn why some people in business didn’t merely lose, but lose big. I discovered an interesting pattern: Spectacularly unsuccessful people tend to display a number of behavior patterns in common.
One of the most common is a tendency to see themselves and their companies as dominating their industry, regardless of what is happening around them. For example the co-CEOs of Research in Motion, the maker of the Blackberry smartphone, failed to appreciate the rise of the iPhone, going so far as to laugh off Apple’s new product as a nonstarter because it didn’t have a “real” touch keyboard. As we’ve seen with Donald Trump, denigrating your competition is one of the best ways to see this syndrome in action. Like Trump, the RIM CEOs felt certain they would win, and it cost them big-time.
Spectacularly unsuccessful executives also tend to think that they have all the answers. To all the questions. CEO Wolfgang Schmitt drove Rubbermaid into a ditch during the 1990s. A former colleague remembered that under Schmitt, "the joke went, 'Wolf knows everything about everything.'” Not surprisingly, know-it-all executives suffer because they fail to consider other points of view that might have merit. In fact, no one is always right, yet spectacularly unsuccessful executives act as if they are. In this regard, Trump’s impression of his own judgment and intelligence is telling. As he tweeted in May 2013: “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest – and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault.” In September 2015, he made a similar statement on The Tonight Show, telling host Jimmy Fallon, “I think apologizing’s a great thing, but you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”
And then there’s a related behavior, the tendency to underestimate obstacles. Unsuccessful CEOs are so confident that they blithely wave away the challenges that might impede them from realizing their visions. When these challenges materialize, do they backtrack? No! They double-down and get in even deeper.
In announcing his run for president, Trump proclaimed that he would solve the immigration issue by building a wall on the Mexican border: “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” Yet by most estimates, the cost of fencing in all 2,000 miles of border would be expensive, perhaps as high as $25 billion. Trump has talked about building a wall, not a fence, which would push the cost even higher. As for Mexico footing the bill, a spokesman for Mexico’s president has scoffed at the idea, noting that it "reflects an enormous ignorance for what Mexico represents, and also the irresponsibility of the candidate who's saying it."
But hasn’t Trump actually been very successful – in fact, a billionaire? Leaving aside the four bankruptcies, mostly due to problems at his Atlantic City casinos, there’s no question that his net worth today is in the billions. While no one can predict with certainty whether his business empire will remain intact in the years to come, CEOs who embrace many of the unsuccessful habits, as Trump does, are particularly vulnerable to a downturn. It’s almost like there’s a geological fault line beneath the surface, ready to erupt when the pressure becomes too unbearable. In my research, triggers like a major business downturn, a huge acquisition, and a strong new competitor were all responsible for turning seemingly thriving companies, run by leaders living the failing habits, into disasters in record time. Stress points typically bring out the worst in spectacularly unsuccessful leaders; habits that didn’t foul them up in better times can become fatal.
What might trigger those fault lines under a President Trump? Where to begin? Anything from a global crisis for which he lacks both personal experience and the makeup to be schooled by experts who may well have a different take than that of the intuitive deal maker who insists that he’s the smartest guy in the room; to even new economic crises that can’t be resolved with bluster.
Other research I have conducted raises still more concerns. In writing my current book Superbosses, I turned the table and explored why some executives succeeded more fabulously than others. In particular, I spent ten years probing the secrets of leaders who not only amassed great wealth, but who developed a generation of leaders in their industries. Here again I managed to identify a number of behaviors that these leaders had in common, including the willingness to share the spotlight with subordinates, the willingness to work closely with protégés and learn from them, and the willingness to hang back and give subordinates room to make their own decisions.
Trump’s answer to a moderator’s question in the most recent Republican candidate debate in South Carolina was telling:
Question: Can you tell us of an instance where somebody has said, “Donald Trump, you’re wrong,” and you listened to them?
Answer: Well, I would say my wife tells me I’m wrong all the time. And I listen.
Question: About what?
Answer: Oh, let me just say – look, I am very open – I hired top people. I’ve had great success. I built a great, great company. I don’t need to do this.
Superbosses have big egos, but the one thing they still do is make room for other people – their opinions, their ideas, and their influence. That’s how great organizations stay great. Trump not only appears to have a different leadership mindset, he also seems oblivious to the risks that often come with unadulterated egos.
These are all questions that cry out for more considered analysis by the press and the electorate alike. There is little we’ve seen about candidate Trump to ease these legitimate concerns. Predicting leadership behavior on the basis of past leadership behavior is smart, but not foolproof. But at a minimum, Trump’s adherence to key habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives should be a warning sign. Does this mean that a President Trump will necessarily fall prey to the same weaknesses that have brought down previously successful leaders like Ken Lay of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, and Martin Winterkorn of Volkswagen? No. But is this a big-time risk that warrants close attention? As Bernie Sanders might say, you better believe it.
Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of management and Director of the Leadership Center at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. His new book is Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Manage the Flow of Talent (Portfolio/Penguin, 2016)
Thank you for posting the article, while I disagree, it is an interesting read.
Trump can be many things, but unsuccessful businessman he is not.
And if The Great Wall of China that was built 206 BC that stretches 13000 miles or so is feasible, I think the our wall is a no brainier.
So, your source of information comes form three liberal news networks, one questionable news network, a pot website, an entertainment website and youtube videos. If I got my info from those I probably would support Trump also.
We all know that 4th estate has become 5th column here long ago. So the delineation between say FOX and some potsmoking entity is barely visible, not due to cannabis smoke but because they all spew garbage regularly.
So, are those links all wrong? If so, please provide links to disprove them all, and I'll read with an open mind.
"A Smart Politics analysis finds that Ted Cruz’s 43.8 percent showing in Texas marks the lowest support ever recorded by a Republican presidential candidate in a home state victory out of the more than five-dozen campaigns to win their home state since 1912."
These 2 specifically were discussed in one of the debates - where Megan Kelly attacked Ted Cruz on it... then in the interview after the debate they admitted that he had not flip flopped on Immigration, he did in fact introduce a poison pill amendment. Of course if you only watched the debate, you were left with the impression that they thought he did flip flop.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
parabelum wrote:Here is something I thought was interesting:
"A Smart Politics analysis finds that Ted Cruz’s 43.8 percent showing in Texas marks the lowest support ever recorded by a Republican presidential candidate in a home state victory out of the more than five-dozen campaigns to win their home state since 1912."
That's a pretty telling pre-qualifier there. And this is also this most contested primary in probably the last 100 years. I know its the most contested in my lifetime.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
parabelum wrote:Here is something I thought was interesting:
"A Smart Politics analysis finds that Ted Cruz’s 43.8 percent showing in Texas marks the lowest support ever recorded by a Republican presidential candidate in a home state victory out of the more than five-dozen campaigns to win their home state since 1912."
That's a pretty telling pre-qualifier there. And this is also this most contested primary in probably the last 100 years. I know its the most contested in my lifetime.
Exactly. Were there 5 candidates with at least three of them viable in all of those prior races?
The argument about his position flip flopping on marijuana enforcement is invalid. There are two different questions proposed. One is, does he favor the States making making the laws regarding marijuana and the other question is related to him making that a "top three" issue. It only makes sense the answer would be different. Any candidate that would make marijuana a top three issue should be crucified considering what the country is facing.
I too remember Megan Kelly correcting the record at the after debate interview. That is just another example of the retraction and correction not getting the same play as the original incorrect report.
I suspect the other links are just as bogus but I am on the road at the moment and do not have to time view them.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
