Entering the Orbit of a Total Narcissist: Who's Who in Donald Trump's Inner Circle

The US government is, in fact, a business, whose product line is the security and safety of its citizens. Since you apparently do not know this, I will let you in on a little inside “secret”

The US government is supposed to operate as a Constitutional Republic whose “product line” is to protect the God given liberties of it’s people. Since you apparently do not know this, I will let you in on a little inside “secret.” The US Constitution limits what the US Government can do. It was created to limit what the likes of an Obama, Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Sanders, ect can do.

A businesses job is to grow and make lots of money. I want to opposite from government

I guess I don’t understand why people who are supposed to embrace the concept of a limited federal government have abandoned that for Trump in the belief that a growing federal government will work if he’s running it just because he’s had success in business. That’s along the lines of the left believing that the reason socialism hasn’t really worked as promised is because the wrong people have been in charge of it

Colorado was rigged against Trump from the get-go.

How so?

Colorado was rigged against Trump from the get-go.
How so?

I quote selected excerpts from a Denver Post article from Aug. 25, 2015:

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.

State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.

The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July.

You can read the rest of the article at the source. However, the pertinent fact is that the delegates were not supposed to be bound going into the national convention.

Then, suddenly, the CO GOP held a state convention to select bound delegates--disregarding its own rules from August stating that they would not be bound. So I have to wonder, when did they decide to have a state convention, and how much advance notice did they give the Cruz campaign vs. the Trump campaign? If you read between the lines in this article, it would seem that the Cruz camp had plenty of time to prepare, while the Trump camp did not. Putting all of this together, it looks a lot like the CO GOP rigged the process.

Let me explain what happened. First of all, the Colorado poll was exactly that - a poll. It had nothing at all to do with how delegates were selected and bound. In 2015, the National GOP (i.e. the GOPe) approached Colorado and asked them to make their poll binding. They asked this so that the GOP nominee would be settled earlier in the primary season rather than later. Colorado refused. Do you hear what I'm saying? The GOPe wanted Colorado to bind their delegates to the straw poll thinking it would help the establishment candidate lock it down early. And Colorado told the GOPe to stick it. And just so was no confusion about it, they cancelled the poll.

So the only change that was made was that a straw poll that didn't count anyway was omitted. And they did this as rebellion against the GOPe.

Then, suddenly, the CO GOP held a state convention to select bound delegates--disregarding its own rules from August stating that they would not be bound.

They are not bound only if they do not declare. According to the bylaws:

In the event a candidate for national delegate indicates on his or her notice of intent to run as a national delegate that such candidate is pledged to support a particular presidential candidate, the State Chairman of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee shall cast the vote on behalf of that national delegate on the first nominating ballot in accordance with the pledge of support made by such national delegate on their notice of intent to run; except that if a qualifying presidential candidate releases his delegates through public declaration or written notification, the presidential candidate's name is not placed in nomination, or the presidential candidate does not otherwise qualify for nomination ..., the individual National Delegates and National Alternate Delegates previously pledged are released to cast their ballots as each may choose, or the State Chairman shall allocate and cast the delegate votes to the remaining presidential candidates as if the eliminated presidential candidate had failed to qualify. On any succeeding ballot for president, the national delegates are released to cast their ballots as each may choose. CRC Bylaws, Art. XIII, § A(3).

This means that at the State convention, if a candidate for delegate declares support for a candidate (which will be noted in writing and included with the ballot), then that delegate's vote will go towards that candidate in Round 1. If a delegate candidate does not declare for any candidate, then that delegate is free to vote for whomever in Round 1.

I hope this helps.

The US government is supposed to operate as a Constitutional Republic whose “product line” is to protect the God given liberties of it’s people. Since you apparently do not know this, I will let you in on a little inside “secret.” The US Constitution limits what the US Government can do. It was created to limit what the likes of an Obama, Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Sanders, ect can do.

You are now running off on a tangent. The government is very much a business, and its product line is the security and safety of its citizens. Not cradle to grave welfare, not single payer health care, not a whole bunch of things that the government has now gotten involved in because people don't actually know or understand the role of government and they vote ideology instead of candidate qualifications.

A businesses job is to grow and make lots of money. I want to opposite from government

Again, no. A business' job is to provide its product or service to the customer at the most reasonable price. There is no obligation for a business to grow; it will do so only if its leadership wants it to grow.

In my experience as a government employee, regardless of a person's expertise, most people are encouraged to learn some kind of business process--whether it is acquisition processes or lean Six Sigma. If the government is not a business, then why are we government employees required to learn business processes?

I guess I don’t understand why people who are supposed to embrace the concept of a limited federal government have abandoned that for Trump in the belief that a growing federal government will work if he’s running it just because he’s had success in business. That’s along the lines of the left believing that the reason socialism hasn’t really worked as promised is because the wrong people have been in charge of it

Again, you are going off on a tangent and missing the salient point. I'm going to assume that this is, in part, because you really do not understand business or how businesses operate. The Constitution mandates a very limited number of duties from the president. Consistent with his role as chief executive officer of the country, he is required to submit a budget, manage a staff, command the military forces, negotiate treaties, lead the Congress in implementing his vision, etc. It is his role to have the large view of what is going on in the country. There is not a single executive function of the President that is outside of Trump's executive experience and skill set. As a successful business executive, he already does many of the same functions that the Constitution mandates from the president.

Contrast that to Cruz, who is trained as a lawyer, not a businessman, and has scarcely any experience even as a lawyer. He has never led a company. He has never hired people. He has never developed a budget for a large organization. He has not shown that he actually can lead people or get them to follow a vision. He does not have the empathy for ordinary people trying to live their lives within the burdensome regulatory environment that politician lawyers like him have created for people, since he has never been an ordinary citizen. His skills and experience are quite similar to those of Obama when he was first elected--and how has this Obama presidency worked out, hmm? From all accounts, he shares another Obama trait--he refuses to negotiate, regardless of the long term damage such refusal does. How is he supposed to work with Congress if he comes across as a rigid ideologue who refuses to negotiate? How does an inexperienced lawyer step into an executive position and hope to do the job?

You are now running off on a tangent. The government is very much a business, and its product line is the security and safety of its citizens. Not cradle to grave welfare, not single payer health care, not a whole bunch of things that the government has now gotten involved in because people don’t actually know or understand the role of government and they vote ideology instead of candidate qualifications.

A businesses job is to grow and make lots of money. I want to opposite from government

Again, no. A business’ job is to provide its product or service to the customer at the most reasonable price. There is no obligation for a business to grow; it will do so only if its leadership wants it to grow.

In my experience as a government employee, regardless of a person’s expertise, most people are encouraged to learn some kind of business process—whether it is acquisition processes or lean Six Sigma. If the government is not a business, then why are we government employees required to learn business processes?

I guess I don’t understand why people who are supposed to embrace the concept of a limited federal government have abandoned that for Trump in the belief that a growing federal government will work if he’s running it just because he’s had success in business. That’s along the lines of the left believing that the reason socialism hasn’t really worked as promised is because the wrong people have been in charge of it

Again, you are going off on a tangent and missing the salient point. I’m going to assume that this is, in part, because you really do not understand business or how businesses operate. The Constitution mandates a very limited number of duties from the president. Consistent with his role as chief executive officer of the country, he is required to submit a budget, manage a staff, command the military forces, negotiate treaties, lead the Congress in implementing his vision, etc. It is his role to have the large view of what is going on in the country. There is not a single executive function of the President that is outside of Trump’s executive experience and skill set. As a successful business executive, he already does many of the same functions that the Constitution mandates from the president.

Contrast that to Cruz, who is trained as a lawyer, not a businessman, and has scarcely any experience even as a lawyer. He has never led a company. He has never hired people. He has never developed a budget for a large organization. He has not shown that he actually can lead people or get them to follow a vision. He does not have the empathy for ordinary people trying to live their lives within the burdensome regulatory environment that politician lawyers like him have created for people, since he has never been an ordinary citizen. His skills and experience are quite similar to those of Obama when he was first elected—and how has this Obama presidency worked out, hmm? From all accounts, he shares another Obama trait—he refuses to negotiate, regardless of the long term damage such refusal does. How is he supposed to work with Congress if he comes across as a rigid ideologue who refuses to negotiate? How does an inexperienced lawyer step into an executive position and hope to do the job?

Oh were to begin.

First, you’re confusing managing with governing and assuming they’re the same. They’re not. “And “governing” a business is not the same as “governing” a Constitutional Republic.” And you’re also mistakenly assuming a business contract and plan are the same as the US Constitution. Again, they are not.

And yes, the purpose of a business is to grow and make money. To do that, they provide a service people want. No growth or revenue the business fails.

Oh, my goodness. Your response to the Denver Post article explaining the rules change to leave delegates unbound prior to the convention is to post a excerpt of the bylaws, 159 words of a single convoluted sentence (from which some words were omitted, as evidenced by the ellipsis) that says--well, that's anyone's guess. Like too many examples of legalese, it is written in such a way that it does not clearly say anything and is open to interpretation. The second, shorter sentence from that excerpt actually does seem to state a clear concept. But that 159(+) word sentence does not.

Anyway, perusing through that green website, I once again see that the GOP chairman in CO stated that the rule change in August was supposed to leave the delegates unbound: “Eliminating the straw poll means the delegates we send to the national convention in Cleveland will be free to choose the candidate they feel can best put America back on a path to prosperity and security,” Chairman Steve House said. “No one wants to see their vote cast for an empty chair, especially not on a stage as big as the national convention’s.” So, again, why the subsequent change after the rules were changed in August?

One other thing, and that is a perusal of the green website looks like the whole process was highly irregular. In theory, delegates are drawn from the pool of Republican voters. So I am supposed to believe that this sampling of CO Republican voters did not result in the selection of a single Trump delegate? Come on. That is statistically impossible. The fact that a handful of Trump delegates ended up as alternates looks suspicious, too--as if the state party realized how bad that result looked, and threw in a few Trump alternate delegates to deflect suspicion.

Now, let's climb out of the weeds and look at the big picture. Most people do not have the time or inclination to slog through a bunch of dense legalese explaining why nothing untoward happened in CO. Most people perceive that a highly irregular process took place to give 81% of the delegates to Cruz, when they know that it is impossible for Cruz to have 81% support among CO Republican voters. This is politics: perception is reality. And this outcome hurt Cruz, not Trump.

Relatively speaking, Steve House is correct. The wanted Colorado to bind their delegates on March 1 based on a straw poll that had never before been binding. So in response to that, House said that the delegates would not be bound. And that holds true for March.

IF a delegate declares at the state convention in April, then that delegate becomes bound through that declaration (1st ballot only). They do NOT have to declare, but if they do, they are voluntarily binding themselves.

Those are the rules - rules set up by the State party, and rules that have been in effect for the previous three Presidential election cycles. None of that has been changed, despite the attempts of the GOPe. And none of this was designed to shut Donald Trump out.

The bottom line with Trump is that he didn't even try. His state director wasn't put in place until four days before the convention. He didn't speak to his delegate candidates beforehand. And he did not have any organization in place to help get Trump delegates elected.

Actually if the idiot who wrote this had a clue about Narcistic Personality Disorder he would know that Trump does not demonstrate those traits. Trump can be abrasive and combative but he is not a narcist.

Oh were to begin.
First, you’re confusing managing with governing and assuming they’re the same. They’re not. “And “governing” a business is not the same as “governing” a Constitutional Republic.” And you’re also mistakenly assuming a business contract and plan are the same as the US Constitution. Again, they are not.
And yes, the purpose of a business is to grow and make money. To do that, they provide a service people want. No growth or revenue the business fails.

Where to begin? Let me help you:

How about with a cogent explanation of why a man with decades of executive experience is not qualified to assume the office of the country's top executive, but a man with almost no work experience in any capacity, much less executive experience, *is* qualified?

I will be blunt: your responses so far do not indicate that you have any understanding of how either the government or businesses function.

Where to begin? Let me help you:

How about with a cogent explanation of why a man with decades of executive experience is not qualified to assume the office of the country’s top executive, but a man with almost no work experience in any capacity, much less executive experience, *is* qualified?

I will be blunt: your responses so far do not indicate that you have any understanding of how either the government or businesses function.

Since it appears you still don’t know the difference between governing in a Constitutional Republic and running a business, we’ll have to part ways here

How about with a cogent explanation of why a man with decades of executive experience is not qualified to assume the office of the country’s top executive, but a man with almost no work experience in any capacity, much less executive experience, *is* qualified?

I will be blunt: your responses so far do not indicate that you have any understanding of how either the government or businesses function

I will remind you that, historically,success in business does not translate into a successful presidency. Both Hoover and Carter were successful businessmen. The former in mining and the latter in peanut farming yet turned into disastrous presidencies.

Ronald Reagan never ran a business ;)

I will remind you that, historically,success in business does not translate into a successful presidency. Both Hoover and Carter were successful businessmen. The former in mining and the latter in peanut farming yet turned into disastrous presidencies.
Ronald Reagan never ran a business ;)

Herbert Hoover bio. Hmm, it doesn't say anything about mining there. He got scapegoated for the great depression, some of his ideas tended towards the liberal, he actually did help to streamline and economize some government agencies in his later years. What a shame we don't have anyone trying to streamline anything these days--but that's what happens when lawyers who understand squat about business are elected to every level of government.

Jimmy Carter might have had a peanut farm, but that did not make him a top-level executive who practices looking at the big picture. He was also a naval officer for 7 years, but in that time, probably did not learn much about budgets, strategies, and so forth that higher rank officers learn. So his efforts to improve the economy fell flat, since he really did not have the economic/business experience to inform them. He also created the Dept. of Education, which has been nothing but a money sink and boondoggle ever since.

Reagan might not have been a businessman, but he did study economics in college. He also had the executive experience as CA governor before heading to the White House. So, while he did not have direct business executive experience, he actually did have the requisite skills needed to manage a large corporation. Unfortunately, he was saddled with Democrat house and senate, and they devised new laws/policies to suck up any monetary savings resulting from Reagan policies just as fast as they could write them on paper.

So you do not want to accept that the government is a big business, and runs like a business during its normal day-to-day operations. And that attitude and miscomprehension of government, multiplied by a few million, is exactly why our elected officials are overwhelmingly lawyers. Putting lawyers in charge is why laws and regulations multiply faster than anyone can keep track of--and they contain so many contradictions that it is impossible to live within the law. And economically illiterate lawyers are why the debt keeps spiraling out of control and may already have entered an exponential growth phase, in which case even the brightest financial mind in the world cannot fix it, and we are heading into major trouble.

And you seriously think that another lawyer is going to fix the problems that decades of lawyers in government have caused???

We need an executive (most likely from the business world) who understands things like increasing efficiency and cutting costs, among other skills. Trump happens to have that skill and experience set. Now, I'm under no illusions--Trump may not be able to turn this situation around, the problems may be too deep and systemic--however, if anyone is able, he is the best bet to be that person. Certainly, a lawyer whose default "solution" to every problem is to write a new law is *not* that person.

Hmm, it doesn’t say anything about mining there.

Perhaps a little research on your part might be in order

“He opened his own mining consulting business in 1908; by 1914, Hoover was financially secure, earning his wealth from high-salaried positions, his ownership of profitable Burmese silver mines, and royalties from writing the leading textbook on mining engineering.”
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/hoover-life-before-the-presidency

Again, you still seem to be confusing running a business
verses governing in a Constitutional Republic. Many of Trump’s “fixes” would require legislation. A business owner operates in a more dictatorial type of leadership. It’s not a slam on Trump. As a business owner, Trump has the right to fire anyone and make many of his own rules when it comes to business. A president is more limited. For example, he can fire his SOS at any time. He can’t fire, for example, Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan,if they don’t do what he wants them to.

Again, I still will never understand why people who otherwise support limited government think a large, expansive government will work with Trump running it

So you do not want to accept that the government is a big business, and runs like a business during its normal day-to-day operations. And that attitude and miscomprehension of government, multiplied by a few million, is exactly why our elected officials are overwhelmingly lawyers. Putting lawyers in charge is why laws and regulations multiply faster than anyone can keep track of—and they contain so many contradictions that it is impossible to live within the law. And economically illiterate lawyers are why the debt keeps spiraling out of control and may already have entered an exponential growth phase, in which case even the brightest financial mind in the world cannot fix it, and we are heading into major trouble.

And you seriously think that another lawyer is going to fix the problems that decades of lawyers in government have caused???

We need an executive (most likely from the business world) who understands things like increasing efficiency and cutting costs, among other skills. Trump happens to have that skill and experience set. Now, I’m under no illusions—Trump may not be able to turn this situation around, the problems may be too deep and systemic—however, if anyone is able, he is the best bet to be that person. Certainly, a lawyer whose default “solution” to every problem is to write a new law is *not* that person.

Yes. I do not accept that government is a big business for reasons that I’ve already outlined. And no, I’m not saying another lawyer is what we need. I just don’t assume that just because Trump has run a business, successfully, that he’ll be a success.

My personal belief is even if someone wanted to really fix the mess, there are too many that want to keep the status quo

Several points struck me but this is more relative to the narcissism which the article really doesn’t get into and also correlates with his disdain for the 1st Amendment:

I did find an article that explains part of his motivation for running...as a republican this time. If he isn’t nominated he will run 3rd party, or quit. Probably 3rd party. He couldn’t become a member of the Constitution party.

“Judging by his petulance on the 2016 campaign trail, the easiest explanation is that Trump broke with the Democrats because he was peeved at the titular head of the Democratic Party. His pattern of donations changed markedly during Barack Obama’s second term as president. This change actually began a year earlier and it coincides with the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Trump was a guest, and listened as the president made fun of Trump’s hair, his supposedly garish architectural taste, and his fixation with Obama’s birth certificate.

“The Donald kept up a tight smile as this roasting went on, but his expression froze in pique when the entertainer who followed Obama kept piling on. “Donald Trump often talks about running as a Republican, which is surprising,” said comedian Seth Meyers. “I just assumed he was running as a joke.””

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/21/why_donald_trump_didnt_run_as_a_democrat_127475.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

1. Michael Cohen...pit bullshiite lawyer...Imagine DT with the FBI, NSA, and DOinJ under his power...

” Trump has threatened to have federal employees sign a similar contract [NON-DISCLOSURE=NO 1ST AMENDMENT?] once he is in the Oval Office. Stone maintained that he and Trump were still “very good friends” and will no doubt be hoping to heal the rift in the months ahead.”

Remember that his volunteers also had to sign a non-disclosure.

2. STONE=Lobbyist
“The future of Trump’s relationship with Stone, who is perhaps the ally who most closely shares the candidate’s sense of opportunism, remains unclear. The pair go back decades, Stone claiming to have first met Trump and his father, Fred, on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign in 1979. [protesting?] The Trump Organization was one of Stone’s first clients in DC, where he worked as a lobbyist throughout the early 80s.”

In bed with the politicians?

3. Self-Funding:
The relatively few television advertisements that Trump has deemed it necessary to broadcast – cable news channels having provided him with an estimated $1.9bn in free advertising through blanket coverage – have been entrusted to Rick Reed, a veteran conservative ad-man hailed as “the smartest political consultant I know” by Tucker Carlson, the rightwing broadcaster and publisher.

While I’m at it I did a little research into DT’s investments...
Title:Study: Trump investments underperformed in 2015

“Trump also argued that several of his individual stock picks, like Apple and Goldman Sachs, have done very well for him.

“I hit the market exactly perfectly,” he said.”

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/274178-trump-investments-underperformed-in-2015

Title:Know Who Else Has Received Loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs? Donald Trump.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/21/know-else-received-loans-citibank-goldman-sachs-donald-trump/

“He’s made the nonsensical claim repeatedly that Ted Cruz can’t “protect people” from Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whoever, because he has taken out loans from them or personally guaranteed loans to his campaign from them.”

“As for Goldman Sachs, Trump is himself a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, which means he has a direct financial interest in its success. One would think that would make Trump even less enthusiastic about protecting me from Goldman Sachs (whatever that means) than Cruz would.”

[DT is super owned by the banks. In fact I think his fear of losing everything is the biggest motivations for running, the other is another psychotic reason]

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/21/know-else-received-loans-citibank-goldman-sachs-donald-trump/

4. Carson tweet gold foil hat spinning...carson was promised a deal. If it was verbal it means nothing.

......”I am supporting a man whose executive experience over the course of decades demonstrates that he has the diverse skill set needed to be the top executive in the country”....

He has ZERO ‘legislative’ or ‘executive political’ experience... As in NONE whatsoever..The Pres. of the U.S. is ....a highly political position.... which involves ‘both’ executive control and having to deal with the legislative branch....he has absolutely no experience in either of the ‘two main skills’ required for the job.

He has been wrong about the constitution and embarrassed himself while trying to discuss the Constitution...

Further... the positions he’s staking out ignore key political aspects of the world, or heck, even just defy practical reality.... ‘Foreign Policy’ is completely different than some business negotiations with foreign companies......

Further the failures he has had from.... Casinos, Vodka, Steaks, Universities, Mortgage, Airlines.. All failed.
Then there’s the Trump game, Trump magazine, Trump tower Chicago, Trump Ice, The Apprentice board game, Miss USA, Tour De Trump, The New Jersey Generals...... All considered failures of Trump.

Just remember, it isn’t possible for him to identify one bit with the man on the street, the working man, nothing about his life could be considered as a “normal” Citizen... he was handed everything, and still didn’t do as well as Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, or Bill Gates, ...men who worked their way up,... way past Trump.

Yes. I do not accept that government is a big business for reasons that I’ve already outlined. And no, I’m not saying another lawyer is what we need. I just don’t assume that just because Trump has run a business, successfully, that he’ll be a success.

Honestly, you do not sound like you have any idea of what government does or how it operates. Meanwhile, those of us who actually work for the government and for whom understanding government function is necessary for our careers, we speak the language of business and we learn business skills. Many of us decide to get MBAs... the only reason I haven't is that I have too much other work to do. I do not know what you imagine we government employees do, but I swear to you that we are corporate employees. The main problem for us is that politicians get elected who have no clue how businesses run, and they send down directives that are wasteful and senseless. We try to do our jobs anyway.

My personal belief is even if someone wanted to really fix the mess, there are too many that want to keep the status quo

If there is a chance at fixing the mess that (lawyer) politicians have caused, it is going to take not just a skilled executive, but someone who is a master at getting people to go along with his vision. That isn't Cruz. Everything I've read about Cruz indicates that he does not negotiate; he doesn't even get along well with people.

.......”If there is a chance at fixing the mess that politicians have caused, it is going to take not just a skilled executive, but someone who is a master at getting people to go along with his vision”..........

Trump is not a master at getting people to go along with his vision...because he’s not a listener which lends to his being impulsive and emotionally reactive, we saw that during the debates..... He also is surrounded by people who cut him slack out of fear of upsetting him, or relief him of the responsibility of ‘self monitoring’ which reflection is not even close to one of his strengths...rather he’s about saving face.

You may see Government and Business as on the same level but they are in fact two pees in a pod....one without the other you are wanting....Trump is lacking entirely in the political understanding of how Government works.....Gov. is far more than pushing papers across a desk.

Trump is not a master at getting people to go along with his vision...because he’s not a listener which lends to his being impulsive and emotionally reactive, we saw that during the debates..... He also is surrounded by people who cut him slack out of fear of upsetting him, or relief him of the responsibility of ‘self monitoring’ which reflection is not even close to one of his strengths...rather he’s about saving face.

Trump, just like any other successful executive, surrounds himself with people who are experts in the areas where he needs expertise.

People like what you describe, who surround themselves with "yes-men" don't accomplish much and very often fail spectacularly. That is because megalomaniacs who refuse to listen or who scare their subordinates into telling them only what they want to know do not actually know what is going on in their own organization. If something is going wrong, they don't know it because all they hear is how positive things are going. Whereas successful people listen when their subordinates tell them something is going wrong, because they want to fix it before it causes real problems.

If anything, the stories I've read of Cruz indicate that he is exactly the kind of person who will not listen to anyone but himself. That is just one of the reason he is not presidential material--he'd just be a third Obama term, really.

Trump is lacking entirely in the political understanding of how Government works.....Gov. is far more than pushing papers across a desk.

Oh, I'm certain that Trump knows quite well how the government works. He can't be a businessman at his level without running into government red tape and petty officials all the time. He doesn't just have an understanding of how government works, he understands just how malignant our political class has become and how much they stifle economy and freedom.

If you think that all government workers do is push papers across a desk, it is quite clear that you have no idea what they do. Government agencies are as corporate as any private business, and operate on the same basic principles.

The major problem with government is that it *is* a business, and yet we keep electing bozo lawyers who have no idea how a business runs--and they mess it up royally. No understanding of economics, no understanding of the proper use of regulations, no clue just how burdensome their tons of laws really are. It would be great, IMO, to relegate lawyers to staff positions, and elect lawmakers who are professionals in various fields, who bring their unique perspectives to the table.