[fingerprinter]

I will never understand any defence of Trump in 2017, At this point, it's not about Hillary, it's all about Trump. It should be about who he is, what he is doing, what he is saying and what he plans to do.

And we have enough data to unequivocally reject the man as well as his rhetoric. Look at his cabinet. Look at his twitter feed. Look at this constant stream of lies. See how unprepared he is. Skate to where the puck is going and see how this ends.

In the time from when he won (by being the biggest losing winner) to when his actions taking office, there is literally no defence of this man.

He might have listened, and he heard exactly what he needed to say to his "marks" (this would be his term from the Art of the Deal) to win and then he got on with his real agenda: making himself and his friends obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of America and the world.

[mattlevan]

Wouldn't he have quickly shuffled the US into signing the TPP, then, rather than boldly rejecting it (which was confirmed by WikiLeaks/Asian press today)?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/823036353986359296

[fingerprinter]

Few things:

1. Skate to where the puck is going

2. There is more than one way to make money

3. Trump still hasn't a. released his tax records and b. divested himself of his conflicts of interest

Combine these three and it's quite easy to see how dumping the TPP theoretically benefits Trump and his friends quite well.

[jakeogh]

Typical. Agree the action itself was good, but it does not matter because of your assumptions on the persons intent.

[fingerprinter]

Motivations matter.

I also never said I agree with pulling out of the TPP. I didn't like the TPP for tech, security, and intellectual property reasons. Though there is no denying that the TPP would economically benefit the US.

I also liked aspects of it quite a bit.

So, the real question is what was Trump's motivation for getting out of the TPP? If it was for economic reasons, then he's missed the mark.

[jakeogh]

If that's how you decide if someones actions are good or bad then you will always be able to come up with a way to justify liking the action while disliking the actor for it.

[fingerprinter]

I literally don't know what to say to that.

Of course one can like an outcome and still think the person enacting it was wrong (not dislike the person, that was your phrasing). There's even a pithy little statement about that: the ends don't justify the means. One can literally love an outcome and hate how it was brought about.

And in the case of leadership at the highest level, I for damn sure want to know the motivation behind some (or all) decisions. The decision, lacking context (or Why), is almost worthless to understand what is happening. In isolation any decision could be fine, or it could be the signal for a future unmitigated disaster.

We hammer this point home in the business world all the time. Context matters.

Great leaders understand this and deal first with 'why' then with 'what'. Bad leaders always deal with 'what' before 'why', or maybe never giving a 'why'.

And it's not about the liking or disliking a person. Ever. It's about the context that surrounds a person and asking yourself if you can trust them.

We cannot trust Trump. He has given us enough data points to know this. I want to know the 'why' on the TPP as a datapoint. It could either give me more trust in Trump, or less.

But, at a human level, if you are asking me if I dislike Trump? I don't care. I don't trust him. And I don't trust him because he has given me enough to go. And that is what matters.