According to the news I’ve been reading this morning, that’s what President Trump has said about his new job.

The Man was never an employee before. The President is an employee to 326 million people, a majority of whom are not happy with the man hired to do the job.

The Man was able to bully people to get what he wanted because he had money and a reputation. The President is constrained by laws and rules and cannot legally use his money and reputation to assume he will get what he wants. He is only now, at 70 years old, learning how to compromise with others.

The Man appears to be a narcissist with some kind of antisocial personality disorder. (I am a lay person, untrained in psychology, so unable to diagnose even in person, but to me this is how he appears to behave and the characteristics he portrays.) The President is leader and guardian of the the United States of America, and must act in its best interests and defense. That includes a need to always put on an ambassadorial front to make the best impression possible on the rest of the world because America cannot survive isolated from the rest of the world. It also means that each person should be treated with the respect and care given to every other person. It means ensuring that the people of the United States have conditions under which they can thrive, are not adversely impacted due to tainted air, water and food supplies, are safe at home and when traveling around the country, and have the education and training to be competitive with others.

The Man can surround himself with people who are just like him and be as open or close minded as he wants on a personal level. The President must professionally surround himself with people who are at the top of their fields, people who can make well-calculated assumptions, predictions and decisions based on the needs of the entirety of the populace, not just those who are friendly towards the President.

The Man went to Wharton for an education on business. The President should undergo some form of training for the position. I would never hire my buddy with no experience to re-wire or re-plumb or re-build my home. I would never hire my mechanic to take care of my finances, or vice versa, without training. Why so many people thought that electing someone who knew nothing about how our country is governed, and still knows very little about it, is unfathomable.

Change begins with the first step, not the top goal. If people are unhappy with the government, and understand the basics of governmental operations, they would not keep re-electing the politicians not functioning according to their job requirements and the expectations of the constituency. As an employer, if someone was not performing up to specifications they would be given a warning and chance to improve, and then justifiably could be terminated for cause. Instead, this country has gone right to the top to make changes. That is the equivalent of firing the CEO or president of a company but keeping the staff that do nothing except collect their paychecks. Would anyone really expect any changes to that company? Next time maybe we should elect a President who understands the gravity of the job and takes it on to make America a better place for all, not just because it adds to their personal prestige.

I hope everyone realizes that American citizens will continue to pay for President Trump for the rest of their lives. He and his wife will have live-long Secret Service protection. (Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Pub.L. 112–257)) He has a guaranteed income for life, equivalent to the pay of a Cabinet Secretary, as well as a paid staff (I did not read this section closely enough to herein state the size or duration of that staff) and free postage for life. His widow also has a guaranteed income until she dies or remarries before 60. (Former Presidents Act (3 U.S.C. § 102 note))

The job may be tough, but its benefits go on forever.

Someone please explain to me how, with a Republican president, a Republican-majority Senate and a Republican-majority House of Representatives, it can possibly be the fault of the Democrats if we have another government shutdown because the Democrats won’t agree to a budget including money for a wall that will accomplish very little. Does anyone really believe that if we build a wall that another country will pay for it? Keep the wall out of our budget, support the programs that help and protect people, and Comrade President and Republicans need to take courses in economics and history (wherein they will see that historical actions to cut funding has only increased the need for higher costs down the road when the system which they decided to not fund went belly up and needed complete overhaul and repairs.

Here’s an alternative: how about letting our billionaire president pay for the wall out of all his excess funds (call it a capital expenditure on his taxes) and then get reimbursed by Mexico. He could even charge interest. This way, he gets his wall, and the people who would be most financially and medially damaged by the social funding programs he wants to cut in exchange for the wall funding will continue to have the resources they would otherwise lose.

With his wonderful New Year’s tweet:

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2016

the spoiled brat who gets what he wants because he has the money to follow through on his threats has further proven that he is not trying to mend any fences and unite this country behind him. Just like every other person suffering form narcissistic personality disorder and its closest relatives, he plans to manipulate and gaslight everyone until no one can think straight and everyone believes his lies.

Its not going to work in my case. This is not a man who cares about anyone other than himself, and having decided that being POTUS makes him the most important man in the world, he will do one of two things: either try to make himself a permanent imperial ruler and ensure that his children can carry on the leadership dynasty, or realize that he can’t stand the constant criticism and quit, while making magnanimous noises about doing it because he’s made all the necessary changes possible and we will be grateful to him for it.

And so the disaster begins.

Anyone care to talk about political double-standard?

Trump’s pattern of behaviour towards women and minorities has been consistent for over 20 years, probably over 30 years. He has been the man at the top when his companies filed for bankruptcy, he had at least one personal income loss of almost $1 billion, he uses his Foundation as a backup bank account, he has been the subject of over 3500 lawsuits, he has single-handedly caused the demise of small businesses by not paying them for goods and services provided and for having all of his product lines made overseas, and he screams out against immigration while marrying two immigrants, having them bear his children before they ever become citizens.

But he is better than Hillary Clinton, who has been an advocate for women and children and small businesses since college, has been cleared of any intentional wrongdoing concerning Benghazi or her email server (which has no proof of hacking, unlike many government servers), has stayed married to the same man despite his earlier infidelities, and is a role model for women trying to break the glass ceiling.

After the recently released 10 year old tape of how he talked about women, and one in particular who he later tried to have fired while she was pregnant, he offers a very staged apology that serves as his springboard that he will be attacking Bill Clinton for similar behaviour. I thought it was Hillary who was running for President. If anyone in the Clinton campaign were to say anything against Melania Trump, we would never hear the end of how she was being mistreated. What’s the difference? If Hillary were to make half the personal attack statements against Trump that he makes against her, everyone would be screaming that it was proof that she’s acting like a hysterical woman and therefore not qualified to be President. Has anyone even tried to be gender-neutral during this contest? Seriously, if we didn’t have full names, just D.J. Trump and H.R. Clinton, and no audio or video, just curricula vitae and statements printed by the press, are we so sure that we are not still believing that a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be considered half as good?

I just don’t understand women. Having to go through a lifetime of belittling by their fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, car salesman, and people in authority, how can they not understand and support what Hillary has been fighting for, as so many women before her have done? The goal of feminism, from the beginning of the last century and possibly even earlier, was to allow women to be on an equal footing with men, to have similar opportunities, and be able to make their own decisions. Women are not pets or children, but complex beings who know how to work and cooperate to get things done. Adult women comprise 51% of the US population, but their representation at the national level (US Congress) is barely 20%. Male candidates for office invariably attack women candidates by saying they are incapable of fulfilling the duties or that their beliefs are anathema to solid US values. Even women veterans running against male lawyers who never wore a uniform are accused of this. Of course, if we can’t turn a blind eye to colour, why should we turn a blind eye to gender?

Why shouldn’t a man with no sense of public service be elected over a woman who, if she were a man, would be counted as the most qualified candidate in recent history? Why shouldn’t a party stick behind such a man, no matter what devastation he may cause, just because he belongs to the right party?

I guess its good to be a middle aged to older white man who knows that he is better than anyone else.

Ever since Fox News was able to convince a court that they weren’t liable for telling untruths on the air because they dealt in “infotainment”, there has been a massive lack of integrity on the part of the press. I don’t care whether the owner of the company is right leaning or left leaning, but I do care that nothing the American media provides can be trusted.

The media reports every step of the Trump campaign, from primary to presidential nomination to now, but can’t be bothered to fact check any of the myriad statements that are so easily refutable with a minimal amount of fact checking. They hold Trump to a different standard because he’s not your standard politician. There is a reason politics tends to stay in the hands of the politicians, right or wrong; they know the rules and regulations and laws involved with running for and holding office. By holding him to a lower standard, we are lowering the standards for what we expect of our leaders. Do we lower the standards for teaching? For engineering? So why lower them for a politician whose actions will have an impact beyond his term of office?

Once upon a time news broadcasts were presented by journalists, people who looked at events and could explain from whence they sprung and what the effects would be. Now, all you need is someone who can read from a teleprompter and speak relatively clearly. However, if you are female, you had better not start to look your chronological age, or put on as much as five pounds, because you will no longer be in front of the camera.

Speaking of women, I seem to remember that Carly Fiorina was treated much more poorly by the press than any of the male candidates. She, like Trump, was a business person, not a politician. So what makes him so much more qualified than she? They were not held to the same standard, although they were not the only non-politicians running for the Republican nomination. And then on to Hillary. I firmly believe that if she were a man, there would be no question of her qualifications. Colin Powell has never gotten into trouble over his use of unsecured email, so why has Clinton? And then there’s Benghazi. Interesting that neither Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice were ever subjected to the questioning Clinton has gone through. I guess David Foy had no business being outside the consulate, and we don’t care about the non-US security forces defending our diplomats and ambassadors. I’ll bet you don’t hear any of those other attacks before 2009 in the news any longer.

And I do think a Senator would be more aware of what was happening around 9/11 than a businessman, no matter his connections.

Journalists, pay attention to the good done by an advocate and an attorney for people, as opposed to what a businessman has done in the way of erecting and buying and putting his name on buildings and golf courses, and tell me again how the latter has done more for the country than the former. And can someone explain for me the math that equates 8 years in the Senate to 30 years in power, as the man who needs his name on everything, including a Foundation that has illegally paid money to a political campaign) keeps saying?

Trump keeps referring to the policies of Obama and Hillary. Trump keeps complaining about Hillary being in power for the last 30 years. Hillary was the junior senator from New York 2001-2009 and was Secretary of State 2009-2013. At no time was she the principal behind foreign policy or any other US policies, but as Secretary of State was tasked to carry out the duties of that office. Trump also talks as if he’s going to replace generals that (I’m interpreting here) don’t know what they are doing with generals who would be responsive to his intentions. Generals are appointed by the Senate from a pool of those who have met the qualifications.

As far as whether he should be making decisions about sending our men and women into war, Ii feel that being able to dispassionately say we need to go in somewhere no matter the human cost is a liability to the position of President, and not something I would want to see. Remember, this is the man who thinks that his time in a military academy as a schoolboy is equivalent to boot camp and service under fire. Having served, and seeing the mental if not physical damage dealt with on a day to day basis by veterans, I cannot see that Trump cares about the military members rather than the military machine.

The President of the United States should not be an entertainer, but someone who thinks and reasons and hold their temper more than the average person. Trump simply does not fit that bill.

When one candidate can name call the other, but then be upset when that candidate’s actions or views are attacked as being over-the-top and unwarranted, there’s something wrong.

When one candidate can constantly harp on issues relating to the other candidate but won’t be transparent to the same extent, there’s something wrong.

It is up to the media to even the playing field, which they have not done at any time. On the rare occasions they do, they are threatened with having their press passes revoked. Whatever happened to the backbone of the free press?

I try to be apolitical and listen to all sides, but I’m getting tired of Mr. Trump baselessly bashing and condemning Mrs. Clinton, and am still upset that he can dare to call for a hit on her without telling his own supporters that he didn’t really mean it. When Mr. Trump releases his tax returns and when his campaign irrefutably shows that the Trump Foundation is not connected in any way to it, and when Mr. Trump stops orating like an angry dictator or minister and starts talking about what he will actually do as President, I’ll start viewing him with less skepticism.

Until then, don’t expect me to believe the system is not rigged to favor the most outrageous and vocally brow-beating candidate. I can only hope that the American electorate can learn from history what happens when a leader with an unrecognized agenda gains power, and doesn’t allow it to happen here and now.