[76lsjumb]

You needn't bother to wasting time saying "whatabout...," because I concede up front that this approach is very much a two-party problem... although I think Trump, who lacks any real principles beyond "I'm always right" would actually be much more susceptible to "creative persuasion" based on flattery, etc., than others, on both sides, whose positions are based on real principles.]

Many of the people who agreed to work for Trump believed they could keep the Ship of State sailing more or less straight by utilizing that tactic. The problem is that eventually Trump will get an idea that is directly contrary to what you consider to be advisable. At that point you either have to go along with him or quit. You aren't going to persuade him that the opposite was his idea. You also have to deal with those that support his ideas immediately and undermine your attempts to get him to embrace your idea as his own. At the end of the day, this approach hasn't worked. In fairness, neither has the opposite approach of saying he is an idiot worked. It is however more intellectually honest.

• Valid points, although, for the reason cited at the end, I still think the flattery approach (for lack of a better name) would have had a better chance of succeeding for his opponents than his subordinates. And I’m not sure I agree that it is “intellectually dishonest,” or, at least, no more so than much of the stuff that has been said.  
  

[76lsjumb]

You needn't bother to wasting time saying "whatabout...," because I concede up front that this approach is very much a two-party problem... although I think Trump, who lacks any real principles beyond "I'm always right" would actually be much more susceptible to "creative persuasion" based on flattery, etc., than others, on both sides, whose positions are based on real principles.]

Many of the people who agreed to work for Trump believed they could keep the Ship of State sailing more or less straight by utilizing that tactic. The problem is that eventually Trump will get an idea that is directly contrary to what you consider to be advisable. At that point you either have to go along with him or quit. You aren't going to persuade him that the opposite was his idea. You also have to deal with those that support his ideas immediately and undermine your attempts to get him to embrace your idea as his own. At the end of the day, this approach hasn't worked. In fairness, neither has the opposite approach of saying he is an idiot worked. It is however more intellectually honest.

• Valid points, although, for the reason cited at the end, I still think the flattery approach (for lack of a better name) would have had a better chance of succeeding for his opponents than his subordinates. And I’m not sure I agree that it is “intellectually dishonest,” or, at least, no more so than much of the stuff that has been said.