If only that was all it took: "do what it takes to make himself into a great president". Do you think George W. Bush didn't want to be a great president? If it was that simple, just pick a random person from the street.

The man, by his own account, doesn't read books. He gets his information from cable TV. He has the attention span of a gnat (couldn't be bothered to prepare for the debates; it showed). This is the man, back in 1984, who wanted to be the one to handle the nuclear arms negotiations with the Soviets. "It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles."[1] In 2016 he didn't know what the nuclear triad was.

His gaffes on foreign policy the last year and a half include: suggesting that the national debt in negotiable, support of Nato allies is not guaranteed, Japan should get Nukes, countries in Asia should feel free to nuke each other if they want to, "if we have the nukes, why can't we use them?". Those are just some of the things I can remember off the top of my head.

The best we can hope for is that he gets bored being a president very quickly and doesn't screw up too much in the meantime.

His entourage doesn't exactly inspire confidence either.

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433623/donald-trump-col...

> He wants to be more than just president, he wants to be a great president, that's in his nature.

I'm not sure that I buy that from his history. His life is one of chasing adulation and attention. He built gaudy hotels in big cities, he never chased the real estate growth market in housing. He ran a reality show, not a media network.

He's a narcissist, not a despot. Fill his cabinet with fawning sycophants and give him a media organization or two at which to direct his rage and I'll bet anything he just sits on his ass in the oval office and waits out his four years.

I guess that's what passes for optimism today. But it's the story I'm sticking to.

It's interesting.

When you get a new job as a software engineer most people just want to be considered good at their jobs, while some select few strive to be considered great. maybe not so much for adulation and attention but to feel like they've mastered something and can thus offer advice to others, it's what drives us. In that pursuit of our definition of greatness we study constantly and try to improve our skills in every area and thus our need to be great drives the sharpening of our skills and leads to a self fulfilling prophecy (Our desire to become great leads to us pursuing more knowledge to become better and thus in time we become great)

Donald Trump's definition of great is clearly being admired and in the spot light. But I think he also defines greatness as being a leader, I think he also associates greatness with quality.

I'm not worried about this presidency one bit, his need to be great will drive him to be great by all definitions.

And yet millions of Americans have a lot of anxiety about what a Trump presidency will bring because of the colour of their skin, the religion they practice, or the gender of the person they love.

If Trump wants to be remembered as a great President then he needs to step up and address these fears.

I think in a way he already did at his acceptance speech last night, but how many liberals scoffed and turned off their televisions? Perhaps it's liberals and people of color who need to stop the hate, I think there was a lot more hate towards Trump and his supporters than there ever was towards minorities in this election.

One speech does not make a person. Based on his long history his conciliatory tone will be short lived.

I could not agree more. People really need to let go of the provocative candidate Trump (the stock market did today) and focus on the impact that's coming.

As much as his path to the nomination and then the presidency is a surprise, his call for unity was more presidential than he's ever been. I think it would be short-sighted to immediately discount his presidency as a failure without seeing the people and actions that he puts into place.

Road to hell is paved with great intentions. A man with subpar intelligence and understanding of the issues, will most likely make the wrong decision, even if it's with the noblest of intentions.

If you think Trump has subpar intelligence, how do you explain his victory when the best and brightest politicians, journalists, etc. were fighting against him?

For extra points, provide an explanation that doesn't demonize or insult a large swath of the population.

That's bad logic. There are always dozens of candidates and activists trying lots of different tacts and strategies to get votes and drive opinions. One of those turns out to win in certain circumstances. That doesn't necessarily mean its author was a genius to have thought of it, just that they got lucky.

It's a darwinian thing. We don't credit the lobe finned fish for being such geniuses to have developed limbs which could hold them out of the water.

Are you willing to claim that intelligence isn't correlated with success at achieving one's goals? You can make that case, and certainly they don't always match up, but then what is intelligence?

I appreciate the evolutionary metaphor, but its also important to remember that candidates can (and do) change strategies and adapt to circumstances. Indeed, I would expect an intelligent candidate to try various different strategies throughout their campaign (and be better at it than their competition). Clinton and Trump both did. Clinton also had arguably much more help from very powerful allies, and had much more funding.

Also, developing limbs is not a choice; campaign strategy is.

How are you judging whether Trump is intelligent or not? Just because his words/actions seem irrational to you doesn't mean they are irrational. Scott Adams was pretty good at predicting Trump's behavior, so Trump's decision made sense to at least someone.