I can take more evidence than has been accumulated over the last 5 years to turn him around, but once he changes his mind, he's usually pretty up-front about it and giving credit where it is due. You are right - it's a nice feature of his character.
By observing a lack of transparency within his comments; which I don't observe, as I observe the opposite: transparency. It allows him to earn trust, as it makes him accountable.
People constantly say this about him, yet he consistently comes through on what he says. I tend to favor trusting what he says about things like this now.
I give people the benefit of doubt until I see a contradiction. So far, he's been genuine over the 8 years that I've been following him and his ventures.
Or that he prefers not to take everything they say at face value and applies his own judgement as an adult before blindly following anything and everything that is thrown out there.
If he was truly operating in good faith and also believed what he's saying, you'd think that he'd do a better job of articulating his ideas rather than sort of looking like a conspiracy nut. Speaking intelligently goes a long way to helping convince people.
> This is not about "honesty" - it's about not being the most mean-spirited, bitter, vapid, hateful VP you could imagine.
I think the point is that they're all like that, or at least a lot of them. This guy isn't any more of an asshole than anyone else in his position is likely to be. He's not more honest, either--laudable honesty lies in telling the truth even when you know it could hurt you, and it sounds like he somehow honestly hadn't realized that. He's just stupider, or at least more tone-deaf. (Or possibly drunk/high/otherwise impaired. It's hard to imagine a man getting as far as he did without developing a solid understanding of when you're expected to lie.)
Watch the video and write down all presented as building his credibility and then let us all know what kind of person, with what kind of experience, you'd trust if not someone like him.
reply