login
Election 2016 (Page 73)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-12-02 8:26 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion  10157    Alabama |  Subject: RE: Election 2016Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. I agree. Surround yourself with people who aren't afraid to tell you that you have no clothes on. You need bold people...and people who are not afraid of getting fired or resigning if they feel strongly enough. Trump said he asked the other 2 generals who the best man for the job and they both said Mathis. So he went with Mathis. Makes sense to me. |
| 2016-12-02 8:47 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. Not necessarily. He knows he is inexperienced and therefore might actually listen to his cabinet/advisors? If Clinton were in there, she would not feel obligated to listen to anyone! She's been a senator and SoS, she's been in the WH 8 years, she's been a cabinet member etc....who are you to tell me how to run things?! Good executives seldom make unilateral decisions. I've had bosses that have told me 'bring me solutions not problems'. Every executive decision brief I've ever given always, always, always has 3 or 4 options, pros and cons for each and my recommendation. I may be wrong but I honestly do not remember ever be overruled....that is, the decision made contrary to my recommendation. My opinions is valued and trusted. If it is not, then fire me and hire someone who's opinion you do trust. |
| 2016-12-02 8:49 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025  Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Not necessarily. He knows he is inexperienced and therefore might actually listen to his cabinet/advisors? If Clinton were in there, she would not feel obligated to listen to anyone! She's been a senator and SoS, she's been in the WH 8 years, she's been a cabinet member etc....who are you to tell me how to run things?! Good executives seldom make unilateral decisions. I've had bosses that have told me 'bring me solutions not problems'. Every executive decision brief I've ever given always, always, always has 3 or 4 options, pros and cons for each and my recommendation. I may be wrong but I honestly do not remember ever be overruled....that is, the decision made contrary to my recommendation. My opinions is valued and trusted. If it is not, then fire me and hire someone who's opinion you do trust. Originally posted by tuwood Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. LOL, yeah you should hire me, because I don't know anything! Don't worry i'll listen to other people. got it. |
| 2016-12-02 9:52 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Not necessarily. He knows he is inexperienced and therefore might actually listen to his cabinet/advisors? If Clinton were in there, she would not feel obligated to listen to anyone! She's been a senator and SoS, she's been in the WH 8 years, she's been a cabinet member etc....who are you to tell me how to run things?! Good executives seldom make unilateral decisions. I've had bosses that have told me 'bring me solutions not problems'. Every executive decision brief I've ever given always, always, always has 3 or 4 options, pros and cons for each and my recommendation. I may be wrong but I honestly do not remember ever be overruled....that is, the decision made contrary to my recommendation. My opinions is valued and trusted. If it is not, then fire me and hire someone who's opinion you do trust. Originally posted by tuwood Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. LOL, yeah you should hire me, because I don't know anything! Don't worry i'll listen to other people. got it. You also have to have wisdom. Wisdom is knowing the correct application of knowledge. Trump has a record of success evidenced by 10 billion dollars, 500 companies in over 30 countries around the world. People skills are also very important...... |
| 2016-12-02 9:53 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 “When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look at him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pus)sy.” - Gen Mattis Edited by Rogillio 2016-12-02 9:53 AM |
| 2016-12-02 10:57 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. Not necessarily. He knows he is inexperienced and therefore might actually listen to his cabinet/advisors? If Clinton were in there, she would not feel obligated to listen to anyone! She's been a senator and SoS, she's been in the WH 8 years, she's been a cabinet member etc....who are you to tell me how to run things?! Good executives seldom make unilateral decisions. I've had bosses that have told me 'bring me solutions not problems'. Every executive decision brief I've ever given always, always, always has 3 or 4 options, pros and cons for each and my recommendation. I may be wrong but I honestly do not remember ever be overruled....that is, the decision made contrary to my recommendation. My opinions is valued and trusted. If it is not, then fire me and hire someone who's opinion you do trust. If we were talking about a hypothetical example of an executive, I would agree with you, but we're talking about an actual person about whom much has been written about his leadership style. It's pretty well known that Trump is a relentless micromanager and frequently makes unilateral decisions without consulting his leadership team. He has a very small "inner circle" that he listens to sometimes about some things, but most of what you hear is that he gets involved with every decision, even the most trivial ones, and makes decisions on the fly. This is a guy who reads something in the paper or online and ten seconds later, goes on a rant on Twitter, despite having been told by everyone around him to knock it off. Do you really expect him to ask for 3 or four options, the pros and cons of each, and then read and consider each one carefully before making a decision? No way. That's why it's a good thing he's got someone who won't be afraid to tell Trump what he thinks. My only concern is that the famously thin-skinned Trump will fire him the first time Mattis tells him he's being an a-h*le. |
| 2016-12-02 11:03 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. |
| 2016-12-02 11:43 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. Not necessarily. He knows he is inexperienced and therefore might actually listen to his cabinet/advisors? If Clinton were in there, she would not feel obligated to listen to anyone! She's been a senator and SoS, she's been in the WH 8 years, she's been a cabinet member etc....who are you to tell me how to run things?! Good executives seldom make unilateral decisions. I've had bosses that have told me 'bring me solutions not problems'. Every executive decision brief I've ever given always, always, always has 3 or 4 options, pros and cons for each and my recommendation. I may be wrong but I honestly do not remember ever be overruled....that is, the decision made contrary to my recommendation. My opinions is valued and trusted. If it is not, then fire me and hire someone who's opinion you do trust. If we were talking about a hypothetical example of an executive, I would agree with you, but we're talking about an actual person about whom much has been written about his leadership style. It's pretty well known that Trump is a relentless micromanager and frequently makes unilateral decisions without consulting his leadership team. He has a very small "inner circle" that he listens to sometimes about some things, but most of what you hear is that he gets involved with every decision, even the most trivial ones, and makes decisions on the fly. This is a guy who reads something in the paper or online and ten seconds later, goes on a rant on Twitter, despite having been told by everyone around him to knock it off. Do you really expect him to ask for 3 or four options, the pros and cons of each, and then read and consider each one carefully before making a decision? No way. That's why it's a good thing he's got someone who won't be afraid to tell Trump what he thinks. My only concern is that the famously thin-skinned Trump will fire him the first time Mattis tells him he's being an a-h*le. Good point. He does tend to make unilateral decisions on the fly.....like announcing SoD during his speech which evidently was planned for Monday. |
| 2016-12-02 11:45 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. To be fair, I think it was Harry Reed who told him how to vote not NP. :-) |
| 2016-12-02 11:47 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. Yes, Tony, but even a person who has run a billion dollar corporation in one industry, say, pharma, cannot be expected to effectively run a billion dollar corporation in another completely different industry, say, hospitality, without there being a steep learning curve in certain areas and one can never overcome that learning curve if one is not willing to seek counsel from and listen to the experts. Running the government of the most powerful company in the world is a stretch for any person, and no one, not a career politician nor a businessman like Trump could possibly come into the job knowing everything. There will certainly be areas of the job that Trump will be better equipped and more knowledgeable than another person might be-- I'll concede that he's got lots of experience negotiating and that's likely to serve him well in certain aspects of the job. But there are other critical pieces of the job--notably foreign policy and national security-- he knows little to nothing about. If he hopes to be effective in those areas, he's going to have to make smart choices about his advisors and, most importantly, to listen to them. He hasn't historically, shown much propensity to do the latter. As far as the Carrier thing goes, good for him. There's a part of me that thinks, "Ok, now watch every CEO in America threaten to move to Mexico in the hopes of the Trump administration throwing millions in corporate welfare at them to get them to stay", but we'll see. I said I'd give him a chance and I will. I'm with Bob that I think he's a disgusting person, but he's the president and my life goes on. I got through Bush I and Bush II and I'll get through Trump. Like Bob, and like most logically thinking Democrats I know, I sincerely hope that you're right about him and that he turns out to be everything you imagine him to be. That will certainly be in the best interests of the country. I hope he succeeds, even if I expect that he will fail. If anyone is blind to who he is, it's you, who has naively explained away every transgression and refused to see (or, more likely, refused to admit) that he has any shortcomings at all. |
| 2016-12-02 12:44 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by tuwood To be fair, I think it was Harry Reed who told him how to vote not NP. :-) Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. haha, there is that. |
| 2016-12-02 12:54 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Yes, Tony, but even a person who has run a billion dollar corporation in one industry, say, pharma, cannot be expected to effectively run a billion dollar corporation in another completely different industry, say, hospitality, without there being a steep learning curve in certain areas and one can never overcome that learning curve if one is not willing to seek counsel from and listen to the experts. Running the government of the most powerful company in the world is a stretch for any person, and no one, not a career politician nor a businessman like Trump could possibly come into the job knowing everything. There will certainly be areas of the job that Trump will be better equipped and more knowledgeable than another person might be-- I'll concede that he's got lots of experience negotiating and that's likely to serve him well in certain aspects of the job. But there are other critical pieces of the job--notably foreign policy and national security-- he knows little to nothing about. If he hopes to be effective in those areas, he's going to have to make smart choices about his advisors and, most importantly, to listen to them. He hasn't historically, shown much propensity to do the latter. As far as the Carrier thing goes, good for him. There's a part of me that thinks, "Ok, now watch every CEO in America threaten to move to Mexico in the hopes of the Trump administration throwing millions in corporate welfare at them to get them to stay", but we'll see. I said I'd give him a chance and I will. I'm with Bob that I think he's a disgusting person, but he's the president and my life goes on. I got through Bush I and Bush II and I'll get through Trump. Like Bob, and like most logically thinking Democrats I know, I sincerely hope that you're right about him and that he turns out to be everything you imagine him to be. That will certainly be in the best interests of the country. I hope he succeeds, even if I expect that he will fail. If anyone is blind to who he is, it's you, who has naively explained away every transgression and refused to see (or, more likely, refused to admit) that he has any shortcomings at all. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. Understood and your point of view makes more sense to me now. As for his transgressions, I judge him based on the facts of those transgressions. If he does something legitimately wrong then I will challenge him on it (ok, I'll complain about it here) and I don't care who he is. I was a Bush fanboy in the early days and couldn't stand him towards the end of his tenure. I fully give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and will judge him based on what he does. Even if he puts Romney in as SoS (which I think is a horrible idea) I will give him the benefit of the doubt until Romney jacks something up. |
| 2016-12-02 1:34 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Speaking of his lack of foreign policy experience, and, not that it's a huge deal-- it's mostly just funny to me, but did you see the transcript of Trump's phone call with the Prime Minster of Pakistan? "Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it. Feel free to call me any time even before 20th January that is before I assume my office.” Now, Trump's always-entertaining hyperbole aside ("terrific", "amazing" twice!, "tremendous") keep in mind that in 2012, Trump tweeted, “Get it straight: Pakistan is not our friend. We’ve given them billions and billions of dollars, and what did we get? Betrayal and disrespect — and much worse. #TimeToGetTough" So...I guess the "getting tough" part will come in the next phone call...? LOL I can imagine that India and some other allies in the region are a little concerned about this part: "I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it." |
| 2016-12-02 1:49 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood I take him neither literally nor seriously.Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Yes, Tony, but even a person who has run a billion dollar corporation in one industry, say, pharma, cannot be expected to effectively run a billion dollar corporation in another completely different industry, say, hospitality, without there being a steep learning curve in certain areas and one can never overcome that learning curve if one is not willing to seek counsel from and listen to the experts. Running the government of the most powerful company in the world is a stretch for any person, and no one, not a career politician nor a businessman like Trump could possibly come into the job knowing everything. There will certainly be areas of the job that Trump will be better equipped and more knowledgeable than another person might be-- I'll concede that he's got lots of experience negotiating and that's likely to serve him well in certain aspects of the job. But there are other critical pieces of the job--notably foreign policy and national security-- he knows little to nothing about. If he hopes to be effective in those areas, he's going to have to make smart choices about his advisors and, most importantly, to listen to them. He hasn't historically, shown much propensity to do the latter. As far as the Carrier thing goes, good for him. There's a part of me that thinks, "Ok, now watch every CEO in America threaten to move to Mexico in the hopes of the Trump administration throwing millions in corporate welfare at them to get them to stay", but we'll see. I said I'd give him a chance and I will. I'm with Bob that I think he's a disgusting person, but he's the president and my life goes on. I got through Bush I and Bush II and I'll get through Trump. Like Bob, and like most logically thinking Democrats I know, I sincerely hope that you're right about him and that he turns out to be everything you imagine him to be. That will certainly be in the best interests of the country. I hope he succeeds, even if I expect that he will fail. If anyone is blind to who he is, it's you, who has naively explained away every transgression and refused to see (or, more likely, refused to admit) that he has any shortcomings at all. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. Understood and your point of view makes more sense to me now. As for his transgressions, I judge him based on the facts of those transgressions. If he does something legitimately wrong then I will challenge him on it (ok, I'll complain about it here) and I don't care who he is. I was a Bush fanboy in the early days and couldn't stand him towards the end of his tenure. I fully give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and will judge him based on what he does. Even if he puts Romney in as SoS (which I think is a horrible idea) I will give him the benefit of the doubt until Romney jacks something up. |
| 2016-12-02 2:02 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Speaking of his lack of foreign policy experience, and, not that it's a huge deal-- it's mostly just funny to me, but did you see the transcript of Trump's phone call with the Prime Minster of Pakistan? "Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it. Feel free to call me any time even before 20th January that is before I assume my office.” Now, Trump's always-entertaining hyperbole aside ("terrific", "amazing" twice!, "tremendous") keep in mind that in 2012, Trump tweeted, “Get it straight: Pakistan is not our friend. We’ve given them billions and billions of dollars, and what did we get? Betrayal and disrespect — and much worse. #TimeToGetTough" So...I guess the "getting tough" part will come in the next phone call...? LOL I can imagine that India and some other allies in the region are a little concerned about this part: "I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it." Hah, that is funny. I'm betting India wasn't too happy with him reaching out to Pakistan One thing I honestly did give credit to Obama for was him bumbling into area's "no president should go". He would directly speak with Iran and did the whole cuba thing, etc. There's so much "we've always done it this way" in Washington that it drives me nuts.
|
| 2016-12-03 10:01 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Is anyone tired of winning yet? https://mobile.twitter.com/Carrier/status/803764047300722688
Uh-oh, Tony: Mom and Dad are fighting... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-trumps-carrier-deal-cron... "When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent," Palin wrote in a 'Young Conservatives' op-ed. "Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail." |
| 2016-12-03 12:47 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Uh-oh, Tony: Mom and Dad are fighting... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-trumps-carrier-deal-cron... "When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent," Palin wrote in a 'Young Conservatives' op-ed. "Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail." Is anyone tired of winning yet? https://mobile.twitter.com/Carrier/status/803764047300722688
I've seen several things back and forth on this and at a high level I'm in agreement with Sarah that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. However, it's also not as simple as that because the playing field is in no way level right now which is why businesses is struggling. So, I'm open to concessions to level the playing field in the interim while there's progress towards fixing the playing field permanently. As for the Indiana taxpayers this is a breakdown of the deal and what it really looks like for them. The deal announced states that Carrier will keep 1,069 jobs in the US in exchange for $7 million , over 10 years, in tax breaks from Indiana. These jobs on average make about $30 an hour. Full time workers on average work 2,087 hours a year so that means 1,069 (2087)($30) gives you approximately $67 million dollars in income a year. The state tax rate in Indiana is 3.3% so $67 million (0.033) gives you about $2.2 million dollars in state income a year while the state is only giving Carrier a $700,000 tax break a year. Indiana is getting a 300% return, per year, on their investment. This doesn't take into account the extra flow of money into the economy and Carrier's plan to invest $16 million into the plant itself. Remember, the system is already jacked up to the point that these companies are leaving the US. I just can't seen a scenario where these 1000+ jobs going to Mexico benefits America. |
| 2016-12-04 7:16 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Uh-oh, Tony: Mom and Dad are fighting... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-trumps-carrier-deal-cron... "When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent," Palin wrote in a 'Young Conservatives' op-ed. "Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail." Is anyone tired of winning yet? https://mobile.twitter.com/Carrier/status/803764047300722688
I've seen several things back and forth on this and at a high level I'm in agreement with Sarah that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. However, it's also not as simple as that because the playing field is in no way level right now which is why businesses is struggling. So, I'm open to concessions to level the playing field in the interim while there's progress towards fixing the playing field permanently. As for the Indiana taxpayers this is a breakdown of the deal and what it really looks like for them. The deal announced states that Carrier will keep 1,069 jobs in the US in exchange for $7 million , over 10 years, in tax breaks from Indiana. These jobs on average make about $30 an hour. Full time workers on average work 2,087 hours a year so that means 1,069 (2087)($30) gives you approximately $67 million dollars in income a year. The state tax rate in Indiana is 3.3% so $67 million (0.033) gives you about $2.2 million dollars in state income a year while the state is only giving Carrier a $700,000 tax break a year. Indiana is getting a 300% return, per year, on their investment. This doesn't take into account the extra flow of money into the economy and Carrier's plan to invest $16 million into the plant itself. Remember, the system is already jacked up to the point that these companies are leaving the US. I just can't seen a scenario where these 1000+ jobs going to Mexico benefits America. This sounds remarkably like the same arguments the Democrats made to justify some of the financial bailouts back in 2008-2009. "Yes, sure it's corporate welfare, but it's not our fault because the other side screwed things up so badly that desperate measures are required.". Imagine what Trump the busienssman's reaction would be if the president threw a bunch of concessions at his competitor just because he threatened to lay off 1000 people? Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-12-04 7:20 AM |
| 2016-12-04 7:25 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I also want to point out another thing you said: "However, it's also not as simple as that because the playing field is in no way level right now which is why businesses is struggling. So, I'm open to concessions to level the playing field in the interim while there's progress towards fixing the playing field permanently." "I'm open to concessions (i.e. handouts) to level the playing field." That's literally the justification for entitlement programs. Word for word. Interesting how reasonable they sound when it's your guy who's proposing them instead of the other side's guy, isn't it? |
| 2016-12-04 8:05 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by tuwood I take him neither literally nor seriously.Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Yes, Tony, but even a person who has run a billion dollar corporation in one industry, say, pharma, cannot be expected to effectively run a billion dollar corporation in another completely different industry, say, hospitality, without there being a steep learning curve in certain areas and one can never overcome that learning curve if one is not willing to seek counsel from and listen to the experts. Running the government of the most powerful company in the world is a stretch for any person, and no one, not a career politician nor a businessman like Trump could possibly come into the job knowing everything. There will certainly be areas of the job that Trump will be better equipped and more knowledgeable than another person might be-- I'll concede that he's got lots of experience negotiating and that's likely to serve him well in certain aspects of the job. But there are other critical pieces of the job--notably foreign policy and national security-- he knows little to nothing about. If he hopes to be effective in those areas, he's going to have to make smart choices about his advisors and, most importantly, to listen to them. He hasn't historically, shown much propensity to do the latter. As far as the Carrier thing goes, good for him. There's a part of me that thinks, "Ok, now watch every CEO in America threaten to move to Mexico in the hopes of the Trump administration throwing millions in corporate welfare at them to get them to stay", but we'll see. I said I'd give him a chance and I will. I'm with Bob that I think he's a disgusting person, but he's the president and my life goes on. I got through Bush I and Bush II and I'll get through Trump. Like Bob, and like most logically thinking Democrats I know, I sincerely hope that you're right about him and that he turns out to be everything you imagine him to be. That will certainly be in the best interests of the country. I hope he succeeds, even if I expect that he will fail. If anyone is blind to who he is, it's you, who has naively explained away every transgression and refused to see (or, more likely, refused to admit) that he has any shortcomings at all. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood You're right about Petraeus-my mistake. I like Mattis' other nickname, "the Warrior Monk" better. All I want is for Trump to nominate people who put the best interests of the country ahead of their own. Mattis seems about as no-nonsense as you can get. I do a lot of leadership training in my work, and one of the things I say all the time is, "If you and your boss agree on everything, then one of you is not of use." Trump's inexperience, regardless of your opinion of him, is unquestionably a liability. He does himself no favors by surrounding himself with people who will "yes" him to,death. Mattis seems like the kind of guy who'll tell Trump the truth instead of what he thinks he wants to hear. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Trump names Mattis as SoD ending the Petraeus speculation. I didn't know much about Mattis beforehand, but he seems like a solid pick. The thing I liked about him that I read was that he "speaks truth to everyone, and would certainly speak truth to the President." With someone as inexperienced and volatile as Trump, it's important to have people around who aren't afraid to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. It sounds like there will need to be special legislation passed by Congress because there is a law that that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years since, strictly speaking, SoD is supposed to be a civilian role. Hey, whatever it takes to get you to be ok with a nomination I'll take it. I like him because his nick name is "Mad Dog". I mean, what more could you want out of the person running our defense department. As for Patraeus, I thought he was in the running for SoS and not SoD. I always struggle to understand the "he is inexperienced" argument with Trump. The guy has a lifetime of experience running a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees and has negotiated hundreds (if not thousands) of international deals with governments and civilian entities. In comparison to somebody like Obama who was a professor, community organizer, and barely a state senator, and US senator. (resigned early in both jobs) I'm not trying to make this a comparison battle, but I think your ideological blinders make it impossible to see Trump in any positive light whatsoever. Even with Carrier Obama was an absolute wus and even mocked Trump for thinking he could keep them in the country "what, does he have a magic wand or something". Whereas Trump, with his negotiation experience DID save over 1100 jobs and according to more reports is saving another 10,000 Carrier jobs that were on the blocks in the future. That's the kind of experience we need in Washington. Understood and your point of view makes more sense to me now. As for his transgressions, I judge him based on the facts of those transgressions. If he does something legitimately wrong then I will challenge him on it (ok, I'll complain about it here) and I don't care who he is. I was a Bush fanboy in the early days and couldn't stand him towards the end of his tenure. I fully give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and will judge him based on what he does. Even if he puts Romney in as SoS (which I think is a horrible idea) I will give him the benefit of the doubt until Romney jacks something up. I can take him or leave him......but the next 4 year will be fun to watch. I'm bored with President Obama's pandering.....Trump will be a hoot compared to that. Edited by Left Brain 2016-12-04 8:07 PM |
| 2016-12-05 7:54 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. |
| 2016-12-05 8:28 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? |
| 2016-12-05 8:40 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. |
| 2016-12-05 8:54 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I also want to point out another thing you said: "However, it's also not as simple as that because the playing field is in no way level right now which is why businesses is struggling. So, I'm open to concessions to level the playing field in the interim while there's progress towards fixing the playing field permanently." "I'm open to concessions (i.e. handouts) to level the playing field." That's literally the justification for entitlement programs. Word for word. Interesting how reasonable they sound when it's your guy who's proposing them instead of the other side's guy, isn't it? Nice try on the comparison between entitlements, but it's like comparing apples to transmissions. There is no such argument for "leveling the playing field" with entitlements because in order for it to be level it would have to be unfair in the first place. There is nothing unfair about getting a college education and working hard to get ahead. There is absolutely something unfair about outright theft of my money to give it to one of my relatives who sits at home getting high all day and boasts about living for free off the money. (yes I have several of those relatives) As for the Carrier deal, it is a tax break for a company that was leaving. Leaving equals zero tax and staying equals a lot of tax, and a lot of people employed. Nobody is taking money from anyone to give to carrier. |
| 2016-12-05 9:28 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio I seriously do not take him literally. But I totally understand the sentiment. "We're going to build a wall 20' high" Yes, we might at that for a mile or two in strategic places. Other places the all will be virtual consisting of sensors, satellite surveillance and drones. Other places the geography just doesn't allow you to pass might not have anything. I also totally understand that he does not have the power to do a lot of the things on his agenda such as tax reform, immigration reform and healthcare reform. But I also understand that he, like 60 million other Americans that voted for him, are not satisfied with the status quo and want change. My advice to Trump right now? Write what you are feeling on Tweeter.....and then delete it before sending. When I have a run-in with someone at work or my boss or some idiot, I will write an email and blast them all to h)ell and back......and send it to my wife. It is therapeutic to let someone know how you feel....but never let your enemies know how you feel. That's good advice. I think he's still got a few cabinet positions open-- he should call you. My issue with the "I don't take him literally" thing is, at some point, don't you have to hold the POTUS accountable for what he actually says? If, after the fact, you're willing to write off some of the things he says, as "locker room talk" or bluster or hyperbole or whatever, how are you supposed to know what is an actual promise, or an actual policy statement, or an actual whatever vs just some BS he was spouting in the moment? Aren't you giving him a free pass to, as he's done a few times, go back later, after he can gauge public sentiment and say, "Oh, I didn't mean that-- I was just exaggerating. What I meant was..." A perfect example is the thing with Pakistan. He said, "Pakistan is not our friend." and "Time to get tough". Then, on the phone with the PM, he says, in effect, "we are your friends" and "I promise to do whatever I can to help you." So, were the first comments just bluster and exaggeration, and the second ones are how he really feels? Or were the first ones how he really feels and the second ones were just initial efforts at diplomacy that will be followed up later with a more hard line? Which is it? I think the media is going to have a hard time with this because I do not think he is going to change. I saw a report on him about how he has not help a press conference since winning the election.....and ALL the previous presidents back to Jimmy Carter all held press conferences within a few days after the election. My thought was, so what!? You cannot control or change the man. He is going to say and do what he wants and dam)n the torpedoes. So yeah, it will be hard to pin him down and say he 'lied' per se. BTW, world leaders all understand politics and know that when you say to Putin, "I will have more flexibility after the election" Putin totally understands the politics. It isn't just the media, though, is it? I guess what I'm asking is: Candidate Trump made a bunch of promises, and, as POTUS, he's likely to make many more. If what you're saying is, "I don't take what he says literally", that's fine, but then aren't you in effect saying that he can keep or not keep whatever promises he feels like, and it's all good? Is that acceptable? The GOP has been pretty militant about holding the current president to every promise he's ever made, and parsing his every word as if it was sworn on a stack of bibles. Why shouldn't that be good enough for your guy? If you're ok saying, "Well, sure he said he wanted to get tough with Pakistan, but that was just bluster", are you ok with him, for example, not repealing Obamacare? Or not going after Isis or Iran? Or not getting tough with China? How are you supposed to know what to hold him accountable for if you're willing to give him a pass on everything he says? |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK