"You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years ... I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"
Why would he need briefings if he makes up his mind on things like Russian interference in the election without hearing the evidence?
"You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years ... I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"
This is scary as hell. GW Bush and his senior advisors (including his National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice) were warned repeatedly in the spring and summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack the US.
And in case you've forgotten, Trump said in October 2015 that Dubya deserved blame for Al Qaeda's successful attack on the World Trade Center towers. Republicans were shocked and outraged by Trump's comment—but he was right. Bush and his team dismissed or downplayed the threat of Al Qaeda and ignored warnings that AQ and other terrorist groups were planning an attack on American soil. Intelligence groups within the US government were greatly concerned that Bush didn't appear to be absorbing or responding to their warnings. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/
But Trump? He doesn't need those presidential daily briefings. He's, like, a smart person. Even though he repeatedly exposed his own foreign policy ignorance during the campaign. Don't you feel so safe?
I imagine that Trump-named properties will be at the top of target lists for AQ and ISIS.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Dec 11, 2016 - 11:41am
And so that got me thinking: do protests on Washington do much to change the mind of someone like DJT? I strongly strongly doubt it.
Money talks.
Protests need to be specifically targeted to damage the financial status of his businesses, so that he'll possibly feel the effect when he's no longer President. That would get his attention, especially if the point behind this presidency is really self-rewarding.
"You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years ... I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"
"...The 64-year-old veteran oil executive has no government or diplomatic experience, although he has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin..."
drainin' that swamp...
This is one of the most hypocritical yet, and still - silence from those that wanted "change". Hang on, it's going to be a weird 4 years. I still have confidence in the republic, as long as we stay out of wars, we'll be okay.
Frankly, I've never heard any serious plans from Republicans in Congress about helping regions or industries or people at certain income levels; they're all about tax cuts for the rich that are supposed to trickle down and create jobs for everyone else. It was b*||$h!^ theory in the late 1800s when it first got invented and it's still BS.
Thanks for reading. Good luck to you both. We'll see what Trump brings to the country. I have zero confidence in him and the GOP.
I heard a good one today. Kelleyanne Conway speaking about Trump's interests said he was a huge fan of Elton John. "That can be cured Donald" said Mike Pence
I heard a good one today. Kelleyanne Conway speaking about Trump's interests said he was a huge fan of Elton John. "That can be cured Donald" said Mike Pence
It is somewhat confusing to hear over and over how the Trump election is most readily explained by a belief on the part of a significant segment of the population that it was sticking it to another segment of the population — a condescending, elitist one— that does not listen to the first segment and foolishly believes it knows better how everyone should live their lives. First of all, one thing that should be readily apparent in this society at this particular point in time, especially when it comes to politics,is that there is not a lot of listening to those with differing views, period. And, concomitant ly, there are a lot of people holding entrenched positions who believe they are right and those with opposing views are wrong. This is pervasive. It is not a one-way street. It is a freeway — 6 lanes in each direction, with a series of confusing ramps and overpasses. The other point is that, at its base, governing is about deciding what is best for the greatest number of people. So, yes, that does involve making decisions for others. We purport to elect folk who we believe will be better at that than most, and that will do their best to represent their constituents. Sure, there are some epic failures out there, but this is our governmental model.
. Hard-working, honest people have seen their communities and jobs fade away through no fault of their own.
The thing that I notice is that people who express this view and are Trump supporters are the same ones who post "bootstrap" memes instructing people on welfare to suck it up.
Communities throughout the country are facing shifting labor markets, changes brought on by technology, and other factors beyond any politician's control that have placed these communities in an "adapt or perish" situation. Some communities have figured out how to adapt. Others struggle. You have to wonder why the people in rust belt areas and other struggling communities don't apply the "bootstrap" advice they dole out liberally to stereotyped caricatures of democratic voters to themselves and their communities for a change.
It is somewhat confusing to hear over and over how the Trump election is most readily explained by a belief on the part of a significant segment of the population that it was sticking it to another segment of the population — a condescending, elitist one— that does not listen to the first segment and foolishly believes it knows better how everyone should live their lives. First of all, one thing that should be readily apparent in this society at this particular point in time, especially when it comes to politics,is that there is not a lot of listening to those with differing views, period. And, concomitant ly, there are a lot of people holding entrenched positions who believe they are right and those with opposing views are wrong. This is pervasive. It is not a one-way street. It is a freeway — 6 lanes in each direction, with a series of confusing ramps and overpasses. The other point is that, at its base, governing is about deciding what is best for the greatest number of people. So, yes, that does involve making decisions for others. We purport to elect folk who we believe will be better at that than most, and that will do their best to represent their constituents. Sure, there are some epic failures out there, but this is our governmental model.
I get it, and I share the frustration. It's been a long time since washington has represented any kind of "normal" people. They have pitted the two major factions of "normal" people against each other and feasted on the profits of that conflict.
I've been a machinist. I've had a couple of industries disappear underneath me. I don't think most of the people in rural areas are "rubes" or otherwise backwards. I do take issues with a lot of the overly religious telling other people how to live. I'm fine with them having their beliefs, but when it starts encroaching on other peoples rights that's where I start having issues. There is a bit of this from the left as well, and certain segments have gone overboard with safe spaces and trigger words. But, while I'll acknowledge this as an issue it is hardly an equivalence.
What I really don't get it this idea that the "oppressed rural middle America" is "sticking it to the man" by electing Trump. Sure, he's going to be different, but he's not going to help most of the people that voted for him. I'm part of what middle America thinks of as "the elite" (I'm definitely doing well, but I'm hardly elite), and I'm already ahead and will likely do even better under Trump financially. I'll use these profits to ensure my safety and health. A lot of others aren't going to get that chance. And Trump, who wasn't going to be beholden to anyone, won't be beholden to anyone. He's clearly just going to go forward and do whatever is in his best interest - big hint, that's not what's good for most people.
The continued hypocrisy of the far right will be on full display. I wonder if their supporters will ever be able to hold them accountable? I hope so, but I don't believe it will happen. I'll continue to protect myself, and do what I can to help and protect others. As long as we don't wind up in a war (trade, hot or civil), I'm confident that the republic will survive.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 9, 2016 - 8:32am
It is somewhat confusing to hear over and over how the Trump election is most readily explained by a belief on the part of a significant segment of the population that it was sticking it to another segment of the population — a condescending, elitist one— that does not listen to the first segment and foolishly believes it knows better how everyone should live their lives. First of all, one thing that should be readily apparent in this society at this particular point in time, especially when it comes to politics,is that there is not a lot of listening to those with differing views, period. And, concomitant ly, there are a lot of people holding entrenched positions who believe they are right and those with opposing views are wrong. This is pervasive. It is not a one-way street. It is a freeway — 6 lanes in each direction, with a series of confusing ramps and overpasses. The other point is that, at its base, governing is about deciding what is best for the greatest number of people. So, yes, that does involve making decisions for others. We purport to elect folk who we believe will be better at that than most, and that will do their best to represent their constituents. Sure, there are some epic failures out there, but this is our governmental model.
Hard-working, honest people have seen their communities and jobs fade away through no fault of their own. They have a right to be fed up with both political parties and the political status quo.
That's partially true. We can't look at the economy as something we can wholly control. It's a system and if left at least partially unregulated, it will evolve. Part of that evolution is finding lower costs, and that means new labor markets. As for the political role in moving jobs abroad...free trade agreements, theoretically, are meant to take the politics out of the economics. Yes free trade allowed for it, but it wasn't a politician who moved jobs to China, India....but business owners, like Trump. The voters have elected the very person who has taken away their jobs; as I've said before, voter are asking the right questions, but Trump was the wrong answer.
As for the future, things will not get better for the low skilled worker. Last week Amazon announced its new Go, checkout free store. The obvious business advantage is you have less labor costs (no need for checkout employees)...this is not a new technology, but something that should have arrived 20 years ago with RFID. Now that it's here it will spread throughout retail. Consumption comprises about 2/3 of the US GDP/Economy. So retail is obviously important for its growth…and jobs. We’ve already dealt with the massive offshoring of manufacturing, customer service/tech support, and even accounting and finance jobs. Now our technology is bringing us check-out free store, driverless cars & trucks, robotics to handle the warehouse and stocking work…the future doesn’t look bright for the unskilled US worker.
Regardless of his past business dealings, the question for Trump is: Can he really bring jobs back to the US? I hate to admit it, but perhaps Trump is right (in a roundabout way), and we need to impose significant tariffs to bring back jobs to the US. Yes, that will increase prices, lead to inflation and hurt profits, but if it creates more domestic production, and niche industries, perhaps these job gains can offset the impending job losses as a result of new technology?
no problem, sometimes you just don't know if you should shreik like a crazy person or cry like a baby I got one that shows the destruction, I worked for an Anheuser-Busch beer distributor from 1977 to 2015 At our peak we sold 1.4 million cases in one year and was number one in market share at 45% My last year we sold about 15,000 cases under a million but we had 68% market share, I always count my blessings because before working there I was in retail and bought beer from 8 distributors, when I retired there were only 2 of us and both are struggling
I had to read it twice tho.
