[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-February-27, 10:31, said:

Would any responsible organization use on-the-job training for an important position? Why are you willing to brush this off so cavalierly for one of the most critical jobs in the world? When he makes "gaffest and mistakes", they significantly impact the lives of millions of people.

Unfortunately the choice was between Clinton and Trump. For all of his defects I think Trump was the better choice for the country. Apparently enough voters thought the same way. So now we need to do what we can to make the best of it. As someone else said "When the airplane takes off, our self-interest becomes supporting the Captain in doing his job".

[ldrews]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 10:34, said:

He is a 70 year old narcissist who doesn't read books, wants all briefings to be no more than bullet points, won't allow briefings to take more than 15 minutes (because of his attention span) and can't stop retweeting stories from Fox News, and you think he can learn??????????

He couldn't handle normal school as a child, so had to be sent to a 'military academy', where, due to being a big kid with a very rich father, he was a bully...he is actually proud of having physically intimidated a teacher. He belittled his brother, who was 'only' an airline pilot and who was an alcoholic, because he wasn't a 'killer'. Clearly, he sees himself as a 'killer', bigly.

Meanwhile, his main adviser is openly attempting to destroy what there is of democracy in the US. Trump seems to lack any basic understanding of anything other than the imperative to make everything about himself, so probably neither cares nor understands what Bannon is trying to do. So long as Bannon provides the Leader with his daily does of applause, the Leader will obediently jump through all of the hoops placed before him, thinking all the time that he is in control.

He is now "our" 70 year old narcissist President, for better or worse. His history is now irrelevant, he was elected. You will have to deal with it.

[PassedOut]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 10:42, said:

You do realize, I trust, that his campaign promises on infrastructure involved partnerships with billionaires, where the billionaires are to be given the right to get their money back, with profits? Toll roads and bridges, not replacing lead water pipes in impoverished municipalities? He has no plan for doing anything that cannot make a profit for the rich.

New highway bridge? Sure. Replace aging lead water pipes, a la Flint? No....where's the money in that?

So in fact, his infrastructure plan is arguably worse than no plan at all. By doing what he proposes, politicians, especially republicans, can claim that they have done something, and put the really needed infrastructure off indefinitely, while attending all kinds of ribbon-cutting, ground-breaking ceremonies in their areas....and any bets on whether there will be a correlation between where the billionaires get to earn their profits and where republican politicians hold office?

The reports of these plans are why I'm not optimistic. But during the campaign he did not put it like that:

Quote

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has seized on opportunities to link investments in the country’s infrastructure to creating jobs and revitalizing the economy.

When the real estate mogul was pressed on the Iraq War during a December primary debate, he quickly turned to infrastructure instead.

“If we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems — our airports and all of the other problems we've had — we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now,” he said.

At a March press conference in Portland, Maine, Trump said it’s sad that trains in China run up to 300 miles per hour while “we have trains that go chug, chug, chug.”

In his 2015 book, “Crippled America,” the billionaire touted an estimate from the Senate Budget Committee that rebuilding America would create 13 million jobs — a familiar figure circulated by many Democrats.

Trump has generally called for large federal investments in infrastructure and even acknowledged it would likely cost taxpayer dollars, but he has offered few clues about exactly how much.

Constance and I like to travel, and it's always disheartening upon returning to the US to be confronted with the inferiority of the infrastructure here. It does seem that Trump was lying, but there is still congress and push-back from citizens. There is considerable agreement on the need for massive infrastructure improvement here across the political spectrum, and not just those parts that provide profit opportunities for the rich.

The US spent trillions on a fool's errand in Iraq, and that it was clear in advance that it would turn out that way to all but fools (which included lots of democrats). I hope that Trump can be persuaded not to embark on another such fool's errand instead of fixing the US but, as I said, I'm not optimistic.

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 10:51, said:

He is now "our" 70 year old narcissist President, for better or worse. His history is now irrelevant, he was elected. You will have to deal with it.

He's not mine. lol. He is 'yours'. Unfortunately, because of the sheer economic weight of the US economy, especially with its largest trading partner (Canada) and the spillover of its culture, he does have an impact on 'us' up here.


Btw, his history is entirely relevant, since the child is father to the man. Trump isn't about to discover a sense of empathy, or a desire to learn, at this age.

[barmar]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 11:36, said:

He's not mine. lol. He is 'yours'.

POTUS is often called the "leader of the free world". While that may be arrogant, it still has some truth. So unless Canada is planning on switching to an authoritarian regime, you're almost as stuck with him as we are. Even if NAFTA is dissolved, we'll still be your overwhelmingly largest trading partner, you can't ignore Trump's fiscal policies.

[y66]

 jogs, on 2017-February-27, 09:10, said:

Steve Jobs seeks A+ people for his team. Jobs says A+ people are worth 50 to 100 average persons. Of course most of the progressive left posters on this forum consider themselves A+ people. Unfortunately there are many more C and D people than A+ people. While the A+ have done well, the C's and D's have been left behind for the last 30 years. The information age has passed them by. The republican party has ignored these people for 150 years. The democrats have ignored these people for the last 50 years. Donald Trump will be the champion of the C and D group.

Two points: (1) We haven't had an A+ poster here since Shubi left. Definitely a lot of posters who are above average. (2) I hope you're right about Donald Trump standing up for the people who have been left behind and he deserves a few years to deliver on this promise. But so far this is looking like the biggest LOL in the history of this entire forum and maybe even the history of the world.

[ldrews]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 11:36, said:

He's not mine. lol. He is 'yours'. Unfortunately, because of the sheer economic weight of the US economy, especially with its largest trading partner (Canada) and the spillover of its culture, he does have an impact on 'us' up here.


Btw, his history is entirely relevant, since the child is father to the man. Trump isn't about to discover a sense of empathy, or a desire to learn, at this age.

His history is relevant only if you want to engage in the game of trying to predict what he will/won't do. His history is irrelevant with respect to the fact that he has already been elected President of the US, which is where most people here seem to spend their energy (he shouldn't be the President because ...).

I'm pretty sure that Trump has some sense of empathy, just not up to your expectations/desires. Where do you derive your conclusion that he has no desire to learn? It seems to me to be more the case that the anti-Trumpers have little desire to learn: they keep repeating the same ineffectual behavior that they used before the election.

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 14:07, said:

His history is relevant only if you want to engage in the game of trying to predict what he will/won't do. His history is irrelevant with respect to the fact that he has already been elected President of the US, which is where most people here seem to spend their energy (he shouldn't be the President because ...).

I'm pretty sure that Trump has some sense of empathy, just not up to your expectations/desires. Where do you derive your conclusion that he has no desire to learn? It seems to me to be more the case that the anti-Trumpers have little desire to learn: they keep repeating the same ineffectual behavior that they used before the election.

hmmm....He claimed in the campaign to know more about how to beat ISIS, or war generally, then 'the generals'. He refused the usual intelligence briefings because he has no need to listen to 'the same stuff' every day. He gets his news and his understanding of the world (Sweden terror attack anyone?) from Fox News. He has apparently not read a book in many years. He used to have, and I suspect still has, an employee whose main job was to ensure that each morning Trump was presented with hardcopy press clippings praising him.

He doesn't use a computer....all he has is an Android phone. He doesn't use email.

He has NEVER given any details of any of his proposals. MAGA??? How? Bring back coal mining jobs? How? And encourage more fracking at the same time? Hint: the main reason for the decline in US coal production is that natural gas is a far cheaper fuel source. Make it cheaoer still and guess what happens to coal mining?

Bring back the old-fashioned manufacturing jobs? How? Is he going to issue an executive order banning companies from using robots or computers?

Calls China a currency manipulator...an accusation that made sense in the 1990s but not these days.

Replace Obamacare with something cheaper and that gives everyone healthcare? He promised that, altho since then his puppeteers have retroactively claimed he was talking universal access, not universal healthcare (universal access means that poor people can access exactly the same health care as billionaires: all it takes is money. Ummm...only a republican would fail to see the problem with that).

Claims, repeatedly, that he got more electoral college votes than anyone since....well, basically forever.

I think the evidence that he is a truly stupid man, so full of himself, so desperately in need of adulation as to be incapable of empathy, incapable of curiousity, and incapable of articulating coherent real-world plans is pretty overwhelming.

What I have listed is but a tiny fraction of the evidence. Why don't you, trump fanboy, try listing ANY evidence that contradicts this partial list of traits?

You see: trump fanboys love to claim that those who despise Trump are simply biased, but somehow, strangely, they never, ever come up with details of something that shows that Trump is anything better than how we portray him.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2017-February-27, 11:31, said:

The reports of these plans are why I'm not optimistic. But during the campaign he did not put it like that:


Constance and I like to travel, and it's always disheartening upon returning to the US to be confronted with the inferiority of the infrastructure here. It does seem that Trump was lying, but there is still congress and push-back from citizens. There is considerable agreement on the need for massive infrastructure improvement here across the political spectrum, and not just those parts that provide profit opportunities for the rich.

The US spent trillions on a fool's errand in Iraq, and that it was clear in advance that it would turn out that way to all but fools (which included lots of democrats). I hope that Trump can be persuaded not to embark on another such fool's errand instead of fixing the US but, as I said, I'm not optimistic.

From what I've heard today about Trump's plans to gut the EPA and other agencies and use the savings for increased military spending, I would guess Bannon's plan is to gut the infrastructure of the government and create a Russian-style oligarchy by pouring billions more into defense spending and pumping and dumping stocks.

This makes a sick kind of sense to me as my reading has painted Bannon as quite intellectually arrogant, and that type person would probably be mistrustful of democracy to "do the right thing". Only by consolidating power into a small group can the ship of state be guided "correctly".

[ldrews]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 15:14, said:

hmmm....He claimed in the campaign to know more about how to beat ISIS, or war generally, then 'the generals'. He refused the usual intelligence briefings because he has no need to listen to 'the same stuff' every day. He gets his news and his understanding of the world (Sweden terror attack anyone?) from Fox News. He has apparently not read a book in many years. He used to have, and I suspect still has, an employee whose main job was to ensure that each morning Trump was presented with hardcopy press clippings praising him.

He doesn't use a computer....all he has is an Android phone. He doesn't use email.

He has NEVER given any details of any of his proposals. MAGA??? How? Bring back coal mining jobs? How? And encourage more fracking at the same time? Hint: the main reason for the decline in US coal production is that natural gas is a far cheaper fuel source. Make it cheaoer still and guess what happens to coal mining?

Bring back the old-fashioned manufacturing jobs? How? Is he going to issue an executive order banning companies from using robots or computers?

Calls China a currency manipulator...an accusation that made sense in the 1990s but not these days.

Replace Obamacare with something cheaper and that gives everyone healthcare? He promised that, altho since then his puppeteers have retroactively claimed he was talking universal access, not universal healthcare (universal access means that poor people can access exactly the same health care as billionaires: all it takes is money. Ummm...only a republican would fail to see the problem with that).

Claims, repeatedly, that he got more electoral college votes than anyone since....well, basically forever.

I think the evidence that he is a truly stupid man, so full of himself, so desperately in need of adulation as to be incapable of empathy, incapable of curiousity, and incapable of articulating coherent real-world plans is pretty overwhelming.

What I have listed is but a tiny fraction of the evidence. Why don't you, trump fanboy, try listing ANY evidence that contradicts this partial list of traits?

You see: trump fanboys love to claim that those who despise Trump are simply biased, but somehow, strangely, they never, ever come up with details of something that shows that Trump is anything better than how we portray him.

Well, let's wait and see what happens. Trump was elected President and has 4 years to make things happen. I will judge him on whether he does or not. The rest of this debate is fruitless.

[jogs]

 kenberg, on 2017-February-26, 12:34, said:

This does not remotely justify all of this stuff about fake news, it does not justify the baring of reporters, and it certainly does not justify the overall hostility toward the media.

Since Trump announced for the presidency, the media has been 90% negative on all stories on Trump.

Today's politics is sound bites and hyperbole. The left has been in total control for about the last 12 years. The republicans(Bush/McCain/Romney) have been helpless. The left has been able to define the three wimps. Well Trump isn't really a republican. Trump can play this game better than the left.

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 16:40, said:

Well, let's wait and see what happens. Trump was elected President and has 4 years to make things happen. I will judge him on whether he does or not. The rest of this debate is fruitless.

You do realize you are putting your trust into someone who just claimed "Noone knew healthcare is this complicated!" Your naivete and faithfulness is quite charming.

By the way, didn't you hope for an end of USA-as-policeman-around-the-world, and thus reduced defense spending? Aren't you a little disappointed by the apparently 10% increase of defense spending in Trump's budget?

[cherdano]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 10:47, said:

As someone else said "When the airplane takes off, our self-interest becomes supporting the Captain in doing his job".

Says the person who left the airplane years ago for Mexico...
(By the way, what is US congress in this airplane analogy? Or do you actually prefer the US to be an authoritarian regime?)

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-February-27, 18:25, said:

You do realize you are putting your trust into someone who just claimed "Noone knew healthcare is this complicated!" Your naivete and faithfulness is quite charming.

By the way, didn't you hope for an end of USA-as-policeman-around-the-world, and thus reduced defense spending? Aren't you a little disappointed by the apparently 10% increase of defense spending in Trump's budget?

Trust is not involved, I will judge his actions. Trump had already promised an increase in defense spending during his campaign, so nothing new here. I will wait to see what they spend it on. And yes, I hope for and end/reduction in USA-as-policeman-around-the-world. If it does not happen I will indeed be disappointed.

But lots of other actions are being taken that I approve of, so on balance I am content.

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-February-27, 18:27, said:

Says the person who left the airplane years ago for Mexico...
(By the way, what is US congress in this airplane analogy? Or do you actually prefer the US to be an authoritarian regime?)

Still a native citizen and still concerned for the well-being of the US. How about you?

Trump is far from an authoritarian regime, just a stronger personality than we are used to. Check North Korea, Turkey, most Middle Eastern nations for examples of true authoritarians. But forced to choose between socialist tyranny and authoritarianism, I will take the latter. The authoritarian can be replaced, socialist tyranny gets baked into the foundation.

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 20:09, said:

Still a native citizen and still concerned for the well-being of the US. How about you?

Trump is far from an authoritarian regime, just a stronger personality than we are used to. Check North Korea, Turkey, most Middle Eastern nations for examples of true authoritarians. But forced to choose between socialist tyranny and authoritarianism, I will take the latter. The authoritarian can be replaced, socialist tyranny gets baked into the foundation.

You confuse being an overbearing bully with no empathy or concern for others with being a strong personality. It is a common delusion amongst a certain kind of person, the type who likes others to do their thinking, that being obnoxious is a positive character trait. I'll take an Obama over a Trump any day in terms of personality. Strong characters tolerate and even enjoy disagreements. Bullies can't stand it. Strong personalities don't need constant adulation. Weak ones do.

Compare life stories....who do you think is the stronger? The man who made it to the WH as a black man, raised in at best middle class conditions in a racist country, or the privileged kid who inherited 140MM from his father and has used the bankruptcy courts numerous times in order to stiff creditors and investors?

If you truly think Trump is a 'strong' personality, I feel very sorry for you.

If Obama is too decent or intelligent for your tastes in personality, try Bill Clinton. He was a far stronger personality than Trump has any dreams of being and a life story almost as powerful as Obama's.

[ldrews]

 mikeh, on 2017-February-27, 20:33, said:

You confuse being an overbearing bully with no empathy or concern for others with being a strong personality. It is a common delusion amongst a certain kind of person, the type who likes others to do their thinking, that being obnoxious is a positive character trait. I'll take an Obama over a Trump any day in terms of personality. Strong characters tolerate and even enjoy disagreements. Bullies can't stand it. Strong personalities don't need constant adulation. Weak ones do.

Compare life stories....who do you think is the stronger? The man who made it to the WH as a black man, raised in at best middle class conditions in a racist country, or the privileged kid who inherited 140MM from his father and has used the bankruptcy courts numerous times in order to stiff creditors and investors?

If you truly think Trump is a 'strong' personality, I feel very sorry for you.

If Obama is too decent or intelligent for your tastes in personality, try Bill Clinton. He was a far stronger personality than Trump has any dreams of being and a life story almost as powerful as Obama's.

When I was much younger I had an attorney friend who was the nicest guy, amiable, conciliatory, a pleasure to be around and talk to. He also lost just about every case he was involved in. So when you have significant problems in the society/economy to deal with and contentious adversaries, which would you choose to tackle the problems: the nice amiable guy or the bulldog/shark? I'll pick the bulldog/shark every time.

But go on thinking that getting everyone in a circle holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" is the way to go.

On another newsgroup the anti-Trump contingent is pushing assassination and death for Trump. I don't think "Kumbaya" is going to be effective with them.

[mikeh]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 20:47, said:

When I was much younger I had an attorney friend who was the nicest guy, amiable, conciliatory, a pleasure to be around and talk to. He also lost just about every case he was involved in. So when you have significant problems in the society/economy to deal with and contentious adversaries, which would you choose to tackle the problems: the nice amiable guy or the bulldog/shark? I'll pick the bulldog/shark every time.

But go on thinking that getting everyone in a circle holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" is the way to go.

On another newsgroup the anti-Trump contingent is pushing assassination and death for Trump. I don't think "Kumbaya" is going to be effective with them.

You truly don't get it, do you? Being an asshole is not the key to success, especially in a world where others have the ability to tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine. Yes, he can do his typical childish bullying, and unleash ICE and the CPB and harass thousands or even millions of poor people and, yes, he can give cover to the racists who are shooting innocents for the colour of their skin or desecrating graveyards, but these are petty little things. That doesn't make him a 'strong' personality. It just makes him an asshole. Don't you have any idea of the difference?

Hint: your nice guy friend didn't make his way through Chicago politics to become a black President. He didn't come from a poor, broken family in Arkansas to reach the WH. Etc. Btw, both Clinton and Obama were pretty effective commanders in chief when it came to taking decisive action. So far, Trump is 0 for 1 in terms of action. But he sure does like the idea of playing with big weapons, doesn't he?

Second hint: I have almost certainly known far more lawyers than you have and many of them are truly great people...kind, compassionate, hard-working, honest and.....good at their job. Now, I practice in Canada, and maybe that makes a difference but, you know what? I think most people are just people. For example, while I don't know very many of the posters here, there are quite a few whom I would consider myself fortunate to have as friends. You...no...you're not one of them.

Your mistake is that you confuse being a privileged bully with being a powerful human. I really do feel sorry for you, but actually feel far sorrier to anyone over whom you have ever had any degree of power. You are in my opinion truly a very sad excuse for a human being, if Trump is your idea of strength.

[Al_U_Card]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-27, 20:02, said:

Trust is not involved, I will judge his actions. Trump had already promised an increase in defense spending during his campaign, so nothing new here. I will wait to see what they spend it on. And yes, I hope for and end/reduction in USA-as-policeman-around-the-world. If it does not happen I will indeed be disappointed.

But lots of other actions are being taken that I approve of, so on balance I am content.

A reminder:
Truman - a bigot and racist with "short man" issues
Eisenhower - a military man who liked to golf and play bridge (uh-oh)
Kennedy - a sexual predator and "rich kid"
Johnson- a vile and vulgar, power hungry un-indicted criminal
Nixon - an insecure, vindictive sycophant
Ford - unable to chew gum and take stairs at the same time
Carter - a naive peanut farmer
Reagan - Hollywood actor and snitch
Bush 1 - rich boy referred to as idiot son by Daddy Prescott
Clinton - another sexual predator and nearly indicted criminal
Bush 2 - frat boy who liked to clear brush on his farm
Obama - Community organizer

Trump has some of these "qualities" so, like you, I will wait and see to judge by the results of his actions.

[mikeh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-February-28, 03:44, said:

A reminder:
Truman - a bigot and racist with "short man" issues
Eisenhower - a military man who liked to golf and play bridge (uh-oh)
Kennedy - a sexual predator and "rich kid"
Johnson- a vile and vulgar, power hungry un-indicted criminal
Nixon - an insecure, vindictive sycophant
Ford - unable to chew gum and take stairs at the same time
Carter - a naive peanut farmer
Reagan - Hollywood actor and snitch
Bush 1 - rich boy referred to as idiot son by Daddy Prescott
Clinton - another sexual predator and nearly indicted criminal
Bush 2 - frat boy who liked to clear brush on his farm
Obama - Community organizer

Trump has some of these "qualities" so, like you, I will wait and see to judge by the results of his actions.

Goes to show how it is possible to follow no something gly about virtually anyone, lol.

Kennedy was able, with Kruschev's help, to manage the Cuban missile crisis: a situation that arose due to miscalculation on both sides. I have trouble seeing Trump able both to maintain the outer firmness shown by Kennedy and the backdoor diplomacy needed to avert WWIII. He was also in active service in WWII and was demonstrably a brave officer. He was unlike Trump who used a bone spur to evade the Vietnam war.

Carter overcame relative poverty as a child. Basically made his way into the Naval Academy through sheer determination and intelligence. Was an early member of the navy's nuclear program. Rose to be executive officer on an early nuclear submarine and left the navy only when his father died, and he had to take over the family business. Went back to school while poor enough that he and his family lived in public housing, and became a successful businessman, who opposed the prevalent racism in the community. Later won the Nobel Peace Prize for his post-presidency work. Doesn't sound much like Trump to me.

Clinton may or may not have been a sexual predator. Most of the evidence suggests that he was more of a philanderer than a predator, whereas with Trump it is clear that he doesn't give a damn about consent.

Also, Clinton rose from significant poverty through his intelligent and determination. He wasn't handed millions by daddy.

Obama wasn't merely a community organizer. He earned his way into Harvard Law School and became editor of the Law Review, which is a pretty tough thing to do.

I would be delighted to see Trump share the innate strengths of any of these (Kennedy the least).