PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Tax dollars kept those jobs in Indiana. Period. It wasn't Trump's magical ability to make deals and his smooth talk that kept them there.

It was less than a $1000/year per job, which in the arena of subsidizing jobs dirt-cheap. So cheap that it was probably a face-saving value given to Carrier since their reported Mexico labor savings was much higher.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'm not sure how you discredit it as "partisan horsecrap".

Trump is going to Trump. Whether you like it or not its how he operates. His tactic in this regard has been consistent not just through his campaign but long before that: He adopts the idea that instead of defending, always attack. There are so many examples of him doing this before he even started campaigning, but one of the more famous ones is against Rosie O'Donnell.

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'm perhaps not aware of why photon and KevanGuy are concerned about the union leader, he criticized Trump, got criticized back. How can this be a problem?

Because it's not always going to be some random union leader or Rosie O'Donnell or some comic on late night TV criticizing him. Sometimes you'll have leaders of other countries criticizing him. Because he is running the most powerful country in the world and if he's unhinged over some guy in Indiana making valid criticisms, how is he going to handle it if a foreign leader, of either one of our allies or enemies, makes criticisms of him?

These things are not said in a vacuum. Beyond the screwed up fact that Trump's supporters are going after people he calls out, this sets up a very, very dangerous precedent if this is how he reacts to conflict.

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't get the criticism on the Trump hiring stuff, what's he supposed to do get people from completely outside the political arena? If he did that the left would lose their #### saying he is hiring people with no experience.

And yet he's doing exactly that. He hires Linda McMahon, a woman who (along with her husband) has spent decades destroying small wrestling businesses so that the WWE has no competition. Their dealings with their talent are horrifying--abusing the concept of "independent contractor" so they don't actually have to pay them OT nor provide healthcare, despite the ridiculous hours involved and the intense physical damage inherent to the business.

He hires Ben Carson to deal with housing, when Carson himself just said that he doesn't have any experience politically.

He's hiring a climate change denier to run the EPA, a woman who wants to gut public schools to run the Department of Education, etc, etc.

He's making visibly awful choices for these cabinet positions, and anyone who isn't actively trying to make excuses for him can see that.

The criticisms of Trump on the Carrier deal is pathetic at least Trump did something unlike Obama who waved his hands and said can't do anything nope no magic wand nothing anyone can do. Trump made Obama look like a complete idiot.

Oh, that Obama who oversaw record job growth? That guy? Oh yeah, that 7 million dollar gift to Carrier to save a big 730 jobs sure makes Trump look awesome compared to the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by the economy in just this calendar year under Obama.

Trump essentially bribed Carrier to save 730 jobs. He then lied to people that it was over 1000 jobs--despite the fact that 300+ of those jobs were never a threat to leave the country anyway. Carrier is still closing a plant and they're still sending over 1000 jobs to Mexico. This is not a huge win, and he's touting it as if it were a major victory.

Originally Posted by Delgar

Its not about defending Trump. Its more about calming the hysteria against him.

I'm not in for a debate on this either as I even posted earlier I'd have voted for Clinton, if I had to vote.

Those calls the union leader got, that should not happen. I don't think Trump can be blamed for those calls. Those people should be located and spoken to by the authorities.

He has done nothing to warrant the "hysteria" against him to be lessened. He's still displaying the childish, immature, dangerous behavior that he displayed throughout the campaign. He's hiring people who are blatantly against his campaign promises--filling his cabinet with Mitch McConnell's wife, with people who worked at Goldman Sachs for decades, your typical "swamp" types that he railed against.

He's not only infuriating "the left," he's upsetting and infuriating his own voters who are angry because he's blatantly going against everything he stated, everything they voted for. He's not draining the swamp, he's taking his picks from it.

And beyond that, you now have states that feel emboldened to start infringing on rights. Indiana is trying to essentially outlaw abortion, and today Ohio passed a bill that would outlaw abortion after six weeks, without any allowances for rape or incest. Six weeks essentially outlaws the practice entirely, as a tiny minority of women would actually know they were pregnant before 6 weeks. But because of Trump's win, these legislators feel emboldened to push these restrictions through.

We have every right to be "hysterical."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

Look at that, right in your own paragraph there, you contradict yourself with the bolded. That's what is inherently wrong: you shouldn't call people out with zero backup.

If I said "Delgar is a dangerous sexual deviant who lusts after elderly ginger blowhards" with no evidence (other than my fertile imagination), how would you feel about that?

Wait a minute... no, this is wrong. Your example involves positive assertions of fact that are either true or false. That's libel. Trump's tweet involved a statement of opinion ("Jones has done a terrible job"). That's not libel.

These things are not equivalent. Trump's tweet may be ill-advised, and he may bear some vicarious moral responsibility for its predictable results, but he's technically within his rights to tweet that. He just shouldn't, as he shouldn't tweet most of the nonsense he does.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Delgar

And while i admire the analogy and conceded to it, I don't think you understand what inherently means.

The statement he made lacked any supporting context, and lack of supporting context was what was wrong with it. So inherently wrong is accurate, IMO.

I do appreciate that you are quite philosophical about an analogy that was, while obviously satirical and overblown on purpose, still could be taken offensively. Not everyone would be so forbearing.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by zamler

So to try and prove a point you toss around infantile insults.

Favourite tactic of the left, pretend to be ignorant. Maybe just maybe that a person in his position is going to be a target no matter what people say or don't. Nope can't be that Trump is an evil monster that incites violence just for being him. I bet you actually believe this.

This behaviour is by no means the domain of the left. It's so rich how the voters of Michigan, and other car manufacturing states, some how have forgotten that Obama (that pinko Socialist) was the guy that chose to bail out their employers, then return solvent corporations back to shareholders saving tens of thousands of jobs in the process. Thanks buddy, what have you done for me lately? Yet Trump was critical of Obama's actions (without stating his own solution, of course. Just like his 'secret' ISIS plan) and Pence was dead set against the bailout. But now these guys are the rust belt saviours. People are so stuuuuuupid.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait a minute... no, this is wrong. Your example involves positive assertions of fact that are either true or false. That's libel. Trump's tweet involved a statement of opinion ("Jones has done a terrible job"). That's not libel.

You seriously need to step back sometimes and realize analogy and metaphor are things people do. An analogy doesn't have to be based on exact 1 to 1 equivalence to be effective, it just has to illustrate a similarity that illuminates a point, and that point is not "you shouldn't libel people", it's "you shouldn't make unsupported negative claims about people without any evidence whatsoever".

I'm not even going engage you in an argument on your terms, I'm just going to say this: language and formal logic are poor companions, and that's why "rhetoric", and "mathematics", respectively. Try to spend less time on the minutiae and more time on the gestalt.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You literally said, "his tweet was wrong, how would you like it if I called you a sexual deviant?" There's a difference between calling someone bad at their job and actually inventing facts about them, and that difference is important enough that you can only be sued for one of them. So maybe if you're going to be analogizing, make it one that's an apt analogy.

I mean, damn, calling me out for using logic? That's a new one... along the same lines, how would you like it if I tore off both your arms? Pretty much the same thing, I think you'll agree.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Sometimes you'll have leaders of other countries criticizing him. Because he is running the most powerful country in the world and if he's unhinged over some guy in Indiana making valid criticisms, how is he going to handle it if a foreign leader, of either one of our allies or enemies, makes criticisms of him?

These things are not said in a vacuum.

Right, so that work both ways, if leaders of other countries can criticize him, he can certainly respond back. If President Trump has to be concerned of the repercussions of him criticizing another leader, than that other leader will have even greater concerns about criticizing Trump openly since Trump likely is much more powerful.

And even President Obama wasn't particularly friendly with Duterte after Duterte insulted him.

Trump essentially bribed Carrier to save 730 jobs. He then lied to people that it was over 1000 jobs--despite the fact that 300+ of those jobs were never a threat to leave the country anyway.

Those 300 were going to move to another state, which is still a net loss to the community and Indiana. And for that minimal price per job, and given the huge amount of unwanted attention that Carrier got, it's seems clear that Trump and Indiana did well.

This is not a huge win, and he's touting it as if it were a major victory.

But it's far better than what it was before, a huge loss for Indiana.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by zamler

Speaks for itself.

I guess it's up to each individual to believe if the phone ringing after the tweet was a result of the tweet or just par for the course.

'Speaks for itself'. No, not really.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I guess it's up to each individual to believe if the phone ringing after the tweet was a result of the tweet or just par for the course.

'Speaks for itself'. No, not really.

Another example of playing dumb, or at least I hope it is. Being a union boss inevitably invites conflict that is not new or unique to something Donald Trump happens to say.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm beginning to think that Donald Trump might not be a very good president.

Thanks, Captain obvious.

[nfotiu]

The anti-union tweets are fascinating to me. Trump won the election by flipping a few blue states almost entirely on convincing them he would bring manufacturing jobs back to US. His comments tweeted at Chuck Jones were not really inaccurate and are entirely consistent of what I'd expect a corporate magnate to believe. Trump is basically saying, yeah, we can get your manufacturing jobs back from Mexico, but they won't be cushy union jobs. You'll be paid like Mexicans.

Getting manufacturing jobs back is such a crazy red herring. It's a tiny and declining piece of the economy, and the best he could do is slightly slow that decline. People latch on to manufacturing jobs though because factories and producing stuff just seems so tangible, I guess.

I can't say I have any sympathy for people who bought the shtick and will eventually realize they've been had.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't get the criticism on the Trump hiring stuff, what's he supposed to do get people from completely outside the political arena? If he did that the left would lose their #### saying he is hiring people with no experience. Let's be honest no matter what Trump does the usual suspects in the media etc. will find something wrong. On Romney specifically if Trump shunned him then guess what he's be criticized for holding a grudge and being vindictive.

The criticisms of Trump on the Carrier deal is pathetic at least Trump did something unlike Obama who waved his hands and said can't do anything nope no magic wand nothing anyone can do. Trump made Obama look like a complete idiot.

So, you like Trump because he's building a tremendous swamp, and you hate Obama because he didn't create jobs? Do I have that right?

Trump made Obama look like a complete idiot?
I guess, to idiots.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Its not about defending Trump. Its more about calming the hysteria against him.

I started with "Which is just more Trump being thin skinned, nothing new.", that's hardly hysteria. I was talking about the actions of a subset of Trump's supporters harming people Trump targets. If everyone I touch gets stung by a million bees, I can't just shrug and blame the bees while I shake your hand.

Originally Posted by Delgar

Those calls the union leader got, that should not happen. I don't think Trump can be blamed for those calls. Those people should be located and spoken to by the authorities.

Trump's actively cultivated this group of people throughout his campaign. He whips them into a frenzy at a rally getting them to scream at the media he's placed in a pen for them, calls them out by name and revels in it, but doesn't say anything when those people he's named are harassed, threatened and followed (but will fight with a labour boss). I think he does share some of the blame.

Located and spoken to? Located how? Law enforcement can't do anything. People at and around the Comet Ping Pong pizza place have complained, that didn't stop a guy with an AR-15 from walking into one of the places and firing off a few rounds. Doesn't seem to be able to change one of the places being enroute to going out of business.

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree in part with this. But Obama himself gets threats daily according to the secret service with his own more diplomatic comments.

Yes and Obama has the secret service to deal with those threats, what does a regular person have? Local police who hardly know what Skype is let alone how to trace dozens of calls made through Skype run through dozens of VPNs through dozens of countries around the world?

Back to the bee analogy, trying to deal with the hordes of people who do this stuff is like trying to deal with a swarm of killer bees by arresting each one; it's probably not effective.

Originally Posted by Delgar

he's the elected President how can you muzzle him?

You can't. One would expect him to muzzle himself, to see that his words have power and consequences should be considered before wielding them. But we know that's not going to happen, hence I was thinking more about the consequences.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is a secretary of state candidate.

[wittynickname]

And in another reminder that the GOP doesn't actually care about the basic White Working Class Voter:

Setting the stage for what could be the first clash between President-elect Donald Trump and Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan and some congressional Republicans are raising concerns about a provision in a bill that would require the use of American-made iron and steel for U.S. water infrastructure projects.

The bill, which provides billions of dollars in federal funding, initially included a requirement that federal money could largely only be used to buy U.S.-produced iron and steel. In recent days, Mr. Ryan and other Republicans have begun raising objections, saying the requirement would pick winners and losers among U.S. companies and shouldn’t be included in the final legislation.

Their concern is that the measure, which raises the threshold for how much of the steel-manufacturing process has to occur in the U.S., would direct federal funding to some domestic companies and not others.

So after all this talk of trying to help rust belt Americans...nah. We'll just skip out on that.

And the best part:

Meanwhile, lobbyists for several large foreign steelmakers are urging Mr. Ryan to keep it out. Some of the firms are represented by Squire Patton Boggs, a law and lobbying firm that employs both former House Speaker John Boehner and several former top Republican aides. Natasha Hammond, a lobbyist at the firm who worked in the former speaker’s office last year, has been among those who have been in touch with Mr. Ryan’s office about the provision, according to lobbyists working on the issue. A spokesman for the lobbying firm declined to comment. Mr. Boehner isn’t a registered lobbyist.

Ms. Hammond’s firm represents NLMK Inc., which is one of Russia’s largest steel companies, and California Steel Industries Inc., which is owned by Brazilian and Japanese companies. U.S.-based California Steel Industries wants to change the definition of “U.S. produced” so the imported steel it treats and supplies for water pipes qualifies as American under the law.

The GOP does not care about you, rust belt. The GOP does not care about you, White Working Class.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/water-bi...rns-1480709387

And yet through all of this, Trump isn't complaining about Paul Ryan stripping this amendment from the bill. What about all those American steel jobs you were going to bring back, eh?

As exasperating as all of this is to watch, the inevitability of it all is almost refreshing. The GOP and Trump are doing exactly what I expected they would do with this level of power. I just hope people aren't too stupid to realize this come mid-term elections in 2018 and then again in 2020.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You literally said, "his tweet was wrong, how would you like it if I called you a sexual deviant?" There's a difference between calling someone bad at their job and actually inventing facts about them, and that difference is important enough that you can only be sued for one of them. So maybe if you're going to be analogizing, make it one that's an apt analogy.

I mean, damn, calling me out for using logic? That's a new one... along the same lines, how would you like it if I tore off both your arms? Pretty much the same thing, I think you'll agree.

Who cares how apt his analogy was. Don't make a career out of butting into exchanges between two people and criticising some random aspect of the conversation that really has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the points being made to anyone but you, who nobody is attempting to make the point to. Like me! I just did it right now! Sorta.

Yes there's a difference between the two things you mentioned. No, for the purposes of us all having interesting conversation on the forum we like, does it remotely matter what the difference is. It's just distracting from the conversation that actually matters, which is:

It's not appropriate to fire off damning tweets that are based solely on opinion, 'technically' libel or not, when you're the president-elect of the United States of America and your opinions, thanks to your reach and status, are as good as stone-cold facts to a lot of people.

I think it's a great point, even though his analogy was basically the text version of the human centipede. Know what I mean?

[photon]

DiCaprio meets with Trump and Ivanka about creating jobs from renewable and clean energy.

Leonardo DiCaprio and the head of his foundation met Wednesday with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss how jobs centered on preserving the environment can boost the economy.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Terry Tamminen, the CEO of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, confirmed the meeting at Trump Tower in New York City. Tamminen said the pair gave a presentation to Trump, daughter Ivanka, and other members of Trump's team on how focusing on renewable, clean energy could create millions of jobs.

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/0...-boost-economy

Seriously if someone can convince Trump he can be heralded as the savior of the world by taking on climate change maybe he'll do it.

I'd be fine with Trump's kleptocracy if he did that.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

This is a secretary of state candidate.

That is frightening To see the Republicans fall in love with a Soviet era style dictator like Putin who is openly aggressive militarily to the US is nothing short of incredible.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Had an interesting conversation with some people from Silicon Valley...basically companies there are assuming that immigration reform they are desperately seeking is on hold for 4 years...could be a boon to the Canadian high technology industry if managed well.