Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump To Tech Leaders: 'No Formal Chain Of Command' Here (cnbc.com)

A confab of tech titans had a "productive" meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower on Wednesday, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told CNBC, as Trump moved to mend fences with Silicon Valley before taking office in January. Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and Tesla were among the C-suite executives in attendance, with Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla CEO Elon Musk expected to get private briefings, according to transition staff. From the report: "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said. "There's no one like you in the world. ... anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you. You can call my people, call me -- it makes no difference -- we have no formal chain of command around here." At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council. "They're going to do fair trade deals," Trump said. "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."

488 comments

  1. heck of a choice by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council.

    i mean technically if you overfill a swamp with foetid detritus it will eventually matriculate into neighbourhoods, roads, schools, hospitals, and occasionally even an intended estuary or two. lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:heck of a choice by Merk42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.

      If and when he fails, we can always blame Obama!

    2. Re:heck of a choice by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did GP ever mention Hillary?

    4. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean all the Goldman Sachs executives he is putting in charge? Yeah I guess wall street doesn't have to pay to play. They'll be getting paid to do what they want.

    5. Re:heck of a choice by Merk42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it. Maybe it's just who I hear from.

    6. Re:heck of a choice by Adriax · · Score: 1

      I don't like the idea of trusting geoengineering to a landscaper who's formal training was watching someone else have a lawn mowing job one summer.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    7. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush sucks. There. You happy bro?

    8. Re:heck of a choice by mlw4428 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Government isn't a business. Trump's business "successes" hedged on him not paying contractors, manufacturing overseas, avoiding loan repayments, and bankruptcies. His main company, The Trump Organization, is racked with debt. It has the asset valuation to keep going, but cash on hand doesn't make the payments. As for Trump not being beholden to Wall Street, he's nominating Wall Streeters to his cabinet. He has ties to Russian banks as they were the only ones willing to continue loaning money to him. The fact that you're so blind and stupid about your choice of candidate shows just how fit of a voter you really are. You're the kind of retard who would vote for Bin Laden if he said he'd "drain the mosques".

    9. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he's clearly talking about the CEO of Exxon Mobile.

    10. Re:heck of a choice by fortfive · · Score: 1

      How we got NYC and Boston, for sure.

    11. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.

      If and when he fails, we can always blame Obama!

      Oh yes, everything bad that happens, such as Obamacare imploding once the mandate and other key parts get blown to hell will be blamed on Obama, and if that doesn't work well enough, then Trump is not off the table. He was never a republican anyway. The deficit due to the new tax cuts will be made to sound fine during Trump's admin, but once the recession hits and the next democrat has to clean it up, it will once again have to be all his or her fault. I just don't know if we can come out of this again. The numbers are horrible.

      The problem with blaming Trump is he is a rabid dog and while they may think they have the leash, they may find themselves with rabies regardless, or one less arm.

    12. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      When did GP ever mention Hillary?

      After 30 years of beating the anti-Clinton drum, some people are unwilling to let go now that the Clintons are gone.

    13. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

      You mean all the Goldman Sachs executives he is putting in charge?

      Please list "all of the" Goldman Sachs people that are going to be "in charge" of the country. Do you even understand how the government is structured?

      They'll be getting paid to do what they want.

      Do you understand that we're talking about the executive branch, here, and not somehow running the legislature? And if "getting paid" was what it was about, they'd never take a relatively low paying federal paycheck when they could make tens of times more simply being in the securities banking business in the first place. Anyway, back to your list of "all of the Goldman Sachs executives" that will be in charge. Do go on, please. GS has hundreds of executives. What will they all be doing, instead of working there, now? Some of them will have to settle for things like Deputy Assistant Under-Secretary for Communications at the Department of the Interior, working on farm reports and whatnot. Talk about "in charge!" Or by "all of the" do you mean "a couple of people that Trump trusts who have been working at GS until they agreed to step down to take these gigs?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures

      ...straight into the fucking ground. STRAIGHT INTO IT.

      Why? Because these businesses are not intended to succeed as that term is allegedly measured. They are intended to fail, and transfer wealth to Trump in the process.

      Trump is a con man. It's that simple. He is perhaps the most successful simple con man in American history. He is the poster child for reinstating a massive estate tax.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her venture failed criminally?

      How about his ventures that succeeded criminally? Not paying people for the work they do, completely disregarding contracts, illegally violating fair housing laws?

      Whether Trump paid his own way is debatable on whether you consider the media generous gifts of airtime count as their contribution, or whether he was reaping the dividends on his celebrity status.

    16. Re:heck of a choice by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You left out the billion dollars in property tax breaks he's gotten, putting the tax burden on everyone else (mostly in New York City).

    17. Re:heck of a choice by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures.

      Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.

      and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.

      False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family, never profited from any contributions or otherwise while she was Secretary of State. Nor from their foundation.

      Contrast that with Trump who bragged about siphoning millions from his casinos while they were plunging into bankruptcy:

      "Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me," Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. "The money I took out of there was incredible."

      Further, Trump's "foundation" has been illegally paying his legal bills, his personal bills and buying him things. That is why the New York Attorney General has barred him from soliciting for donations in the entire state of New York.

      You just like the fact that she was completely beholden to her financiers on Wall Street, as opposed to Trump, who paid his own way through to his nomination as a candidate

      False again. Trump received tens of millions from hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms, not to mention his pick to head the Treasury is/was a hedge fund manager AND worked for Goldman Sachs.

      Nor did Trump pay his way through the campaign. He started to do so but then had donations come in from regular people, including illegal foreign donations.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    18. Re:heck of a choice by sh00z · · Score: 2

      People definitely still do it, but mostly to correct the record. When some people complain about reliance on Russia for sending our astronauts to ISS, they tend to blame Obama, forgetting that it was Bush who pulled the plug on the Space Shuttle Program.

    19. Re:heck of a choice by skids · · Score: 1

      Trump has a long track record of ruining hundreds of business ventures.

      FTFY.

      Clinton never stole money from joe sixpack. Trump's MLM schemes have. And the reason he doesn't want to divest is because his debt would have to be reconciled too, and all the places where he's double-dipping into his asset values would be exposed.

    20. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it.

      I blame Bush for the Great Recession that caused me to be out of work for two years (2009-10), underemploy for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. Thanks to Obama, I'm now back to where I was before the Great Recession. Just in time for the overdue recession under Trump. Woo-hoo!

    21. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably just a knee-jerk reaction to everyone who is still blaming Clinton (Bill). It's all Reagan's fault anyway...

    22. Re:heck of a choice by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      Most of the time you see people "blaming Bush" (and other previous administrations) is when others try to blame the Great Recession on Obama, or try to compare this recover to those which followed much smaller and less systemic recessions. If you are going to rate Obama's performance it is necessary to acknowledge he was left with the worst recession since 1929, and its more apt to compare the 2009-2016 recover with 1929-1936. Pointing that out often includes at least some casting of blame on previous administrations.

      There is honestly very little to blame on Bush at this point. The systemic problems we still face either reach back to policies built up over the past 30+ years, or are primarily the result of a changing world (such as working class stagnation). At this point the only two major things I can think of to blame on Bush is the extra stimulus spending necessary because he let things get so bad and the after-effects of the war(s) he started. But even though I have little love for the man, its not very reasonable to blame many of our current problems on Bush anymore.

      I'm sure people will blame Obama for leaving Trump too good of an economy, but overall he will have a hard time credibly blaming any of his problems on Obama. Then again he doesn't hasn't had to worry about his statements being credible for them to be believed so far.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    23. Re: heck of a choice by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.

    24. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did GP ever mention Hillary?

      After 30 years of beating the anti-Clinton drum, some people are unwilling to let go now that the Clintons are gone.

      You SURE about that?

    25. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hillary chooses people from Goldman Sachs for her cabinet
      Crooked Hillary!!!

      Trump chooses people from Goldman Sachs for his cabinet
      They're trustworthy now since they're no longer at Goldman Sachs

    26. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make Golem suck again!

      I wonder how big the next bailout will be.

    27. Re:heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government isn't a business.

      Correct. You win your straw man argument. Congratulations!

      Trump's business "successes" hedged on him not paying contractors

      BS meme, as you know. EVERY business refuses to pay contractors who fail to deliver on time, violate contracts, etc. Meanwhile, Trump's hundreds of businesses pick and choose from thousands of contractors who line up to compete for his business and get paid all the time. You know this, everyone knows this. But your urge to deliberately repeat some fake news says all we need to know about how to process anything else you say.

      manufacturing overseas

      Sure, just like everyone else. That's his entire point! He'd love to pay manufacturers in the US, but those manufacturers have been getting chased out of the US for decades. That's exactly the situation he's been talking about. You know this, everyone knows this. Your urge to pretend you don't understand the context of it says all we need to know about your lack of sincerity on the subject.

      bankruptcies

      Oh no! You can count on one hand the number of times some of his businesses have used bankruptcy protection ... out of his hundreds of ventures. Meanwhile, the vast majority of ALL BUSINESS VENTURES fail. That's the normal outcome for almost all businesses - they fail within a few years, at most, of launching. The ones that don't are the exception. When an organization like his sustains hundreds of ventures with over 90% of them alive and well and meeting payroll and serving customers, that's a better track record than virtually any entrepreneur. So what if some of the businesses struggle, carry debt like most do, or in a few cases out of a hundred, fail. That's what happens - only, it's happened far less under his watch than it does in the broader economy generally.

      As for Trump not being beholden to Wall Street, he's nominating Wall Streeters to his cabinet.

      Right. They work for him. You get that, right? They report to him, as his employees.

      The fact that you're so blind and stupid about your choice of candidate shows just how fit of a voter you really are.

      My choice was between him and Hillary Clinton. One of them was going to win, and one of them was going to be populating the Supreme Court with consequences that would impact all of us for the next several decades. She made it clear that she intended to seat SCOTUS nominees who were going to "reinterpret" the constitution in ways that would allow her to pursue an agenda she knew she could never achieve legislatively. She was boasting about that, and making it clear that she wasn't interested in justices with a long background in that area - but instead she wanted justices who "know what people are going through" (and other nonsensical qualifications that indicate her contempt for the structure and purpose of the constitution's checks and balances).

      We don't even need to get into the fact that she's a serially lying, massively corrupt, criminally negligent incompetent responsible for doing nothing constructive while a senator and for a long series of debacles while Secretary of State. You want "blind and stupid?" Look to the people who wanted her and her husband to regain the executive power they so craved and to which they felt entitled - so they could spend another four or eight years selling access for millions more in cash.

      You're the kind of retard

      Well at least we know you're another classy, tolerant liberal. Your smugness and condescending phony superiority complex is exactly why the Democrats have lost 900 some legislative seats, most governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Please! Keep it up! There's another handful of senate seats up for election in two years - want to lose a bunch of those, too? Just stick with your same hypocritical invective and watch the Republican majority grow even larger. Thanks in advance for that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    28. Re:heck of a choice by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or blaming Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq, when it was Bush who signed the agreement to do so. Point that out, and then they claim Obama should have renegotiated, despite the fact that the Iraqi government wasn't willing to agree on any terms that would have been remotely acceptable.

      Or blaming Obama for the economy/budget deficit, despite the crash that took place under Bush before Obama was even elected. Could he have done more to fix it after he took office? Sure, but he was also facing huge resistance against anything he wanted to do towards that end.

    29. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You SURE about that?

      The electoral college could do the right thing by voting in Clinton as a president. But that's a historical longshot. If it did happen, many Republicans will rejoice that they still have the Clintons to beat up on for another eight years.

    30. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      Bush??? Reagen still comes up from time to time.

    31. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not blame Bill Clinton for removing the regulations that allowed banks to rebundle and sell subprime mortgages to mask losses, because that's what caused you to lose your job and wrecked the economy.

      But you already know that. You don't care, because you are a biased shitbag who doesn't need facts to support a position.

    32. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.

      Why? That wouldn't have been a surprise. The majority of Wall Street campaign donors were 100% backing Clinton. She WAS going to be beholden to her, rather than some flavor of the other way around. So that would not have been news or unexpected, just more Clinton Machine business as usual. Regardless, it would depend on WHO the person was, not the fact they happened to work at GS per se.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominem shows a weak argument. You lose.

    34. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Hillary chooses people from Goldman Sachs for her cabinet
      Crooked Hillary!!!

      Right. Because they'd been shoveling money at her for years. She and her husband are utterly corrupt, and that was one of the vectors from which their personal fortunes so reliably flowed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People definitely still do it, but mostly to correct the record. When some people complain about reliance on Russia for sending our astronauts to ISS, they tend to blame Obama, forgetting that it was Bush who pulled the plug on the Space Shuttle Program.

      Shuttle was finally ended in 2011. After Obama took office, he had plenty of time to reinstate it. At that point, commercial crew was being formalized but governments pull contracts all the time. Look at Trump and the new Air Force One contract with Boeing.

    36. Re:heck of a choice by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.

      The US is a cog. An oversized and important cog no doubt, but it's just one part of the whole.

    37. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm blaming Abraham Lincoln cos if not we could just enslave the world after attacking them instead of wasting money rebuilding for them.

    38. Re:heck of a choice by number6x · · Score: 1

      i mean technically if you overfill a swamp with foetid detritus it will eventually matriculate into neighbourhoods, roads, schools, hospitals, and occasionally even an intended estuary or two. lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.

      Is this 'seep up' economics instead of 'trickle down' economics?

    39. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure it was George Washington who started it.

      Captcha: fuckoff

    40. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in time for the overdue recession under Trump. Woo-hoo!

      Overdue? Were you expecting a recession under Obama? Or will this next recession also be caused by Bush?

    41. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job ignoring the second half, showing the hypocrisy, and the entire point of the post.

    42. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not blame Bill Clinton for removing the regulations that allowed banks to rebundle and sell subprime mortgages to mask losses, because that's what caused you to lose your job and wrecked the economy.
      But you already know that. You don't care, because you are a biased shitbag who doesn't need facts to support a position.

      I do blame him for not vetoing the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act. He should have rejected it. Same with DOTA and more.

      That still leaves Bush in charge of not bringing down the hammer on the fraudsters who even lied during foreclosure proceedings. That happened during his watch. He owns it.

      But you know that, you'd admit it if you weren't a partisan hack.

    43. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Good job ignoring the second half, showing the hypocrisy, and the entire point of the post.

      I didn't ignore the second half. It was a statement of fact. It was the first part that needed a response, because it was the part that appeared to have been meant sarcastically.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    44. Re:heck of a choice by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      Or blaming Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq, when it was Bush who signed the agreement to do so

      This old saw is so tired and discredited you really need to let it go. Bush signed the agreement with an aspirational date. Was it possibly to ambitious? Did it have echos of "Mission Accomplished"? Yes. Nobody ever seriously though that was the drop dead pull out date on either side. Its also supposed to have been at Maliki insistence that a date was specified, probably because he had to save some face with local hardliners who still had anti American sentiment. Nouri al-Maliki was basically ignored by Obama the moment he took office, he was in near constant contact with the Bush admin before that. Obama wanted out of Iraq for political reasons, and he basically sabotaged any effort to negotiate a new status of forces agreement via three years of neglect.

      When the time to leave came Maliki with a now sour relationship with Obama was unwilling to go out on a political limb and agree to shielding our forces from persecution...(Which is the part you always here cited, its not that simple though) he qualified that he was unwilling to do so without going thru parliament. It was not tried. It might have succeeded because the US had lots of leverage to make the case, for doing it, we could for example have threatened to withdraw the aide that was propping the country up! That is negotiation that Obama and his Secretary of state failed to do!

      Its extremely disingenuous to lay the premature withdraw from Iraq at the feet of Bush alone, as well as problems between the time of Obama taking office and the withdrawal during which Obama failed to provide political support. Obama and Hillary Clinton are AT LEAST AS RESPONSIBLE.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    45. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Overdue?

      The economy moves in cycles. The up cycle under Obama is seven years old and the longest since World War II. What goes up must come down eventually.

      http://fortune.com/2015/12/07/why-americas-big-banks-are-predicting-a-recession/

      Were you expecting a recession under Obama?

      Yes. Or the next administration. Depending on when this economic cycle peters out.

      Or will this next recession also be caused by Bush?

      I hate to break the news but Bush has been out of office for nearly eight years. It's time to move on.

    46. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't care, because you are a biased shitbag who doesn't need facts to support a position.

      Who controlled the house and the senate when that bill was passed?

      I certainly wish he hadn't signed it. But, there is plenty of blame to go around. The president can't sign a bill that never makes it to his desk.

    47. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon.

      I blame Alan Greenspan for that one.

    48. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, dude? "Sure, he signed the agreement, but he didn't MEAN it!" This is what passes for critical thinking on the right?

    49. Re:heck of a choice by sh00z · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Shuttle was finally ended in 2011. After Obama took office, he had plenty of time to reinstate it.

      Not without huge costs that the taxpaying public never would have accepted. The facility for building External Tanks had been decommissioned, the one for cleaning SRB parachutes had been repurposed, and NASA had pretty much depleted eBay as a source for obsolete electronics.

    50. Re:heck of a choice by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sir, you are behind the times. If Trump fails, the thing to do is bring up Hillary's emails.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    51. Re: heck of a choice by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your argument is more or less:

      Clinton is beholden to big business, so let's skip the middle man and simply put big business right in the presidency.

      I mean sure yes, she has close ties (find a credible politician who doesn't) but Trumps are closer. She likes big business. He IS big business. See this is the thing that doesn't ring true when Trump voters give reasons for not voting for Hillary: most of the things they complain about are actually worse in Trump's case. I think there are underlying reasons for their choice and most of what you hear is rationalization.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    52. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the Patriot Act, "homeland" this and that, etc happened under Bush the Younger, even though those are the kinds of big-government invasions of privacy that sould have RWNJs reaching for their guns, it's perfectly fine when an R team president does it.

      I'm almost hoping Trump will be as bad as the ctrl-left is saying he will be. I don't think he will, but maybe if he were it might shake some RWNJs enough to come to their senses.

      I can't wait to hear the excuses in four years as to why we still have Obamneycare and the individual and employer mandates. *sigh* One thing I want Trump to do but it'll never happen.

    53. Re: heck of a choice by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why not blame Bill Clinton for removing the regulations that allowed banks to...

      Indeed. I blame Bill for acting like a Republican to de-reg the banks, contributing to the Great Recession. Both parties get spanks for that one. Let's hope they don't do it again, per all the talk of rolling back Dodd-Frank by the new administration.

    54. Re:heck of a choice by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The doublethink is incredible, when Trump is clearly and openly stating that he is about to fuck over the people who voted for him on the promise of bringing jobs home:

      "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."

      Removing trade restrictions means removing the things that protect US workers from having their jobs moved overseas. Asking for ideas will be met with "let's have more H1Bs" and "we need the patent and copyright systems to be even more retarded, and all trade deals would be predicated on the other country matching our rules".

      Expect to see an influx of Russian tech too. The didn't expend resources getting him into office for nothing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    55. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your retorts are terrible. It's almost like you didn't read the critique, and just blindly wrote adoration to your Great Leader.

    56. Re:heck of a choice by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      I don't know why I wasting time on an AC but yes. That is correct and was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It was an aspirational date, it was 'possible' Iraq would be ready to stand on its own by than and if it had been it would have made sense to leave.

      A treaty is contract like any other. They are ALWAYS open to renegotiation when the facts change, and are ALWAYS subject to breach if the costs associated with breach exceed the real and or supposed costs of remaining a party to one party.

      So the choice was have a major political failure to make a status of forces agreement today or move forward and plan to renegotiate as the situation evolves. Bush and Rice chose the latter and were wise to do so!

      Its like during the mortgage crisis. All those people were crying about the moral hazard of walking away if you are underwater. That is total crap. Its an arms length contract that was supposed to provide mutual benefit between you and a bank, its not your mother. Both parties (the bank especially) knew the risks. For anyone so deep underwater that the costs of not being able to secure future credit and the loss of existing equity made more sense than continuing to pay, the RIGHT thing to do was to walk away!

      Same with Iraq, the right thing to do was to tell them. Well you are not ready, and you will give us the status of forces agreement we want or we will withdraw as required, but that does not mean only the troops, it also means all the reconstruction aide, and that we WILL NOT come back and help you if all the enemies that surround here start to move it! Now are we walking or are you giving us a status of forces agreement? That is how that should have been handled.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    57. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was meant to show the double standard.
      It's okay when who I voted for does the same thing, that I'd be critical of the other one doing.

    58. Re:heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Your retorts are terrible. It's almost like you didn't read the critique, and just blindly wrote adoration to your Great Leader.

      And you know how we can tell that you have nothing of substance to say? Because instead of actually addressing anything said, you do the default liberal thing, and go for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Thanks for being a consistent lefty who can only stamp your feet instead of addressing specific points. Keep it up! The whiny snowflake routine lost you hundreds of legislative seats across the country, the national legislature and executive, and the Supreme Court. Because people are tired of the smug phony condescension in place of any actual debate. You're a classic example, so thanks for that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    59. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic cycles are a fact of realty, but governmental activities (regulation, lack thereof, taxes, etc) can exacerbate them. I don't know if Bush could have stopped or minimized the 2008 crash (there were some limited rumblings that his admin was trying to reign in mortgages/backed securities) but getting us embroiled in two near pointless wars and increasing governments spending in the years leading up to it was far from productive.

    60. Re:heck of a choice by Rei · · Score: 1

      Swamps indeed.

      At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council. "They're going to do fair trade deals," Trump said. "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."

      I'm sure THAT's exactly what most Trump voters thought they were getting. "Hi billionaires! Here's my cabinet of billionaires and Goldman Sachs executives. They'll get rid of any pesky obstacles to globalization that you encounter for you."

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    61. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Trump institute, Trump 'university', Trump foundation, etc

      Hillary is hardly worse - I'd say both have been into unethical behavior equally, maybe it's time to help move things forward, really look at the problems, and start cleaning things up a bit.

    62. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It's not a double standard because THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

      Hillary Clinton taking millions of dollars from Wall Street donors is not the same as Trump taking nothing from Wall Street donors. Are you having trouble with this?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    63. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how exactly would that be "doing the right thing"? Please explain yourself on how or why that would be right

    64. Re:heck of a choice by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'd say Bush's foreign policy can be directly linked to a lot of the shit that has gone on over the last six or seven years.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    65. Re:heck of a choice by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem with blaming Trump is that it is becoming clear he's not the next Reagan or Bush, he's the next post-stroke Woodrow Wilson.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    66. Re:heck of a choice by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Russian tech" is just American, European and Asian tech rebranded. And whatever protections you imagine he'll negotiate, it's all irrelevant as automation takes off. In twenty or thirty years there will be a lot of Mexicans, Indians and Chinese wondering where their jobs went.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    67. Re:heck of a choice by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      That's funny...

      I heard Trump's pick to head the US Geological service has suggested renaming San Andreas Fault to Obama's Fault.

    68. Re:heck of a choice by mlw4428 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > BS meme, as you know. EVERY business refuses to pay contractors who fail to deliver on time, violate contracts, etc.

      Hundreds of contractors have come forward. Many have filed lawsuits (which were settled). This isn't standard business practice - you don't just "not pay" and avoid phone calls asking for payment. Trump isn't exactly a stranger to lawsuits either - if the work wasn't done (or done to specification) he'd more than likely sue, not just avoid paying.

      > He'd love to pay manufacturers in the US

      And he could. He chooses to go overseas and manufacture for cheap while trying to pass it off as a high-end "luxury" item. Luxury items are made in Germany, Italy, Japan, America, and other first world nations. They charge outrageous prices because of the name and because of the quality. Fake luxury items, like Trump's, charge outrageous prices for low quality junk. Furthermore most of what Trump does is licensing. He could easily license with a manufacturer in the States - it's not like he's actually opening factories.

      > Right. They work for him. You get that, right? They report to him, as his employees.

      Yes. All those firms he owes millions to...they report to him. Are you dumb enough to actually believe that?

      > Well at least we know you're another classy, tolerant liberal.

      Why do I need to be tolerant? Trump isn't. Why do I have to be classy? Again, Trump isn't. You're OK with that - so suck it up buttercup.

      > Your smugness and condescending phony superiority complex is exactly why the Democrats have lost 900 some legislative seats, most governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.

      Let's be clear...we lost the White House because of a (yet to be finalized) Electoral College vote. In terms of popular votes (ie what "the people" want) we actually won the White House. I'll hand it to you guys for the local and state game. You redistricted the absolute shit out of many states, but so far a couple of those states were sued and found to have illegally gerrymandered their states (like Wisconsin). Otherwise the Republicans had a better state/local game plan, but they had to make one because of the ass kickings the last two POTUS elections. Without redistricting, Republicans would not have won this election. And there was a lot of effort to make voting harder for younger people/minorities (such as Republicans blocking adding early voting booths close to the University of Wisconsin because the citiy clerk thought it wouldn't "favor" the Republicans). So with a mix of a good game strategy and a lot of dirty tricks you won. Golf clap.

      > There's another handful of senate seats up for election in two years - want to lose a bunch of those, too?

      No, but I'm sure we will anyways. Republican gerrymandering will grow more aggressive over the next few years. If you can't win on merit at least you can win by cheating. Golf clap.

    69. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with the mortgage crisis is that predatory practices were used on consumers (not in good faith), in many cases the risk was "underrepresented" (that means lied about) by the banks (subprimes), and as if that wasn't enough, there were even cases where one's mortgage was sold off to another bank without you ever being informed, leading to one bank still collecting mortgage payments and another moving to foreclose your house because you haven't been paying *them*.

      It's not a matter of "we're not your mother", it's a matter of what anyone 'smaller' would be accused of normally for this: Fraud.

      And then AIG took their 'too big to fail' no-strings lump of cash and had a rooftop executive party with it.

    70. Re: heck of a choice by Bartles · · Score: 1

      How many of those influenced US foreign policy?

    71. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have vetoed it like a real Democrat would have. Period. They didn't have a veto-proof majority.

    72. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you don't ask your friend to pay you for helping him get a promotion, that's just being a good friend.

    73. Re: heck of a choice by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

    74. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame King George and his fucking tea tax. We could be Brexiting right now, but no, we had to have a revolution...

    75. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check back in 4 years...

    76. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, Chelsea will run for something in the near future, she has no other marketable skills so might as well ride Bill's coattails into a political career.

    77. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      how exactly would that be "doing the right thing"? Please explain yourself on how or why that would be right

      Trump was never serious about being president, as he never expected to get the nomination. His lack of knowledge of how the government works is appalling. The electoral college should replace him. If they don't, it's going to be a rough four years.

    78. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say lot of words but it your point is still illogical. Trump is extremely unethical. He used charity money as his own personal slush fund. He frauded students with the line I will make you rich. Have you heard that before? The article neglected to point out that his kids, who are running his businesses, were in attendance. Is there a pay to play going here? He appears to be using the presidency to enrich his family. Is this better than Hillary appointing a couple of liberal justices to protect a women`s right to make decisions about her own body? If you don`t like being called an idiot, will sucker do?

    79. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Ah, Chelsea will run for something in the near future, she has no other marketable skills so might as well ride Bill's coattails into a political career.

      Twenty years from now, sure. She'll run against George P. Bush.

    80. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      per all the talk of rolling back Dodd-Frank by the new administration.

      I've met Gramm–Leach, sir, and believe me, Dodd-Frank is no Gramm-Leach!

    81. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a post-truth era, what do you expect? People cling to their hatred as a matter of identity. It's all they have left.

    82. Re:heck of a choice by ranton · · Score: 1

      I'd say Bush's foreign policy can be directly linked to a lot of the shit that has gone on over the last six or seven years.

      I was admittedly only thinking of domestic issues when I wrote my comment. I think that comes from my living in the USA's upper middle class, where those foreign policy blunders have had virtually no negative effect. Affluent people in my country tend not to join the military, and the USA does not have the same level of refugee and terrorist risks that places like Europe and the Middle East do.

      I certainly agree Bush's Iraq invasion set the stage for a large amount of the problems the world is facing right now in the Middle East, but then again you would need to go back centuries to get to the root causes.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    83. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And you know how we can tell that you have nothing of substance to say? Because instead of actually addressing anything said,

      Don't confuse your gish gallop for substantive criticism. The reason I didn't address any of the specific items you wrote was because its a bunch of self-reinforcing bullshit. Interacting with hyper-motivated hyper-partisans like you on your terms is a massive time sink. Guys like you don't win on the issues you win on being willing to waste more time than anyone else is willing to waste engaging with you.

      So go ahead and sit back basking in your "win" of a debate that you flooded with sewage. Its a real feather in your cap!

    84. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Goldman Sachs? a lot.

    85. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So walking away from a job where you make millions and work when/as you see fit and instead taking on a public sector job for a huge loss in income, enormous scrutiny and loss of privacy and security, and agreeing to never again later consult on behalf of foreign banks and other entities - that's a "promotion?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    86. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. You win your straw man argument. Congratulations!

      Republicans have made a lot of hay over running government like a business. Too bad that seems to be enriching themselves and screwing the people, as we've learned from the last five Republican presidents.

      Eisenhower was only a technical Republican, being a lifelong apolitical Military Man who chose his party on a whim. Otherwise it's be unbroken back to Teddy Roosevelt, the last Republican with a conscience.

      BS meme, as you know. EVERY business refuses to pay contractors who fail to deliver on time, violate contracts, etc.

      Truth, as you know Trump denies a job was done properly, and holds back money while lying about his satisfaction. You know this, but you chose to deny it as you can't admit that Trump would take advantage of a child,'s lemonade stand. He'd probably sue them for copyright infringement since he served watered down monkey piss in his restaurant.

      Sure, just like everyone else. That's his entire point! He'd love to pay manufacturers in the US, but those manufacturers have been getting chased out of the US for decades.

      No, you mean running as they eagerly seek lax safety standards, non-existant pollution control, underpaid labor and complicit governments who can tout a factory as success even as the groaning wheels of industry trample more underfoot.

      No wonder Trump embraces that. He'd love to import that here.

      That's exactly the situation he's been talking about. You know this, everyone knows this. Your urge to pretend you don't understand the context of it says all we need to know about your lack of sincerity on the subject.

      That's exactly the situation he refuses to talk about. You know it, everyone knows it. Your urge to deny the reality of it says all we need to know about your lack of integrity on the subject.

      Oh no! You can count on one hand the number of times some of his businesses have used bankruptcy protection ...

      I can count up to infinity on one hand. I have more memory than a goldfish.

      out of his hundreds of ventures. Meanwhile, the vast majority of ALL BUSINESS VENTURES fail. That's the normal outcome for almost all businesses - they fail within a few years, at most, of launching. The ones that don't are the exception. When an organization like his sustains hundreds of ventures with over 90% of them alive and well and meeting payroll and serving customers, that's a better track record than virtually any entrepreneur. So what if some of the businesses struggle, carry debt like most do, or in a few cases out of a hundred, fail. That's what happens - only, it's happened far less under his watch than it does in the broader economy generally.

      Actually, it's happened a lot more under his watch, that's why he has had to keep playing a shell game with his own money and assets, and proclaim his successes and never let anyone see the real books that show his own efforts gave failed. Consistently.

      There's a reason why a market index fund would outperform even his claimed achievements. That those are hollow and empty, concealing a failed enterprise is why he can't let any one look at it.

      Right. They work for him. You get that, right? They report to him, as his employees.

      Nope, he's beholden to them and his Russian masters who are going to try to secretly plow money into his fields so you think they're coming up golden. Then you'll say he's as great as the guy who could crush water from a stone.

      My choice was between him and Hillary Clinton. One of them was going to win, and one of them was going to be populating the Supreme Court with consequences that would impact all of us for the next several decades. She made it clear that she intended to seat SCOTUS nominees who were going to

    87. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Very much agreed, I'm trying to be diplomatic.

    88. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we left was because the Iraqis under no circumstances would allow shielding our troops from prosecution one of the largest groups (Shiite supporters of Sadr) would not even talk to our negotiators. It was always going to collapse after we left. The idea that you can magically give such a illiberal cultural democracy is laughable.

    89. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.

      Not just that. It would have elicited massive public condemnation from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They were already in negotiations to make sure she staffed up with people in line with her progressive campaign promises.

      Who among the republicans is holding Trump accountable to his campaign promises?
      Seems like the closest thing to that is former tea-party congressman Joe Walsh, whom Trump has now blocked on twitter.

    90. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has married and given birth, and fulfilled her destiny as a woman. She doesn't NEED any other marketable skills

    91. Re:heck of a choice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council.

      i mean technically if you overfill a swamp with foetid detritus ...

      Sounds like you're describing a bog - in more ways than one.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    92. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary would have trumped Russia and ensured the world was trumped with it. A-Boom-Tish

    93. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the "Great Recession" was a worldwide phonomenon is because the rest of the world is or was at the time HEAVILY invested in the US Economy. So when it tanked due to lack of responsible regulation, it wasn't just americans that watched their assets turn to dust, it was the entire world.

    94. Re:heck of a choice by arth1 · · Score: 1

      More like Barry Goldwater, I fear.

    95. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what about those little american girl dancers he so prominently display while campaigning? Did they misstep somewhere? Even those llittle girls weren't paid, and last check, were fighting to be paid.

      You don't hear about IBM's many contractors not being paid. You might hear them complaining about the business environment, but that's about it.

    96. Re:heck of a choice by slew · · Score: 1

      Ah, Chelsea will run for something in the near future, she has no other marketable skills so might as well ride Bill's coattails into a political career.

      Twenty years from now, sure. She'll run against George P. Bush.

      Actually, I think there's a better chance she'll be running against Ivanka Trump in 20 years...

    97. Re:heck of a choice by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's funny how liberals want to embrace fascism so much. The problem with Hitler was not that he was a guy that said mean things. The problem with Hitler was that the Weimar Constitution didn't have good safeguards. Now Democrats are doing their best to tear down what controls and safeguards we do have.

      Encouraging the electors to go their own way would be a disaster of Hindenberg proportions.

      Besides, why do you think Republicans would install Hillary? Do you believe in unicorns too?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    98. Re:heck of a choice by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Well, Obama certainly took credit for "ending the war". Maybe he should've tried a little harder to convince the Iraqis that more work was needed, but I doubt he gave it his all, since his attitude at the time seemed to be "job well done", as he trivialized the emerging ISIS as a "JV team".

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    99. Re:heck of a choice by slew · · Score: 2

      Let's be clear...we lost the White House because of a (yet to be finalized) Electoral College vote. In terms of popular votes (ie what "the people" want) we actually won the White House.

      That's a bit of fiction. Hillary received a plurality of votes (~48.0% to ~46.7%). She did not win a majority the popular vote (thanks to Gary Johnson). If we go by the constitution,if no-one wins a majority in the Electoral College, the presidency is decided by the House of Representatives. If we continue down this fictional route, I suspect if the results hinged on the House (where republicans hold a majority), it would be the same result as the Electoral College.

      Face it, unless you redefine "the people want" as plurality of votes, the outcome is basically the same.

    100. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's funny how liberals want to embrace fascism so much.

      Are you blind? The Republicans are embracing Putin.

      Besides, why do you think Republicans would install Hillary?

      Because Trump represents the end of the Republican Party. He's one of the reasons why I left the GOP over a year ago.

    101. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christopher Columbus got us into this mess. That dumbass thought that the world was small enough to make it around to the Indies across the Atlantic, completely ignoring Eratosthenes and following some idiot's map instead...

    102. Re:heck of a choice by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      For the shit he pulled and the messes he made? Yep. We also point out how Obama fixed much of that damage. 81 consecutive months of job growth, for example. Keep leading with your chin, buddy. I can do this all day long.

    103. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I don't think we ever exited the 2008 recession. Unemployment is down only because the labor participation rate is down. Calling the long-term unemployed people "non-participants", so you can lower the unemployment rate of those still left is cooking the books. Artificially lower the rate of inflation to make the GDP swing positive instead of negative. And so on. If we've been in a "recovery" it's been incredibly weak compared to all other recoveries.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    104. Re: heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Julius Fucking Caesar. If he hadn't shown Rome how profitable it could be to expand and conquer the Northern tribes, we'd never had those bastards in England starting up in the first place. Brutus needed to strike earlier...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    105. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't care, because you are a biased shitbag who doesn't need facts to support a position.

      Oh, he's a Trump supporter?

    106. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Trump was never serious about being president, as he never expected to get the nomination.

      You know that - how? He certainly ran hard and pushed hard to win the nomination.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    107. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Bush caused the housing based recession? Clinton was the one who allowed and encouraged minorities to make sub-prime mortgages by changing housing regulations.

      Of course we have to be so fucking politically correct here. We can't blame the minorities who were scamming the banks by taking out sub-prime loans. We can't blame the set of FEDERAL policies meant to encourage and enable such behavior.

      When Well Fargo CEO created an environment that lead to large scale fraud it was his fault. When (Bill) Clinton created an environment that led to fraud and the great recession it should also be his fault.

      Not Bush's fault, not the banks fault, and not even necessarily the fraudster homeowners.

      If this were a Wells Fargo analogy: Wells CEO = Bill Clinton; Unsuspecting Customers = Banks; Fraudster Employees = Sub-prime Borrowers

    108. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Unemployment is down only because the labor participation rate is down

      Let me guess... 92 million Americans are out of work. A number that haven't changed since 2014 or so. Now that Trump will be in office, I expect that number to disappear.

      And so on. If we've been in a "recovery" it's been incredibly weak compared to all other recoveries.

      My late father was a Great Depression baby, having grown up in the 30's and 40's. He thought the Great Recession was the Great Depression II. It took the economy 25 years to recover from the Great Depression. We're entering Year 8 of the Great Recession recovery. I don't expect things to be normal for another decade or two.

    109. Re:heck of a choice by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon.

      Have you never heard of the economic principle that when America sneezes the world catches a cold? America for better or worse is an international monster. It's 1/20th of the world's population in control of the largest GDP in the world (more than all of Europe combined), and double that of China who have an incredible workforce behind them. They have an incredible amount of trade around the world both in production and especially in consumption.

      When the economy of such a beast get's upset the repercussions are felt around the world. It is most definitely possible that if America enters a recession that the rest of the world can follow in an unprovoked way, also don't forget that much of the world didn't actually enter into recession. The map of those who didn't correlate well with those who have trading power over the USA, or have little in the form of financial ties to the USA.

    110. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GFC (Global Financial Crisis as it is known in countries outside of the US) was caused directly by what occurred in the USA. Sure that was a domino effect as all the dependancies got exposed, but the fact the impact was global doesn't change the root cause.

    111. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


        The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession?

      It's very possible. Read up on the housing crisis, and the lack of response from federal officials to do anything about it before it happened, despite many many people warning Federal officials years before it happened. The scale of the problem was massive. Side bets of the housing market were trillions of dollars. You can read about parts of this in this wikipedia article

      That's one of the large triggers of the depth of the recession. Recessions seem to be a part of the cycle of the economy, but the depth of the 2007/8 recession is massive. Yes, I certainly do think that Trillions of dollars exchanging hands, and unpaid debts being created can trigger a worldwide financial meltdown. Especially if it's centered on the worlds largest Economy, the United States.

    112. Re:heck of a choice by nwaack · · Score: 1

      The fact that you're so blind and stupid about your choice of candidate shows just how fit of a voter you really are. You're the kind of retard...

      You're just like every other whiny liberal snowflake I've met who's butthurt that their candidate was SO BAD that she couldn't even beat Donald Trump in an election. People like you are one of the main reasons why she lost. Your holier-than-thou-I-am-right-because-I'm-a-liberal attitude is appalling and the rest of America got so sick of it that now we have Donald freaking Trump as our president.

      Hearing people like you call people who didn't vote for Hillary "retards" makes me happy she lost. Get your head out of your ass and look around for a minute...you might actually learn something instead of just assuming you're right about everything because you've labeled yourself as "progressive."

    113. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    114. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You know that - how?

      From the lame stream media that gave him $2B+ in free coverage.

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/03/28/Ex-Trump-Insider-Donald-Doesn-t-Want-Be-President
      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michael-moore-donald-trump-never-wanted-to-be-president-w434840

      He certainly ran hard and pushed hard to win the nomination.

      All he did was show up, insult everyone and made promises that he can't keep.

    115. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just blame nimbius for bad advice.

    116. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.wsj.com/graphics/elections/2016/million-donors/

      Just because fewer people wanted to back an unpredictable person (corporations generally hate unpredictability; even the GOP didn't like him) doesn't mean they didn't. Actually, I'd have to say the vast majority of the people who COULD donate this much money are left-leaning to begin with. The entire $10+ billion silicon valley CEOs save one pronounced guy is left leaning or definitely left. Reading the charts, it actually makes sense -- republicans are generally the "working class" farmers and mom-and-pop stores that would have to band an entire city to just compare to one of these billionaires.

      Or did you believe the garbage that the hyper-right spewed out? There's a LOT of misinformation because they know truth doesn't convince people -- emotional stories do. That's why they focus on certain stories like Bengazi (despite many others losing people in embassies) and Soros (it gives a face to the hate). I even read posts about how DT and his family represent the working-class because his daughter (at one point) wore a dress from her own fashion line.

      So yeah... It's a double standard; you're just getting your information from the wrong sources. LOL

    117. Re:heck of a choice by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Do they blame Obama? Or do they blame Hillary? Decisions, decisions, decisions.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    118. Re:heck of a choice by StevenMaurer · · Score: 0

      Just in case you're interested, the reason why people won't engage with you is because of your pathological need to lie to "win". You would have done much better to have simply spoken to the "relative evils" between Clinton and Trump in your argument, but that just wasn't possible. Instead, you have to pretend that Trump doesn't have a reputation for stiffing everyone he can get away with, and make up the complete self-invented bullshit that this was only "contractors who fail to deliver on time, violate contracts, etc".

      So while some may be put out by your hero worship of Trump, for the rest of us, it's your obvious need to deny reality, spewing out self-invented bullshit when trying to defend an untenable position, that makes you unworthy for anyone (other than your flock of similar sociopathic goons) to talk to.

    119. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Of course we have to be so fucking politically correct here.

      I've noticed that you gave Wall Street a free pass here. Can't blame the brokerage firms for knowingly creating fraudulent securities. Can't blame the stock analysts for grading every POS security as AAA. Can't blame the banks for advertising liar loans to minorities that they damn well knew couldn't afford them. Never Wall Street's fault for nearly killing the economy in the pursuit of illicit profits.

    120. Re:heck of a choice by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      There is honestly very little to blame on Bush at this point. The systemic problems we still face either reach back to policies built up over the past 30+ years, or are primarily the result of a changing world (such as working class stagnation).

      I'd like to blame not necessarily him, but at least his administration for the "everything is fine, nothing is wrong, and even if something were wrong, the states would take care of it themselves" mentality/ideology that crept in and solidified during his tenure. I'm very much willing to admit that he did not make a lot of things worse (other than foreign policy) with his actions. But I have to insist that he did make things worse with his INaction and unwillingness to admit to the existence of problems.

      Had there been a different president (even a different republican one), I suspect the recession still would have hit, but at least there could have been at least ATTEMPTS to acknowledge and begin to combat the systemic problems.

    121. Re:heck of a choice by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      > You're just like every other whiny liberal snowflake I've met who's butthurt that their candidate was SO BAD that she couldn't even beat Donald Trump in an election. People like you are one of the main reasons why she lost. Your holier-than-thou-I-am-right-because-I'm-a-liberal attitude is appalling and the rest of America got so sick of it that now we have Donald freaking Trump as our president.

      You do know that the number of people who voted for Clinton outmatched Trump by millions, right?

      > Hearing people like you call people who didn't vote for Hillary "retards" makes me happy she lost. Get your head out of your ass and look around for a minute...you might actually learn something instead of just assuming you're right about everything because you've labeled yourself as "progressive."

      You should probably take your own advice and consider that your "win" was nothing more than a Constitutional workaround. The vast majority of people didn't get the candidate that they voted for. The "rest" of America actually liked Hillary better than Trump. Perhaps it's you who needs to get your head out of your retarded ass and understand WHY the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are pissed off. And I'd assume you'd be pissed off because he's quite literally did the total opposite of "draining the swamp" by loading it with more Wall Street cronies than even Hillary would've nominated. It adds evidence that Trump supporters are counter-productive, gullible retards, better off 6 feet under than as voters.

    122. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures

      ...straight into the fucking ground. STRAIGHT INTO IT.

      Why? Because these businesses are not intended to succeed as that term is allegedly measured. They are intended to fail, and transfer wealth to Trump in the process.

      Trump is a con man. It's that simple. He is perhaps the most successful simple con man in American history. He is the poster child for reinstating a massive estate tax.

      Trump, until he illegally profits from the Presidency, was not a poster child for an estate tax. He's "a clown living on credit" broke, that's why he didn't declare his taxes and licensed his name to Trump University, Trump Steaks and other BS. I'm sure he'll be an actual billionaire if he is in office for a couple years, but he sure as hell wasn't on 11/9/2016.

    123. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice how your delusion fits together so nicely.

    124. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shuttle was a boondoggle - it was a nice idea, but a very complex machine that had to taken apart and put back-together again before "re-use". It wasn't the reliable pickup truck for hauling stuff in and out of space that people like think it was. For one it blew up a couple of times, and never brought Hubble back down to be serviced as was planned.

    125. Re:heck of a choice by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      It was an aspirational date,

      "Aspirational" is another word for bullshit.

    126. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #/bin/qotd
      "suck it up buttercup"

    127. Re:heck of a choice by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Economic cycles are a fact of realty

      No, they're a fact of an under-damped controlled system. Regulations are the damping factor in economies, and the years that separate cause and effect are the latency, and it should be obvious to anyone that has studied control systems that we need more derivative feedback. When the economy starts moving, is when it's time to back off the forces that we're using to push it.

    128. Re:heck of a choice by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I expect that number to disappear.

      Well. They might starve to death.

    129. Re:heck of a choice by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      And why fucking not? I mean, dude, Gulf War II and Bush's inattention to economic indicators caused this mess. And I say this as a Republican who (mistakenly in hindsight) voted for him.

    130. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why shouldn't they blame him? His administration is responsible for a huge number of fuckups and mishaps, many of which are directly attributable to Bush's incompetence.

      It's one thing to blame Obama where he isn't at fault; OP was referencing how Republicans blame him for virtually anything, no matter how disconnected from him an event might be.

      Your reference is just pointless because Bush was one of our worst presidents and he did a lot of things wrong. That's factual.

      Are you some kind of fucking moron?

    131. Re:heck of a choice by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      Just fyi - there wasn't an ad hominem in there. The AC said "Your retorts are terrible", which is not a personal attack. AC suggested you didn't read the critique - not a personal attack, and that you wrote blind adoration - not a personal attack.

      Please use terminology correctly.

      Also, none of this was a personal attack. It was a correction.

    132. Re:heck of a choice by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      We can't blame the minorities who were scamming the banks by taking out sub-prime loans.

      That's right. Because it is beholden upon a bank to not undertake a bad loan to a customer. So, when they do, and when they do it knowingly on an enormous scale, we don't blame the "minorities" that take out the bad loans (whatever it is that actually means in this context. I have no idea. Black people? Gays? Poor people?), we blame the banks for getting themselves into an unstable financial position, and taking all their customers down with them.

    133. Re:heck of a choice by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      > She did not win a majority the popular vote

      48 vs 46.7...you're argument includes the other candidates...my argument is admittedly simpler but accurate: Hillary won the most votes (from the popular vote pool, not the electoral college) than any of the other candidates.In that sense she had the "majority".

      > If we continue down this fictional route

      It's a potential route, not a fictional one. A series of events, however unlikely, are plausible. I realize this is pedantic.

    134. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also alot of the banks and gouvernments in other countries where investing in the CDO:s (collateralized debt obligations) that where the cause for the regression in the first place so the rest of the world lost tons of money when these CDO:s went worthless.

    135. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I blame Bush..."

      First off, the housing bubble can be directly tied to Clinton policies that led to the "no income loans".

      As for loosing your job and filing bankruptcy... that is all you pal. No one made you take out credit. No one made you be an employee who is always at risk of loosing their employment. After all, an employee is just a slog who lacks the means of production. So all you are is someone who lacks and takes. Be grateful someone gave you employment and be wise with what you were given.

      Now why the hell are you are the internet during company time? I do not pay you to be on internet chats. I pay you to work. The first lesson was not good enough for you?

    136. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The working class wouldn't be stagnating if their proportion of earnings had scaled along with the CEOs.

    137. Re:heck of a choice by ranton · · Score: 1

      Had there been a different president (even a different republican one), I suspect the recession still would have hit, but at least there could have been at least ATTEMPTS to acknowledge and begin to combat the systemic problems.

      As a point of clarification, Bush is still certainly responsible for many bad things that happened in this country and around the world in the past decade and a half. I was merely referring to those who blame Bush for how the world is right now. Obama and four Congresses have had plenty of time to fix problems or make them worse in the last eight years. Even if Bush is still the root cause of some problems, the same could be said for Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagon, and all the way back to our founding fathers. At some point we need to take responsibility for not fixing what was broken, instead of blaming the person who initially broke it.

      I think that time passed some time over the past few years for Bush, which is why I don't blame him for nearly any of our country's current problems anymore.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    138. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nope. I am not talking about the total number out of work, I am talking about the labor force participation rate. The percentage of working-age people who could work - but are not. It is at a 40 year low. The unemployment rate does not factor participation in, but is based upon people considered actively looking for work versus those who are working.

      It's a shell game. Let's say the rules are that if you qualify for unemployment insurance, and are drawing, then you are unemployed. If you do not qualify for unemployment insurance, and are not working - then you don't count at all. And obviously if you are working, you are working. Here's how it plays out:

      You and are compose 100% of the labor force. We are both working. We have 0% unemployment, and 100% labor force participation rate. I lose my job. We now have 50% unemployment, and 50% labor force participation rate. I cannot find a job before my unemployment runs out; thus I am considered (under current unemployment calculation processes) to be no longer in the labor force. Thus unemployment plummets back to 0% - but the labor force participation rate is still at 50%.

      Cooking who we called "working" and "not working" dramatically changes the unemployment rate. It's how you can have an increasing number of potential workers, and people who want to work but are not, and still have a falling unemployment rate. It's a shell game, designed to push a narrative of "happy days are here again!"

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    139. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem as I understand it is that the banks were prevented from not undertaking loans that otherwise they would have rejected for being bad. I'm not saying that the banks were blameless, far from it (LIBOR anyone?), but it seemed to be a combination of a lot of bad shit among the elites blowing up spectacularly.

    140. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So because those politically opposed to him saying he wasn't serious - he wasn't serious? Got it. The narrative of the opposition is to be believed at all costs.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    141. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Government isn't a business.

      Darn straight! If it was, it would have been out of business decades ago. It's lost money every year since 1957 - six decades ago... Maybe it's time to start thinking a little more like a business and not a charity/graft machine?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    142. Re:heck of a choice by ranton · · Score: 1

      The working class wouldn't be stagnating if their proportion of earnings had scaled along with the CEOs.

      That is certainly not Bush's fault any more than it is the fault of every President for the past 30 years. Labor does not have the same value it did 50 years ago. Recent productivity gains are not the result of a more skilled overall workforce, like it was in the 1950's, they are the result of the investment of capital and a small subset of the population with greatly increased skills. This has caused the wealth of the wealthy and the size of the upper middle class to explode in the past 30 years.

      Every President of the USA in the past few decades bears responsibility for not creating policies to help the working class more (such as increased funding of education / job re-training and overall income redistribution) but none of them caused the problem itself. Progress did.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    143. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In AC's defense, we're just deplorables anyway, so...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    144. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      First off, the housing bubble can be directly tied to Clinton policies that led to the "no income loans".

      If blaming Clinton floats your boat, I don't have a problem with that.

      No one made you take out credit.

      I made payments on my credit cards for 18 months while unemployed until my bankruptcy attorney told me to stop paying. I filed for bankruptcy because I ran out of cash in my savings account. If I have stopped paying my credit cards early on, I could have exited bankruptcy with $8,000 in cash.

      No one made you be an employee who is always at risk of loosing their employment.

      I got laid off from my help desk job because the client told my company that they wanted twice performance for half the cost. Eight years later, the client is still telling whatever help desk company that got the contract to double the performance for half the cost. No one is happy with the help desk at that client. Many of the long time employees that I knew there are long gone.

      So all you are is someone who lacks and takes.

      I was the top three performer in ticket volume with a 98.8% SLA rating in my department. My supervisor had this mistaken belief that by laying off his top performer instead of his bottom five employees he was protecting everyone's jobs. Didn't work out that way. Eventually, he got canned too. Ironically, he let me picked my own day to leave and I picked Friday the 13th, February 2009.

      Now why the hell are you are the internet during company time?

      I'm waiting for a script to finish.

      The first lesson was not good enough for you?

      What lesson would that be?

    145. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because instead of actually addressing anything said, you do the default liberal thing, and go for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem.

      Because you had some insightful things to say earlier, I don't want to sound dismissive, but your comment here is generalizing a political thought group into a group of people who have no brains at all. Just because that person is an idiot does not mean the entire group is worthless. In car analogy form, just because some VWs have false claims does not make every car's claims a lie. Or for my visual learning friends, in pictural form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

      - JCD

    146. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hillary flew on private jets of companies that also donated to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. Getting donations, flying on their jets, all while being Secretary of State. I'd say that is profiting from contributions while she was Secretary of State. Not to mention her husband earning tens of millions of dollars giving speeches and consulting with the very countries that Secretary Clinton was dealing with at the same time.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    147. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So because those politically opposed to him saying he wasn't serious - he wasn't serious?

      I think Trump wanted a gig of Fox News. He got consolation prize instead.

    148. Re:heck of a choice by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that he shouldn't still get some blame for fucking the dog, because he absolutely did. However, after 8 years of not fixing the problems, two of which when the Democrats had majorities in both the House and the Senate and only managed to pass a health care bill that nobody likes... well some of the blame probably needs to be shared at this point.

      And I'm not just talking about sharing with Obama. Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, and McConnell get a slice too. We'll see how Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer do before we hand them a slice of the 6-foot shit sandwich as well.

      I hold all those assholes accountable.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    149. Re:heck of a choice by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's a shell game, designed to push a narrative of "happy days are here again!"

      If that was true, why did the Obama administration waited until December to announced that the unemployment rate dropped from 4.9% to 4.6%?

    150. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      LOL - now that there is funny, I don't care who you are! :)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    151. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because you at least have to wait until enough people drop off the UI rolls to update. While it's a shell game and a lie, they still like to use "real numbers" so they can push the narrative. Do you seriously think that we're at 100% employment, which historically has been any time the unemployment rate is under 5%, meaning everyone who WANTS a job has one, and just those 1 in 20 who are taking a little break between jobs is all that are unemployed? And note that now we count part-time workers as fully employed. So if you were working 40 hours a week last month, but now are working 20 hours - you're still considered fully employed.

      Slick little game, eh?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    152. Re:heck of a choice by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Point taken. It's certainly been long enough at this point that in the vast majority of cases blame can be more readily attributed to ourselves and our currently elected representatives for STILL not fixing ongoing problems.

    153. Re:heck of a choice by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Blame him for what? Recent relation scuffles with Russia? Naw, that was a long time ago.

      But we can certain blame Reagan for the joy and wonder which are HMO's. Because that was his thing.

      We can blame Eisenhower for the car culture with his fancy dancy "interstate" roads. (And hey, the interstate system is great, even if it had a few negative side-effects)

      And we can blame Kennedy and LBJ for continuing to escalate the clusterfuck that was Vietnam. These days Vietnam is an entirely different place. But you bet your ass they remember.

      And in a similar vein we can most certainly blame Bush for the clusterfuck that was the Iraq war. Afghanistan? Eh, I'm not sure there's much to blame him for there. The housing bubble? Probably not on his shoulders either. But Iraq? He and his administration are simply the responsible party to blame. Obama (and Iraq, and the deal Iraq made with Bush) ramped down US involvement in Iraq. We got the fuck out. It was a non-event. YAY! Except the power lead to a power vacuum that lead to ISIS.

      Pissing away a trillion dollars and disrupting an oil-generating region probably didn't help the economy much.

      Jesus christ, are you suggesting no-one study history?

    154. Re:heck of a choice by nwaack · · Score: 1

      You do know that the number of people who voted for Clinton outmatched Trump by millions, right?

      I'm well aware that Clinton won the popular vote. I'm also well aware, as I'm sure you are, that the election is decided by the electoral college. If the popular vote was what counted, then Hillary and Donald would have ran their campaigns very differently and the outcome would've been different. Don't pretend that you don't know that

      You should probably take your own advice and consider that your "win" was nothing more than a Constitutional workaround.

      Not my win. I dislike Trump as much as I do Clinton, so I voted for Johnson. Really fucks up your argument, doesn't it?

      Trump supporters are counter-productive, gullible retards, better off 6 feet under than as voters.

      There you go again using that word. Do you use the n-word in public too because calling someone a retard is just as bad. Just one more "tolerant" liberal who's nothing but a giant hypocrite. It's so funny to watch you Clinton supporters acting like petulant little children and spewing the same hatred that you constantly blast Trump for doing. Like I said, perfect definition of hypocrisy.

    155. Re: heck of a choice by Altrag · · Score: 1

      start cleaning things up a bit

      Lots of people say this, very few have (practical) plans for implementing it. Trouble with "cleaning up" this kind of crap is that it kind of has to start at the top -- and the top is exactly where the people benefiting such behaviors are sitting.

      So in essence, you need to propose a way to convince the people at top to start implementing changes that directly harm their interests. I'm not saying it can't be done, but its going to take more than just saying something needs to be done and hoping it will happen on its own.

      Either that or incite a revolution and just replace all the people at the top. But that's a pretty violent, and usually temporary, solution to the problem.

    156. Re:heck of a choice by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Except government _can't_ think like a business. Its job is to protect its "citizens" (which used to be the people, but apparently is now businesses,) maintain order and defend the country from attacks.

      The government's job is _NOT_ to make money at any cost. If it was, it would just run the presses 24/7. Sure the country would suffer horribly due to the massive inflation but who cares -- more money for the "business!" Literally making money in that case!

      Sure its nice if taxes and tariffs and other government income can fully fund all of its expenditures, but that's not always plausible -- and they can't just cut out unprofitable "departments" in the same way a real business can because those offices and bureaus serve purposes beyond simple income generation.

      Put it this way.. if the government was really wanting to act like a business, they'd just jack up your taxes by 10-20% and then all expenditures would be covered. I mean if you want to think in business terms, your taxes are essentially payment for services rendered and if the price of the service doesn't cover its cost, a "business" will simply increase the price. And its not like you can just take your money to a competing government (at least not for a reasonably large sample of "you.")

    157. Re:heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to start thinking a little more like a business and not a charity/graft machine?

      We've been thinking like a business, which is why you can only have justice if you can afford to purchase it. That's not actually working out too well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    158. Re:heck of a choice by nasch · · Score: 1

      How do you know what skills she has?

    159. Re:heck of a choice by nasch · · Score: 1

      You can take it even further than that. If government were a business, they'd defund almost everything in addition to raising taxes. Law enforcement and courts would still get money, probably the military, and a few other programs here and there, but all entitlements, any kind of social safety net, all regulatory bodies, and all foreign aid would be canned.

    160. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least we know you're another classy, tolerant liberal. Your smugness and condescending phony superiority complex is exactly why the Democrats have lost 900 some legislative seats, most governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.

      Your retorts are terrible. It's almost like you didn't read the critique, and just blindly wrote adoration to your Great Leader.

      And you know how we can tell that you have nothing of substance to say? Because instead of actually addressing anything said, you do the default liberal thing, and go for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem.

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

    161. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government isn't a business

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
      USCC 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C)

      Enough said.

    162. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medicare Part D which was pushed through in the middle of the night to solidify the elderly vote. A free drug giveaway to the tune of $750 billion and hangs like a weight around the budget's neck every year. Once the camel has his nose under the tent...

    163. Re:heck of a choice by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Getting a ride on a private jet vs. Appointing people to whom you owe millions of dollars. Yeah, I'm convinced which one's more corrupt.

      And it's none of your business what her husband, who was a two term President by the way, gets paid as speaking fees. It's not like he just fell of a turnip truck !

    164. Re:heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Trump, until he illegally profits from the Presidency, was not a poster child for an estate tax

      False.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    165. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesssss... Let the butthurt flow!

      Mmmmm more! Yessss!

      So salty... So very salty....

      Keep crying, faggot.

    166. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Check back in 4 years...

      Very much agreed, I'm trying to be diplomatic.

    167. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      How many of those influenced US foreign policy?

      Goldman Sachs? a lot.

    168. Re: heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Keep crying, faggot.

      You'd know if I were crying, because it would look much different. And you'd know if I were a faggot, because I'd pop up on your grindr.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    169. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So which of those cabinet appointees so far loaned Trump millions of dollars? We know that dozens of Wall Street guys GAVE the Clintons millions of dollars, and gave millions more for Hillary's campaign. What about Trump? You made the accusation - where's the proof?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    170. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      >

      Put it this way.. if the government was really wanting to act like a business, they'd just jack up your taxes by 10-20% and then all expenditures would be covered. I mean if you want to think in business terms, your taxes are essentially payment for services rendered and if the price of the service doesn't cover its cost, a "business" will simply increase the price. And its not like you can just take your money to a competing government (at least not for a reasonably large sample of "you.")

      I don't think you understand business. Jack up the costs, and you lose customers. Jack up the tax rates, and we find tax avoidance skyrockets. It's why total tax receipts INCREASED after the capital gains tax rate was cut. Laffer curve and all.

      So how about this: treat Government like a business in terms of costs. Budgets are allowed to increase at a rate commensurate with the cost of doing business (inflation rate) and the number of consumers (population growth). Peg budget increases to no more than inflation + population growth. Makes sense? That would also put the budget growth at about half of what it currently is - and at less than GDP growth (historically). Business would do that - why don't we try it?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    171. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because public defenders don't exist? Neither does the media?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    172. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      start cleaning things up a bit

      Lots of people say this, very few have (practical) plans for implementing it. Trouble with "cleaning up" this kind of crap is that it kind of has to start at the top -- and the top is exactly where the people benefiting such behaviors are sitting.

      I see the problems, I'd agree that attention to "the top" is important, I'd also think all levels need to "clean up" their understandings.

    173. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Check back in 4 years...

      Very much agreed, I'm just trying to be diplomatic.

    174. Re: heck of a choice by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      How many of those influenced US foreign policy?

      Goldman Sachs? then a lot.

    175. Re:heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Public defenders are known to be inferior to retained counsel, and depending on the media for justice is not a reasonable solution for the majority of persons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    176. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone said something critical about Trump! It's not the same thing! It's different and A OK when he does it!!!

    177. Re: heck of a choice by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Someone said something critical about Trump! It's not the same thing! It's different and A OK when he does it!!!

      So, you're still having trouble with the whole "not the same thing" being not the same thing because it's not actually same thing? No wonder you're so angry - you can't actually perceive reality, and are thus just being a low-information, emotionally reactive little angry child-snowflake. There's a lot of that going around.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    178. Re: heck of a choice by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      No. A lot of this is Bush's fault. He set off the debt bomb by launching two major wars and cutting taxes at the same time....and the GOP House has kept it exploding every day since.... And blamed Obama for it, knowing full well it was all their doing..... And people actually voted for these GOP saboteurs. Incredible when you do to think about it. Some things take longer than a day to unfold. I know a lot of people have trouble getting their mind around that. You're just one of many.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    179. Re: heck of a choice by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      No. A lot of this is Bush's fault. He set off the debt bomb by launching two major wars and cutting taxes at the same time....and the GOP House has kept it exploding every day since. Some things take longer than a day to unfold. I know a lot of people have trouble getting their mind around that. You're just one of many.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    180. Re:heck of a choice by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Cool - so the solution is? Public defenders for all?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    181. Re:heck of a choice by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My observations of Obama's first election was that certain people's change of blame from Clinton to Obama took place primarily in December 2008. That means that their left-wing counterparts should be changing blame from Bush to Trump sometime around now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    182. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > She did not win a majority the popular vote
      48 vs 46.7...you're argument includes the other candidates...my argument is admittedly simpler but accurate: Hillary won the most votes (from the popular vote pool, not the electoral college) than any of the other candidates.In that sense she had the "majority".
      > If we continue down this fictional route
      It's a potential route, not a fictional one. A series of events, however unlikely, are plausible. I realize this is pedantic.

      If we are being pedantic (hey you started it), "majority" means more than half, a "plurality" means more than any other candidate. Hillary had a "plurality" of popular votes, not a "majority". The reason many voting systems do not use a plurality winner option (and instead have other run-off options) is that plurality voting is more vulnerable to the spoiler-effect.

      In the future, if you think about it in terms *relative* majority, or *plurality* in the context of a spoiler-effect, then you will see why your argument about "what the people want" is not technically supported by a plurality voting result and is in fact ambiguous.

      FWIW, in UK english they call a plurality a *relative* majority as opposed to an *absolute* majority, however, when you say "majority" w/o a qualifier in UK english, it means *absolute* majority.

    183. Re:heck of a choice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cool - so the solution is? Public defenders for all?

      That might well be the best solution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    184. Re:heck of a choice by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

      Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the idea of "history"?

      • Bush will ALWAYS be the guy who ignored warnings about 9/11, and on whose watch we were attacked.
      • Bush will ALWAYS be the guy who ran the economy into the ground.
      • Bush will ALWAYS be the guy who started a war in Iraq and got more than 5,000 service men and women killed on a lie.

      Those things will never change. So yea, he will always get the blame for them, because that's how history works.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    185. Re:heck of a choice by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.

      The US is a cog. An oversized and important cog no doubt, but it's just one part of the whole.

      I can't say, but here in Australia we had leadership that foresaw the effects of the GFC and acted immediately to reduce it's impacts. The result is we didn't go into recession at all, while the rest of the west did. We rode out the GFC relatively unscathed due to superior economic policy and regulations.
      So yeah, it is entirely possible that some different actions could've resulted in a better outcome for other countries too.

    186. Re: heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, and the Great Recession. That's all... I don't blame Bush for ebola...

    187. Re:heck of a choice by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      i mean technically if you overfill a swamp with foetid detritus it will eventually matriculate into neighbourhoods, roads, schools, hospitals,

      Umm no, it'll turn into coal of a degree of dirtiness directly related to the amount of non-organic matter you tipped into the swamp. If there's an awful lot of marine algae, it may produce oil on the way to becoming coal.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    188. Re:heck of a choice by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      Donated != Gave.
      Paid != Gave, either.

      And when a real estate billionaire from new york appoints bankers by the bulk, I have issues. When he has millions outstanding from deutsche bank, amongst others.

      Also, I really have to understand the logic of the wall street guys in your worldview. "I gave millions of dollars to the losing candidate, whom I was hoping to influence, but since I couldn't do that I decided to join the other side, who absolutely refuses to let me get my way." Please tell me how that's logical? I'm seriously asking here, not trying to get a rise - because I don't get it! I've worked on wall street, and not a single person I know would flip from "let's influence policy behind the scenes while we smoke cigars as fat cats" to "let's selflessly serve the nation's interest by serving under a dude who's been calling us names for a solid year" ...

    189. Re:heck of a choice by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.

      That is how terrible Bush really was.

    190. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goodness, no need to get so SJW and politically correct. We're so sorry your fragile masculinity was shattered by mean words, buttercup.

    191. Re:heck of a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you poor triggered SJW. We're so sorry your precious feewings got hurt! Trump will give you a safe space to hate your neighbors in peace though, and your shattered masculinity will be restored with boner pills like nature intended.

  2. Posit by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    One of the problems tesla faces is not being able to open dealerships across the country. Would it be a good thing is Trump helped that out?

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the problems tesla faces is not being able to open dealerships across the country. Would it be a good thing is Trump helped that out?

      I an a Democrat and voted for Hillary, but to answer your question:

      Yes it would be a good thing because, the way laws are governing dealerships , the car manufacturers distribution channel has a built in middleman that in short artificially inflates the cost of automobiles in general. It is not a monopoly by any measure, because you can always drive down the road to another dealership, but if I wanted to start up a new Chevy dealership, I cannot do it by law because each dealership has it's territory that I would be infringing upon. This is a situation where law trumps fairness and kind of stomps on the little guy/small business in an anti-competitiive way.

      This is why the existing dealerships had a collective shit-fit when Musk floated the idea he wanted to distribute Teslas directly to the consumer. The very idea in the eyes of the car dealership industry as a whole paints them as a canard in much the same way that Napster and then iTunes did with the music industry and it took a business who was already a major player to make it happen (in the case of Apple with iTunes) when it was Napster and Limewire, the collective thought was that the music industry was going to collectively sue the little guy out of existence and they did. This is pretty much the same situation, however Musk does already have the wherewithal to protect his product legally and fight enough to carve a niche out for his product.

      I say this about Trump doing this being a good thing, because it would not have happened under a Clinton administration. If Trump pulls this off, it might change my opinion about him in a positive way for starters.

    2. Re:Posit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One of the problems tesla faces is not being able to open dealerships across the country. Would it be a good thing is Trump helped that out?

      It would, but it's hard to see how he would do that without forcing states to discard their laws requiring dealerships, which really would cost a lot of jobs. Mind you, they're a lot of parasitic, inefficiency-based jobs that most of us would not miss, but they are numerous and would have a significant impact on employment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Posit by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      This would be a bad thing because this sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws. What next? Would Trump then start revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    4. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a state matter, not a federal matter.

    5. Re:Posit by skids · · Score: 1

      revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?

      Legislatively we are already there. The question is whether Sessions is going to tell the federal law enforcement troops to start an enforcement campaign in those states.

    6. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? A national company cannot sell there product without a middleman required by the state. Sounds like a clear interstate commerce issue. Might be one of the few times the commerce clause is used correctly.

    7. Re:Posit by Diss+Champ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would be a bad thing because this sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws. What next? Would Trump then start revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?

      I am come down on the state rights side of issues. Tesla selling cars anywhere but their home state pretty clearly falls under Interstate Commerce though- it's not a corner case of interstate commerce it's right in the center of the sort of thing the Federal Govt was given the power to make rules regarding. The Feds are definately allowed to stomp on attempts by states to restrict interstate commerce.

    8. Re:Posit by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't selling a car in Texas that is built in California considered interstate commerce?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    9. Re:Posit by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      Ack, that should be "I am usually one to come down on the states rights side of issues."

    10. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be a bad thing because this sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws. What next? Would Trump then start revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?

      I would have to agree to disagree. It would, in the case of Tesla being able to market direct to the consumer, good for the environment by introducing electric vehicles, good for the consumer in that it would take out the anti-competitive middleman markup from the Automotive market (in the case of Tesla) and would serve as innovative leadership for the automotive industry as a whole.

      It would be bad for the Auto dealership industry, in that they would be competing with a competitor that would be able to pass along the savings of not having markups and commissioned sales and a million other things that raise the cost of automobiles to the consumer to pay the middleman in the chain of an obsolete automotive distribution channel. I will put it another way, It is very hard for a business to come to terms with the fact that the market and industry may have changed and they are no longer needed or no longer are a viable part of the production to consumer chain. Innovation is like this and that is why it is hard, because people who are dependent on the status quo for their paychecks and livelihood will go kicking and screaming, even if it means they have to do nasty, unfair, anti-competitive and then downright criminal things to maintain their livelihood.

      As for Trump dictating things to states, he would have to know his role, being part of the executive branch of the federal government and work in his sphere of influence, as far as state governments, they are allowed to operate and run their state laws the way they will in the confines of federal law. You are right that there is a conflict there and it manifests in terms of Marijuana laws, where the federal government has it being illegal and some states having legalized it. Obama smoothed that over by saying that he was not going to pursue enforcement of the federal law in states where the state law had legalized it , but if Trump goes against that it is kind of a step backwards in terms of the evidence pointing to the "War on drugs" being a failure and a bad bad money pit that has no end or exit strategy. States versus Federal law conflicts are a pickle though you are correct.. That is how the Civil War got started as a matter of history.

      To answer your post (TLDR) It would be a good thing in the case of Tesla distribution being direct to consumers, because it would stimulate the economy and positively affect the environment and set a precedent for automobiles being cheaper for consumers (IE stimulating the economy... realize coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going, just like George Carlin said, If your neighbor has a vibrator that plays "Oh Come All Ye Faithful" then you want a vibrator that plays "Oh Com All Ye Faithful"! )

    11. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's fair to say democrats hate it when people try to live their lives in ways that they don't personally condone. "Start thinking and doing things the way I say you must!" is their theme.

      Or perhaps we should just step back from the bigoted statements and stop treating this like a team sport that demands that we root for the home team, no matter what they say and do.

      Think for yourself.
      Vote issues, not personalities.
      Stop ascribing bad intent to people who disagree with you.
      Evaluate other positions and more importantly, evaluate your own.
      Change your position if it doesn't match your values or when new information comes to light.

    12. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long term, yes. Short term, no.

      I read a while back that the major reason Tesla can't open car dealerships and run things however they like is that the industry is highly regulated by the states. It's nearly impossible to operate outside of these rules, and they're very firmly entrenched.

      One of the reasons for this is because car dealers are sources of decent-paying jobs, and no state legislator or congressman is going to want to go back to their district and say they were responsible for putting hundreds of people out of work. In a lot of cases, car dealers are one of the only sources of good jobs to be had in a reasonable commuting radius (think small towns, who no longer have farming or manufacturing jobs.) Your choice is literally working as a convenience store clerk making minimum wage or a service advisor making a solid middle class salary for pushing paperwork around.

      It all boils down to the same debate we see over automation and UBI -- are we willing to accept the fact that there are too few jobs for too many people? So far, the answer is no, but we'll see what happens over the next 10 or 20 years.

    13. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ack, that should be "I am usually one to come down on the states rights side of issues."

      It is the same sad situation with New York wine, they are not allowed to sell it out of state, and NY has some damn good wine. Pity really.

    14. Re:Posit by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "....sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws..."

      Unfortunately, that "precedent" has already been solidly established and reaffirmed time and time again. Look up the SCOTUS case of "Wickard v. Filburn"(a farmer can't grow wheat on his own property for his own use without fed interference because it affects the market price of wheat). Or check out "Raich v. Gonzales" (Under the commerce clause, the feds can criminalize marijuana even if it is produced, sold and consumed entirely within the borders of the state of California.)

      The feds have long since subverted the Tenth Amendment and eroded State powers.

    15. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Predsident is not the King. He can't just decide that the states cannot have auto dealership exclusivity. That is up to Congress to pass a law, and for the the Suprreme Court to decide whether it is Constitutional.

      You really don't know how the Federal Government works, do you?

    16. Re: Posit by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Interstate commerce is the purview of the federal government. The state of MI cannot make it against the law for me to buy a car direct from CA.

    17. Re:Posit by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Well, they hate it when people enjoy themselves in way they don't PUBLICALLY admit to doing personally. Mistresses, rent boys, airport bathroom male-on-male trists, etc. are all horrible for the other party or when done openly, but are utterly forgivable for one of your one who merely "made a mistake", "had a wide stance", or other hypocritical explanations.

    18. Re: Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a farmer growing wheat in his own field for his own consumption is "interstate commerce", then selling cars bought from factories in another state, built from parts made all around the world, certainly is also interstate commerce, and subject to having state regulations preventing competition removed.

    19. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all boils down to the same debate we see over automation and UBI -- are we willing to accept the fact that there are too few jobs for too many people? So far, the answer is no, but we'll see what happens over the next 10 or 20 years.

      This should bring up another point: "Has human population reached critical mass.?"

    20. Re:Posit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly not. It's InRAstate commerce.

  3. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you do have a chain of command you dimwit.

    1. Re: Umm by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Not in a room full of civilians. I no more have to listen to the president than I do the janitor.

  4. "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump is going to find out people are not going to "just call the president" because all of those calls get blocked by the switchboard. Trump is going to find out that casual phone calls do not happen as president, his schedule is locked down to the minute. This boiler maker atmosphere that trump seems to enjoy is going to be counter productive in an environment where decisions need to be made and then acted on and revisiting choices wastes time that needs to be used on other decisions coming in the door.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Are you speaking from direct experience, or just as an astute observer?

    2. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misquoted him, trickster.

    3. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      What you're describing is the 'status quo' of the executive office. There's been a lot signs so far that it's going to be quite a bit different organizationally for the next 4 years at least.

      I don't know if that's good or bad, but it is going to be different than what we've seen, from press briefings to who sends what memo.

    4. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? And how about if he tells them to get stuffed - they gonna fire him?

    5. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Trump is going to find out people are not going to "just call the president" because all of those calls get blocked by the switchboard. Trump is going to find out that casual phone calls do not happen as president, his schedule is locked down to the minute. This boiler maker atmosphere that trump seems to enjoy is going to be counter productive in an environment where decisions need to be made and then acted on and revisiting choices wastes time that needs to be used on other decisions coming in the door.

      It'll work out because it won't be him in this position, it'll be Pence. Trump's presidency will largely rise and fall by how much Pence is willing to do for him, and how much Pence covers him - if Pence gets fed up, I have a suspicion Trump won't be able to cope, and he's used to simply walking away when it gets tough and waiting for a better time. Not an option as president - however, if Pence deals with all of this, as I suspect he will because he wants his own chance in 2020, then all Trump has to do is sit in the office and spend his weekends at his Florida resort, and sign the odd paper here and there. Trump could pull off the latter very successfully, he's good at taking credit (and I don't mean that exclusively in a derogatory sense; one of Obama's biggest issues was that for many of his successes, people simply took them for granted after the fact.)

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    6. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can call it astute observation. The Whitehouse switch board is notorious for blocking everyone who isn't scheduled. I don't see Trump ever getting an unscheduled phone call.

      Trump has a history of setting up boiler-maker environments where people have to vie for his favor. It makes for an environment where everyone is attempting to curry favor with him. Trump enjoys it because everyone has to come to him and he can play favorites and pit people against each other. Think of a King, his courtiers and the court. Listen to the stories of the infighting already occurring in his transition team -that is people attempting to vie for favor with Trump.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    7. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      I am in agreement that Pence will be doing a lot of work for Trump and that Trump is used to being able to cash out whenever things get tough.

      I am not in agreement that Trump will be able to shovel it all off on Pence. There are to many factors that would conflict with that: All the big calls have to be made by the president. The army only takes orders from the president. If Trump wants something from Congress he better be the one in the meetings pressuring congress members. And if (when) the press picks up on the fact that Trump is trying to be an actual do nothing president they will rake him over the coals continuously-Think Alec Baldwin dressed as Trump sitting on the beach drinking while the Pence actor is having everything collapse around him.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    8. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't just take credit. That's not him. I read about a business deal Trump part of before the election it goes something like this: Venture wasn't going as planned and someone else came up with a good plan to minimize everyone's loses but Trump rejected it because that idea didn't come from him. It ended up costing Trump far more as a result.

      Way to control Trump is to give him all the information that'll result in one obvious solution. To make Trump think that it was his idea in the first place.

    9. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 0

      > Think of a King, his courtiers and the court.

      So who's going to play the part of Jamie Lannister?

    10. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locked down by whom? He's the President. If he doesn't like his schedule, he can change it.

      Unless you're suggesting the President is a figurehead with no actual control?

    11. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I am describing the status quo of the presidency.

      The boiler maker environment that Trump is setting up is useful when you have time to play favorites and have people publicly curry favor. The person in the center gets lots of attention and feels important because everyone is coming to you. It doesn't get a lot of work done though because everyone is busy scurrying around trying to curry favor instead of - actually getting the work done.

      The whitehouse archives occasionally releases past day schedules of presidents. They are scheduled to the minute and every day covers a dozen different topics, all of which the president has to be briefed on in advance or the president has to do his reading on after dinner (ie after work). Trump has not shown the inclination to do the homework needed to make rapid, informed, decisive decisions when those decisions are needed.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    12. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by guruevi · · Score: 2

      I highly doubt they are going to call the White House public phone numbers. Do you really think the Obama's school teachers have to schedule calls 6m ahead? They still have private numbers and a select group of people has access to them, among them are the rich and famous that a president needs/wants, lobbyists that have donated(bribed) previous offices and campaigns of the party or president.

      I also don't think Trump is going to follow protocol (for good or for bad). The president has at least for the last few decades been a figurehead for the political party they belong to, tightly scheduled and controlled so as to limit their exposure and guide decision making according to the collective political plans, that was clear when 9/11 happened and Bush was in a classroom, he had no clue what to do next because nobody prodded him. It seems that Trump wants to run the country as a business and he takes being the president as being a CEO of the USA with control over what the US is going to do, he's going to quickly realize layers and layers of politicians are going to stop any and all decision making he wants to do until he gets "in line", it happened to Obama (let's close Gitmo, pull out the Middle East and comprehensive health insurance for everyone) and will happen to Trump because the military wants to stay in the Middle East, politicians tough on crime want to keep hellhole prisons and the health industry wants to keep gouging you for medicine and those interests are much more powerful (and deadly) than a single person.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh no... It is guaranteed to be bad, why else would Russia invest so much into hacking DNC, etc. to release their emails "at just the right time(s)" etc.

      Let alone the digital attacks on the election boards... which if you think are secure... than you don't personally know the 50 and 60 year old ladies who work at most board of elections across the country....

      Personally... I hope Trump tries to keep his pace.... because that will slow things down even more... My only hope at this point is that he is so incompetent that he can't even screw up properly and just wastes time.

      Because our government is designed to run basically on auto-pilot if the heads of departments don't interfere. So the longer things take for President Electoral College Trump, the better off the US and the world is.

    14. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by TheSync · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Whitehouse switch board is notorious for blocking everyone who isn't scheduled. I don't see Trump ever getting an unscheduled phone call.

      That's OK, you can always tweet him...

    15. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will work until Pence causes some controversy or something just happens. Trump will blame everything on Pence and Pence quits in some way
      stops being "Co-president" or resigns his office.

      Another "fun" option: Pence runs things as he sees fit and the question becomes: who is in charge?

    16. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      He won't have to take credit: He's the president so by default it is his fault, no matter who he blames.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    17. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Xest · · Score: 1

      Maybe he could get around all that red tape of people not being able to communicate with him directly by say, running a private e-mail server or something?

    18. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they let him flounder and flail about until he submits to them.
      Yesterday is the anniversary of the "Sweet Due Incident" in China.
      That reminds me of how China, the Ottoman Empire and other
      countries just continued because the bureaucrats were running things.

      The White House staff run the office and keep things running, including keeping people who
      Trump doesn't want or need to see from getting access so that he can
      see who he wants and needs to see when necessary.

      I think that Lincoln movie several years ago had as sequence where
      Lincoln wanders the White House and kept meeting people who each
      told him what he must do on whatever issue they were interested in.

    19. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      Effectively the president does not set his own schedule. His scheduler does that.The presidential schedule is one of the most tightly controlled schedules on the planet. And it is scheduled down to the minute months in advance.

      The president's time so important enough that anything that does not involve the president making a decision, getting briefed on making a decision or having a meeting related to legislation is handled by someone else. There is a line out the door of people who want/need to see the president (about decisions and legislation), all of these people need to be scheduled, all of these people are important, their issues are important, cancelling on them had better be for a reason other than "I wanted to skip that meeting". Free time does not exist in a presidential schedule, any unscheduled time is buried in reading briefs, approving position papers and all the other work required for a president. Vacations still have daily briefings and priority work.

      If you aren't ready to work at least 80 hours a week, on a rigidly controlled schedule that is set by someone else, don't be the president of the US.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    20. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute. How many vacations and golf outings has Obama gone on?

    21. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of your argument involves Trump wanting to be lazy. That seems quite in contrast with his prior doings, both in his life and leading up to the election.

    22. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      If not lazy, used to taking short cuts that are not available when you are the president and everything is subject to oversight, review, the press and everyone else out there sharpening a knife in the hopes that he will trip up.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    23. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Informative

      that was clear when 9/11 happened and Bush was in a classroom, he had no clue what to do next because nobody prodded him

      Utter fucking bullshit. Bush did EXACTLY what he should have as a leader. He was told of major catastrophe and responded by asking for more information and by reassuring everyone through stoically continuing his current schedule, which meant finishing reading to the children.

      There was nothing he could do that would have been more presidential! Without more information there was not sane response, other than to let the qualified people under him mind the tactical situations until the information needed to make a strategic move emerged. Ship captains used to dawn a red shirt before boarding because if they got shot or stabbed it would be less obvious to the crew, Bush finished the story (same thing). Once there was information about who was resonsible and what other threats existed he began to act.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    24. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      What you're describing is the 'status quo' of the executive office.

      Yes, and the status quo has evolved to be that way for very good reasons.

      The presidency is a position where you literally do not get to choose what you wear each day. Not because you are incapable of it, but because it's a waste of brain power. The human brain is only capable of making so many decisions a day before it gets decision overload. When you are the president, you need to save your decision-making powers for the important stuff, like whether or not to push the red button. Running the most powerful country in the world entails millions of potential decisions, so the system has evolved to filter out all of the muck at the lower levels. Trump may say there's no chain of command, but I think he will quickly find out* that the chain of command is absolutely essential.

      *and there is of course the very likely chance that he already knows all of this, and is just spouting nonsense to the people who meet with him...

    25. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Moof123 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      While you may be right, I bet that the exact same actions in the exact same situation, but with Obama instead, would results in immediate calls for impeachement. The double standards between how much BS Bush got away with without any repercussions, and the completely overblown fake controversies created to de-legitimize Obama at every turn are a complete disgrace for this country. Several of those outright BS conspiracy theories were heavily driven by Trump no less.

      Maybe with the full might of the CIA/FBI at his beck and call he can finally get to the bottom of that whole birth certificate (eye roll).

    26. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And if (when) the press picks up on the fact that Trump is trying to be an actual do nothing president they will rake him over the coals continuously

      The press has been raking him over the coals continuously for about the past year. Doesn't seem to have damaged him too badly.

    27. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling Pence's tolerance for covering bush is somewhere in the vicinity of

      "Aww... oh yeah. Aw that's nice Mike, mmm... You are seriously good at this my little Veee Peee"
      "*mmmph mnnng bm mmnnn nnnmgggh gggng ngngh"

      Or at least Pence hopes it is. The man's more closeted than my grandma's old fur coats.

    28. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was how GWB operated and we see how that turned out, he relied heavily on his smarter than him advisers.. Cheney and Rumsfeld ran that train wreck. Yes men and people with a narrative and agenda to fulfill are going to create another run away train. Lets hope he cant get it up to steam and we can undo the shit he will introduce.

    29. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by guruevi · · Score: 2

      There is no evidence Russia had anything to do with the hacking of the e-mails, Wikileaks revealed them but they were most likely an internal leak (William Binney, an NSA whistleblower has posited as much publicly).

      Digital attacks on state election boards were done by federal intelligence agencies: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08...

      And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for pretty much everyone, Social Security has been bankrupted, national debt and budgets are way worse than some 3rd world countries, companies are fleeing, there will be a husk left if nothing gets done.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence Russia had anything to do with the hacking of the e-mails

      All US intelligence agencies have claimed persistently during the past few months that there is such evidence.

    31. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am skeptical that one man should be required to make all of those decisions. I'm hoping that The Donald is at least smart enough to delegate most of that to people that are more subject-matter experts than he is.

      Lost in all of the executive bashing around here is the following truth: would you rather have your CEO/president in the office 10 hours a day, 6 days a week investigating everything and questioning decisions the management chain makes, or would you rather have your CEO/president come in for an hour or two a day, set the overall organizational direction, play some golf, promote your company, and make some good deals for you? Personally, I'm in favor of the latter.

    32. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The press has been raking him over the coals continuously for about the past year. Doesn't seem to have damaged him too badly.

      The press have been retelling things he said. Because of that he avoids talking to the press.

      Just you wait until he has to make real decisions, then he will have to face as much criticism as Obama got and I doubt Trump can handle even half of it.

    33. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the presidency is so taxing, then how do they find the time for multi-week vacations, shopping trips, photo-ops, and reading to schoolkids?

      Sounds like some self-aggrandizing BS spewed by the aristocracy. "Oh no dearie, you wouldn't WANT to be rich and powerful. It's truly DREADFUL amounts of work..."

    34. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is used to being able to cash out whenever things get tough.

      And he still can. The president is allowed to resign. It's even happened before.

      All the big calls have to be made by the president.

      A technicality. Pence can make all the decisions and do all the negotiations, and all Trump has to do is sign off on it.

      And if (when) the press picks up on the fact that Trump is trying to be an actual do nothing president they will rake him over the coals continuously

      Because that's different from now... how, exactly? From what I can see, the bastard can't order a cup of coffee without the media finding some way to shit on him for it. I don't think negative media pressure is really a concern of his at this point. Hell, there's a good chance that all the negative coverage during the election actually HELPED him.

    35. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      You don't actually think he MEANT it, do you? He says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, and in the tech world of open offices and continual collaboration and CEOs in cubicles, "no chain of command" sounds good. Except he's the effing President, and he's assigning jobs and choosing meetings, and it's pretty clear who commands.

    36. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ship captains used to dawn a red shirt before boarding

      Only the ones with dusky skins.

      And actually, it was brown trousers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And now the CIA is refusing to back up that claim and witness to congress?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    38. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. If Obama had been sitting in that seat reading to those children and froze like a deer in the headlights the GOP would have been screaming for his head for being a weakling.

      It doesn't take a genius to think that maybe, just maybe he should have apologized to the students, got up and left immediately.

    39. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I have strong doubts that "just calling" the president is the same as just calling your buddy to go out for a beer.

      It sounds to me more like a shorthand to suggest that Trump's open to personal meetings and discussions with specific business leaders rather than shuffling them off and waiting for the next industry gathering or whatever the normal operating procedure is.

    40. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem sure you KNOW what trump is going to do.

      When you havent been right for this entire election... Any day now right?

    41. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for pretty much everyone, Social Security has been bankrupted, national debt and budgets are way worse than some 3rd world countries, companies are fleeing, there will be a husk left if nothing gets done.

      [Citation Needed]

    42. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The press has been responding to what is newsworthy, mostly. Trump says some pretty extreme things in public. But beyond his own efforts to make himself look bad, I do believe there was an anti-Trump bias in the press, and I believe this bias was substantially because of his often-repeated legal threats against members of the press and statements that he would open up libel laws to be more broadly applicable. Personally, I hope he continues the antipathy, it can't do him any favors.

    43. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by mjwx · · Score: 1

      that was clear when 9/11 happened and Bush was in a classroom, he had no clue what to do next because nobody prodded him

      Utter fucking bullshit. Bush did EXACTLY what he should have as a leader. He was told of major catastrophe and responded by asking for more information and by reassuring everyone through stoically continuing his current schedule, which meant finishing reading to the children.

      Please never run for president as you have no idea how to act as one.

      When told of an emergency, any emergency whether buildings are on fire or not what he should have done is said "I'm sorry kids, I've got an important matter to attend to but I promise I'll be back to finish", the stood up and calmly walked out of the room, into his car and done his job.

      Even if Bush had no idea what to do, he should have excused himself and started talking to people who did.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    44. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The Whitehouse switch board is notorious for blocking everyone who isn't scheduled. I don't see Trump ever getting an unscheduled phone call.

      That sounds exactly like any executive environment I've ever seen.

      You will very rarely be able to talk to someone important without a private appointment. They have systems and people expressly designed to ensure that nothing unexpected reaches them. I've worked in public and private sector and seen the same thing from elected leaders to CxO's of mid level companies. I'm sure there will be a public email address for Mike Pence, you can email it but it goes to a series of staffers who will respond with cookie-cutter form letters.

      So it's not just the white house, Try getting to the CEO of BHP Billiton (Andrew McKenzie) without going through several levels of subordinates before getting an appointment.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    45. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes he was notified that there was an emergency, but he really could do nothing more useful at that point because his team did not have enough information. The president is not a researcher or field expert who spends time sorting through volumes of information in order to pick out the most relevant bits he needs to know about. The presidents have teams of experts who are more than capable of doing this. It's obvious that time was needed to let his team get more facts about the situation. Bush leaving his obligation 10 minutes earlier than schedule would have had zero impact about Bush's strategic decision making. Bush made the right decision in that specific instance.

    46. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I dislike Bush and his entire administration, I have to agree here. I could never fault him for finishing up with the kids first (when was he told? Before the second plane hit or after? If before, I don't think anyone realized it was a massive coordinated attack until the second plane hit), and thought it was stupid to attack him for that.
      What he did later, though, is perfectly fair game to criticize.

    47. Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember reading this during this presidential campaign.
      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230

      It's a long, good read. As a non-American, I thought Bush wasn't a good president, but that article made me respect him a little more.

    48. Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is plenty of evidence - "In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and ‘access management’ tradecraft – both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected. Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services." --https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

      Conspiracy theory response in 3....2...1...

  5. Trump's Lumbergh Impression by alphatel · · Score: 2

    Trump said. "If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."

    http://media.coindesk.com/uplo...

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  6. Gonna be windy in NYC today. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of air rushing in to fill the void left behind when all that hot air left the vicinity.

  7. Im here to help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm here to help my children look like they belong among you "captains of industry", while subtly helping myself look like a gracious winner...

  8. H1-bs are here to stay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This hit the business wires last night and from the comments of folks who were actually there, pretty much Trump is going to support them. So, all of you folks who believed Trumps campaign promise that he was going to send all the H1-bs packing, well it's not gonna happen.

    Yet another bait and switch by Trump.

    As for me, Trump is working out to be a pleasant surprise so far.

    1. Re:H1-bs are here to stay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've made tens of thousands of dollars on the stock market. Hard to complain much there. And if he repeals Obamacare and replaces it with a tax credit for insurance premiums, I'll be jumping for joy. I'm starting to think my vote for Hillary was just a stupid thing to do.

    2. Re:H1-bs are here to stay! by skids · · Score: 1

      "That played well before the election. Now? We don't care."

      Besides, he has to ensure the H-2B program is running smoothly as well, so he can staff Mar-A-Lago.

    3. Re:H1-bs are here to stay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with you here! I am VERY pleasantly surprised to say the least. I didn't vote for either major part. What a disappointment that was IMHO.

      I am sure Hillary wouldn't have made some of the choices Trump has, period. We needed someone who thinks like Trump and it's about time. Don't worry... if you think he's going to play King... congress will keep him reigned in.

      I am also realizing the necessity for our government to shrink. A LOT. Many (most?) people didn't seem to mind the big government mentality of Obama, but it was getting crazy controlling. Now we've got Trump and people don't want to have the government in their face. Best argument(s) I've ever heard to get the government out of the way and allow the states to do what they intended to do.

      Sorry for the AC, but frankly I don't want to be "beaten up" by the amazing amount of hate I've witnessed for actually saying that Trump might not be a bad thing for the next four years.

    4. Re:H1-bs are here to stay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've made tens of thousands of dollars on the stock market. Hard to complain much there. And if he repeals Obamacare and replaces it with a tax credit for insurance premiums, I'll be jumping for joy. I'm starting to think my vote for Hillary was just a stupid thing to do.

      I think your voting for Hillary was just an unconscious "thanks Obama" on your part. After all, he fixed the stock market mess of 2008, so you could make your "tens of thousands of dollars on the stock market".

  9. Trump is King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was King Trump and his family getting to know the tech leaders. Tell me why the rest of the Trump royal familty were in the room? He might have said "No formal chain of command." But that was Trump code word for when I say "jump" you say "how high" on the way up.

    The next 4 years, or hopefully just 4 months are going to be very interesting.

  10. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And yet here you are.
    I strongly doubt half of the posters here are pro Trump, one of the shocks has been some prominent usually conservative RWNJ posters lack support for him.

  11. So jealous by tsa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man I'm so jealous at you Americans. Ever since Trump will most probably be president you live in a fairy-tale paradise! Everything will be better! It's amazing! He's the best president in the world.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:So jealous by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's what I don't understand. The expectation with Hillary was that things won't change much in the financial markets, it'll be a low inflation world, and another recession is likely. With Trump winning the election, the stock market took off like a rocket, the feds expect to continue raising interest rates to combat inflation, and the economy is in "happy days are here again" mode. With fools rushing into the stock market, I'm building up a cash reserve for the next crash.

    2. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Echoing the sentiments above... Why can't we just give him a chance?

      He isn't president and still I hear of all the great things he is doing as president... like how he (i.e. Pence) managed to save so many job in Indian (where Trump has no authority but Pence is still Gov.) Or how he as president is making the markets turn around...

      No authority no power, and some how he is doing all of these magical things that he couldn't do when he had the same lack of authority and power before the election... What an epic failure that he didn't make this country great again 16 years ago since he has clearly demonstrated he didn't even need to be president to do it over the past month.

    3. Re:So jealous by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      the stock market took off like a rocket

      The stock market's level and the fortunes of regular folks have rarely been in sync the last few decades.

      As far as recessions, if we look at the usual cycles, a recession is indeed due fairly soon. Due to the debt, there's not enough spare fuel for a strong stimulus such that things could get unpleasant for the new administration.

    4. Re:So jealous by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      To some extent I think you're seeing major industries just mollifying the new guy. They'll employ a few more Americans for a bit, allowing Trump to do his victory dance, and then some time in the next couple of years they'll start reminding Trump, Pence and Congress of who holds the cards.

      I'm also eagerly awaiting the poison pill Supreme Court nominee who will be all "I'm gonna toss Roe v Wade out!" but has some many other flaws that the nominee won't long survive.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:So jealous by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      Oh I so wish I had mod points. You nailed it!!!

    6. Re:So jealous by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If things get a bit too "great", can I trade places with you?

    7. Re:So jealous by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Due to the debt, there's not enough spare fuel for a strong stimulus such that things could get unpleasant for the new administration.

      Existing debt plus baby boomers retiring in en masse is going to limit economic activity for the time being. Trump wants to go full throttle when the feds are pinching the fuel line at the same time. That should be interesting.

    8. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the stock market took off like a rocket

      The stock market took off like a rocket in the 20s, too... right before it crashed and caused the great depression.

    9. Re:So jealous by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The stock market took off like a rocket in the 20s, too... right before it crashed and caused the great depression.

      That was the last time before the 2014 elections that the Republicans had a majority in the House.

    10. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a crash but it won't be because of Trump. It will be because we have an asset bubble just like every other crash in history. All you need is something to cause the crash to precipitate. That has historically always been when a specific asset class can be demonstrably confirmed to be so out of wack in pricing that even the greatest fool no longer believes in the asset class. What is typically not realized is that many other assets are overpriced at the same time.

      This most recently happened with tech companies in the dot-com crash and housing in the last crash. This time it is hard to pinpoint precisely what class will be "blamed" but I suspect it could be anything. Housing is overpriced, tech companies are overpriced, commercial real estate is over priced. Anything with a variable rate loan is going to be destroyed by even small rate increases. A 0.5% increase in interest rates can wipe 10% off of commercial real estate values instantly just on a valuation basis. On a cash flow basis these properties could be deep underwater after as little as a 0.75% increase in rates. The fed just increased rates 0.25% and expects another 0.75% in 2017.

      This will a) massively affect the cash flow to equity out of real estate assets (huge hit to equity owners / equity REITS) b) put a significant number of real estate assets underwater (hit to real estate debt owners and mortage REITS) c) massively affect the ability for any investors to generate a profit from real estate in the near term (inflationary spiral is cut off - if you can't sell you can't buy and if you can't buy someone else can't sell).

    11. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no this is exactly what peak business cycle looks like. mass euphoria. we won't have any precipitous drops in the stock market for the holiday, maybe not even until inauguration. Any exit with 10% of the peak will be a good one.

    12. Re:So jealous by Altrag · · Score: 1

      He didn't have to be the best. He just had to be the runner up for worst.

    13. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The masses are idiots. The valuations of company stocks are not ruled by logic but by the emotions of fund managers and other institutional investors. You should not invest in public company stocks if your plan's goal is to wait for capital growth while you cannot afford to lose every cent of your capital in those stocks.

  12. 64% blame Bush by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it. Maybe it's just who I hear from.

    You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.

    Hardly surprising, given the personal politics of the overwhelming majority of journalists.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re: 64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the rest of the well educated.

    2. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded Troll? Two informative links refuting the previous upmodded point.

      Partisan abuse of the moderation system as a blatant attempt at soft-censorship. Whoever did it is pathetic.

    3. Re:64% blame Bush by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bush inherited a growing economy, enacted a bunch of legislation to remove regulations (a big plank of the GOP) and boom - we have the 2007 recession. Obama comes in inheriting not only 2 wars Bush started (one on false premises he presented) but didn't finish, but a huge unfunded budget obligation (medicare plan d), and the worst economy since the great depression. I'll leave the obvious logical conclusions for you to figure out why Bush Jr is in the running for worst president in history, and why that hasn't softened in the 8 years since he left office.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:64% blame Bush by PackMan97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Bush inherited a growing economy" Fascinating. It's as if the recession that starting in March of 2001, just two months after Bush took office never happened. Glad to see Bush haters are "all-in" on fake news. It's a tribute to Bush that recession was so shallow and quick despite the attacks on 9/11. That said, there is no doubt that part of the response to that recession directly led to the recession that started in Dec 2007, so there is that.

    5. Re:64% blame Bush by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It also cannot be ignored that 2 years into Obama's presidency congress turned red, and rather vocally announced they would put the prevention of any Obama successes ahead of the best interest of the country. Having one whole branch of the government not operating in good faith is a very strong headwind, and despite that we have had very large job growth and historically low unemployment over the last 8 years.

    6. Re:64% blame Bush by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [link] Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans

      I suspect there are few Republican journalists because most journalists are well-educated, and well-educated people are less likely to vote Republican.

      Further, Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else, and journalism doesn't pay very well on average for the amount of education needed for it. Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.

    7. Re:64% blame Bush by dcw3 · · Score: 0

      You mean Bush inherited the end of the internet bubble. Oh, and then you'll probably blame him for 9/11 and the housing bubble.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:64% blame Bush by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I'm just surprised that it took 8 years to replace that branch of government that was not operating in good faith.

    9. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really should go look at the timelines of which regulations imposed/removed, how long it takes those changes to take effect, and how long those rules changes take to filter back to the economy.

      If you look contributors to the most recent recession (you can argue about when it was over, I think it ended early 2014 but many including NBER say late 2009, depends on what numbers you use for the definition because several calculation methods were changed (GDP, employment rate, industrial production, income, etc.)...

      The screeching halt to growth started with bursting of the dot-com bubble and 9/11 attacks, which caused a lot of business and individuals to really put the brakes on spending and investments.

      The subprime mortgage problems all started with the Housing and Community Development act of 1992, which passed pretty easily with both sides supporting it, the lowered the credit standards, combined with the updates to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 that greatly increased the dollar amount of individual loans that were being made available. Both of these took years to snowball into the end problem, because it takes a long to time for banks to adjust lending practices and to get enough people far enough in the hole.

      So all those people who overbought using the money they thought they would get from the dot-com growth were suddenly stagnate and falling behind. I personally blame places like e-trade for making it too easy for the average person, who didn't understand the stock market risks, to dabble with out ever talking to anyone with experience. Not everybody did it but my completely unfounded belief is that enough of those who did that there wasn't enough "extra" money around to absorb the downturn.

      I've said before if I ever go back for a PhD in Econ, I'm going to create an interactive, weighted model of how (I interpret) various policies affected the GDP. The last thing I would do is map the policies to degree of political control of the house, senate and presidency. I think the country benefits the most (fiscally) when House is comfortably held by one party and the other party has the presidency. It means that there is not enough support to ram stupid things all the way through, but there doesn't have to be endless rounds of negotiations/compromises, just one big one to get it through the president. But I'd love to have the time to see if the data proves that out or not. Sadly, my econ knowledge has convinced me that trading my time/money for a Phd in econ is not justified by the market forces.

    10. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Journalism degree? Well educated? Best laugh I've had all week. Thanks!

      You obviously have no idea how tertiary liberal arts education works. Maybe you should get one.

    11. Re:64% blame Bush by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Bush inherited a growing economy, enacted a bunch of legislation to remove regulations (a big plank of the GOP) and boom - we have the 2007 recession

      I'm no fan of Bush, but he inherited the tail end of the dot-com bubble, which was in process of bursting, and a banking industry that had had a lot of regulations removed by the Clinton administration.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Obama was often criticized for being a pre-emptive compromiser, even when he didn't need to be. He would come to the table in the naive belief that if he showed himself to be reasonable, the republicans would be reasonable in return.

      Instead, they stonewalled everything and tried to force the country to default on its debts. Calling them childish would be an insult to children everywhere.

    13. Re: 64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "indoctrinated".

    14. Re:64% blame Bush by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How the hell did this get modded up? Bush inherited a faltering economy. He entered office just after the dot-com bubble burst. His election was in Nov 2000, he entered office Jan 2001, and a President's first budget doesn't kick in until January the following year. During a President's first year, he's actually coasting along on the previous President's budget. So the 2001 recession and 9/11 (2001) actually happened before Bush's first budget went into effect (2002).

      The "removed regulations" that led to the housing crisis and 2007 recession are mostly blamed on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was passed in 1999 and signed by... Bill Clinton. Blame is also cast on HUD lending policies mandating a larger share of loans be for affordable housing, also started under Clinton. And interest rates reduced to historically low levels to combat the sluggish economy after the dot-com bubble bursting, responsibility for which also falls upon Clinton (if you buy into the idea that Presidents are wholly responsible for the economy). You can't even blame Bush for maintaining the low interest rates through 2005. The interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve, whose chairman at the time was Alan Greenspan - a Reagan appointee retained through Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. because everyone though he was doing a great job. It was actually Bush Jr. who replaced him in 2006 with Ben Bernanke (who Obama retained).

      Personally, I don't blame Presidents for bad economies. They only suggest a budget. Congress actually makes it (whether they follow any of the President's suggestions is up to them). And since we don't have a line item veto, the President has a take it or leave it choice when it comes to signing off on the whole thing. So I mostly blame Congress for bad economies, Presidents for bad executive decisions (e.g. the second Iraq war). But if you insist on blaming Presidents for bad economies, responsibility for most of what you listed falls upon Clinton, not Bush.

    15. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and regardless of how you may feel about bush or obama, or even clinton or that other bush for that matter..... one thing is certain.

      in four years, virtually *everybody* will be able to answer 'much worse off now' to the age-old polling question: 'are you better or worse off now than you were four years ago?'

      and we're not just talking about *this* country. the WHOLE WORLD is going to suffer - not just in four years or for four years... but for the generation to follow, while tomorrow's leaders try to fix the hell that will be unleashed in about six weeks.

    16. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is weird. Of all the Silicon Valley megacorps that are now whispering in DT's ear... They're all left save one...

      It's always weird hearing them complain about "big media" when they're the one's that are pro-corporation -- shouldn't THEY be the majority since the left is so anti-corp?

    17. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the housing bubble was caused by the Republican repeal of Glass-Steagall. Bill Clinton unfortunately caved since he lost most of his political capital through the scandals of his Administration.

      There was no recession in 2001 until 9/11 occurred. People referencing March are overstating what happened then. Just because a steep upward climb of GDP leveled out briefly doesn't mean we entered a recession. Far more jobs were being created than being destroyed.

      The Bush Administration cutting taxes and then starting two wars along with the largest expansion of Federal Government since the creation of the DoD put a projected surplus into a shocking deficit. In a politically masterful move Bush negotiated TARP but left Obama to actually execute it so most people attribute the massive deficit these days to Obama's policies. Obama certainly contributed to the deficit in his own ways but he actually managed to expire the Bush tax cuts so we would have a chance to actually pay for the programs we enact.

      As for 9/11 that was all started with Reagan. I have no idea why he is so highly regarded. He straight up attacked the middle class. We can no longer deduct credit card interest now and this weird idea that Employers hire people because of lower taxes so they have more money. Employers only hire more staff because they need more bodies to do more work to make more money. Taxes on the upper end could effect that but we're no where near that. Worst of all those he destabilized Iran and meddled all over the Middle East directly leading to the problems we're having today.

      Of course many Presidents since have not learned their lesson about arming the Middle East and trying to back individual players. So many Presidents since Reagan have contributed to the problems that lead to 9/11.

      It doesn't help when you have Trump talking about blowing up entire families instead of targeting individual terrorists. That is how you create new terrorists. Collateral damage is powerful force for creating new terrorists. People without hope will get desperate and become extremely susceptible to recruitment. Bomb them indiscriminately and they will lose all hope.

    18. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Congress and Obama were equally intransigent. If I remember correctly, Congress' intransigence was in response to the ACA getting hammered through.

      If you were proposing something to a room of 538 people, 250 of whom vociferously objected to it, don't you think you'd sit down with those 250, find out what the objections were, and see if you could find some common ground to move forward? Most rational people would. Guess who didn't?

      The Republican-controlled Congress left a lot to be desired over the past six years, but they only deserve half of the blame.

    19. Re:64% blame Bush by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is why this country needs a radical left. Anarchists and socialists of every stripe, most of them as wrong as the crazies dragging the whole country down to the right for a generation, just in the opposite direction. So that people can see that there's crazy at the fringe in either direction, and find where true moderation is somewhere in between them.

      Kinda like how the existence of the Black Panthers made Martin Luther King, Jr., seem all the more reasonable. The Panthers were wrong, but they were useful, and a really crazy loud radical left would be usefully wrong in a similar way.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    20. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and then you'll probably blame him for 9/11 and the housing bubble.

      Don't mind if I do!

    21. Re: 64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Growing economy" lol. You must have been in kindergarten when he was elected sir.

    22. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we had strong job growth and low unemployment BECAUSE we put a stop to him.

    23. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment [gallup.com]. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.
      True, I certainly DO blame the Bush administration for the great recession and the lingering effects of it.

      I also blame Herbert Hoover for the great depression, which lasted past the first 8 years of Roosevelts presidency, and didn't really fully recover until the onset of WWII. Roosevelt, like Obama did have a recovery during this period, but even after 8 years the economy still wasn't what it was prior the great depression. It took a massive war and massive government spending to fully recover from that.

      You seem to think that 8 years is an eternity where economies suddenly just rebound. That's true of most recessions, but the 2007-2008 recession was unprecedented in its depth. Thus why we call it "The great recession". It's only dwarfed in magnitude by what happened in the 1930s.

    24. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama did sit down with them despite them trying to change the narrative. They gave him nothing to work with.

    25. Re: 64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that 9/11 happened because Bush ALLOWED it to happen by telling the CIA to shut the fuck up already and stop sending him reports titled "osama bin laden plans to strike the US with planes" and other such nonsense

      Trump has doubled down on that and simply won't waste his time with any intelligence briefing so you can expect 9/11 v2.0 and full on martial law -- since we will need that for our "security"

    26. Re:64% blame Bush by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You mean the Grammâ"Leachâ"Bliley Act? Care to check what party those fine gentlemen are from?

      Bubba probably didn't read it. Of course if he'd vetoed it you'd be crying about dictatorship and so forth.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to go back in time just a little bit more to get to the start of the housing market meltdown. Way back into the the 70s, 80s when Wall Street wanted in on the housing market pie, and spent decades carefully pushing, and nudging things towards that goal, and finally when Clinton let them have it all.

      2008 was a long time in the making, and when it was apparent there was a bad storm on the horizon nothing got done about it, no one would listen to those that made noise.

      Now, lets go back into the 30's, similar situation - long story short we have President Roosevelt or Hoover (I forget which), to thank for the 30 year table mortgage with low interest, and set payments - this was created to help people keep their homes because it was predictable, and over a long term with low interest and small(er) payments, prior to this home loans were much shorter terms with crazy things like balloon payments. Its was very system the Government put in place, that Wall Street slowly chipped away at until the fat cats got the cream.

    28. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >This is why this country needs a radical left. Anarchists and socialists of every stripe, most of them as wrong as the crazies dragging the whole country down to the right for a generation, just in the opposite direction.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. At all.

      The fact you got +5 for it just means slashdot's moderators are loopy as fuck.

    29. Re: 64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subprime mortgage problems all started with the Housing and Community Development act of 1992, which passed pretty easily with both sides supporting it, the lowered the credit standards, combined with the updates to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 that greatly increased the dollar amount of individual loans that were being made available. Both of these took years to snowball into the end problem, because it takes a long to time for banks to adjust lending practices and to get enough people far enough in the hole.

      Nope. Didn't happen. Foreclosures among CRA loans were not the problem. Overvalued homes and commercial properties were. Banks also played a variety of tricks with mortgages and foreclosures. They foreclosed on homes they didn't even have title to, and well, the actions of Wells Fargo that have recently been uncovered? Shows they still behave the same way.

    30. Re:64% blame Bush by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I think you probably don't know anything about the history of anarchism. Or probably socialism, for that matter, if (as I suspect) you think socialist = statist and anarchist = capitalist. When in fact anarchism is a form of socialism, and statism and capitalism tend to lead to each other.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    31. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [link] Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans

      I suspect there are few Republican journalists because most journalists are well-educated, and well-educated people are less likely to vote Republican.

      Further, Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else, and journalism doesn't pay very well on average for the amount of education needed for it. Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.

      Conservatives are not hired by the liberal press organizations

    32. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill may have signed the damned thing, but it was REPUBLICANS that came up with it. Read your links and this one too: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

      Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything.

    33. Re: 64% blame Bush by sjames · · Score: 1

      It didn't help that the courts went all weak in the knees when the banks showed up and failed to DEMAND proof of title before allowing foreclosure and then further didn't insist on prosecuting for fraud when it was found they didn't have title.

    34. Re:64% blame Bush by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The housing market meltdown started in the 80s with Republican led removal of various regulations and safeguards that prevented banks from engaging in certain activities. Further action by Republican led congresses over the years removed more and more regulations, including that wonderful one signed by Clinton.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    35. Re:64% blame Bush by sjames · · Score: 1

      Affordable housing loans weren't the problem. Lenders shamelessly talking borrowers into unsustainable large loans on McMansions with built in time bombs and then quickly selling them off like the hot potatoes they were had a lot more to do with it. Outright fraud involving the ratings was a big contributor as well. That and the bankers, unlike everyone else when they were four years old, never learned that no matter how many times you split that pile of canned spinach up, swirl it around the plate, and pile it all up again, it doesn't just go away.

      When that epic flock of chickens came home to roost, the economy laid an egg.

    36. Re:64% blame Bush by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0

      How the hell did this get modded up?

      Because it's a bunch of true statements.

      Bush inherited a faltering economy. He entered office just after the dot-com bubble burst.

      False, the economy was running pretty well, and the bubble really burst either 6 months before the election, or on 9/11, depending upon which event you really link complete and utter ruin of stocks to.

      His election was in Nov 2000, he entered office Jan 2001, and a President's first budget doesn't kick in until January the following year. During a President's first year, he's actually coasting along on the previous President's budget. So the 2001 recession and 9/11 (2001) actually happened before Bush's first budget went into effect (2002).

      That's true, as far as it goes. But much like Trump's statements have caused massive shifts in global tensions before he's even sworn in, Bush's actions in office in 2001 did matter, and did have a direct effect. We'll likely never know for sure how much information Bush really had on Bin Laden prior to 9/11, but it was not "nothing". We do know that they had enough information to know that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

      While I agree that presidents in general aren't the major responsible source for the economy, Bush and the Republicans certainly had actions that significantly affected the economy for the worse. Bush - ignoring Bin Laden intel, ignoring Iraq intel, allowed 9/11 to happen and started 2 wars, 1 on completely false pretenses, which we're still actively running up the debt on. Republican congresses removing regulations that allowed the housing bubble and subsequent 2007 collapse. Bush and the Republicans for the unfunded medicare part D. Why unfunded? How else to cause bankruptcy? Instead we got a massive collapse.

      It's not that the Dems are squeaky clean, because they're not. But at least they disagree so much internally that even when they had a supermajority, they couldn't even agree on a reasonable healthcare law. The Republicans up to this election have not had that problem.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    37. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A growing economy? Son, selling debt (Tbonds) just makes the money to appear to move around faster but doesn't do jack for growing an economy.

      Keep riding that party line bus!

    38. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how is anarchism a form of socialism?

    39. Re:64% blame Bush by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Most a centrist. Besides, there are plenty of right-leaning news outlets such as Fox, Breitbart, WND, and Infowars. Are you implying some kind of mass discrimination conspiracy?

    40. Re:64% blame Bush by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      All anarchists until the recent coinage of the term "anarcho-capitalism" -- which most anarchists consider a contradiction in terms -- considered themselves the libertarian branch of the socialist movement; in fact the term "libertarian" was for the longest time (until the American re-coinage as a new term for what used to be just called "liberal", after "liberal" was repurposed in America to something closer to "state-socialist") short for "libertarian socialist", which is what anarchists called themselves; socialists, but not state socialists like the Marxists.

      They oppose all forms of hierarchy, including capitalist forms of hierarchy (bosses over workers, landlords over tenants, etc), and opposing capitalism makes you socialist.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    41. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I have no doubt that I don't share your political views since your statement defends Obama. However, you are correct.

      I think we can delink the doubling of the debt from recovering from recession and the two unneeded wars though. He should have only needed at most 4 trillion.

    42. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really need more objectivity here. Check out the political chart (Nolan chart) that has two dimensions, authoritarianism versus libertarianism, and liberal versus conservative. The x axis is simply how liberal you are with money (probably willing to go into debt - we haven't really been honest here in our discussions since Republican desire to heavily fund military and wars should put them to the left, as it should be viewed only in how much tax money you want to raise and spend when determining a position on that axis), and the y axis is how much you want government controlling peoples' personal lives.

      Left and right simply isn't good enough for discussion.

    43. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got modded up because people are on a directive to brigade slashdot and other online discussion sites

    44. Re:64% blame Bush by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Until it goes pear-shaped everybody's getting free money for sitting on their arses. White van wankers sending their brats to private school because their house has gone up (on paper) by ten grand. Brokers, advisors and similar shysters picking up their commissions.

      Any politician who tries to stop that will, at the least, be called a rotten meanie.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:64% blame Bush by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You know, I have no doubt that I don't share your political views since your statement defends Obama.

      You might be quite incorrect, as my statement does no such thing. I didn't like Bush Jr much like I don't like Trump. Only someone like Trump could make me cast a vote for Hillary, otherwise I would likely have voted independent.

      However, you are correct.

      I think we can delink the doubling of the debt from recovering from recession and the two unneeded wars though. He should have only needed at most 4 trillion.

      If I had the time, I'd dissect the whole mess, but I don't. However, do recall that congress enacts budgets, and that laws are supposed to start in the house. The last 6 years the house has been under Republican control. The senate has been under complete Republican control the last 2 years. So who has been spending the money?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    46. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately in the real world, we cannot make plans based on fantasy history, so we must discard your revisionism so as to have correct information for the future. Americans really are some of the dumbest people in the world, and willfully so.

    47. Re:64% blame Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, your version of history is highly inconsistent with what actually happened. Thankfully most of us know better than you do, and our children will know what actually happened :)

    48. Re:64% blame Bush by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny, that isn't what he himself said.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      I will not negotiate with Republicans does not equate to coming to the table early and often as you claim.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  13. This is only the beginning... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Except for Twitter getting the boot, the first meeting of The Friends of Putin Club went pretty well.

  14. It's just bluster by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    It sounds good. Makes him seem like an every man. And once again we're talking about something meaningless instead of demanding to know what went on at the meeting.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's just bluster by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It sounds good. Makes him seem like an every man...

      Oh yeah, a billionaire sitting around a table talking to other billionaires while hiring billionaires.

      I feel soooo much more relatable now. I mean hell, he even uses Twitter...

  15. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...

    Well, to the sound bite world we live in, it does sound unreasonable to blame past Presidents for current troubles. Like, why should be blame Lincoln for the getting the US through the Civil War and freeing the slaves? Why do we still blame him after all these years?!

    And blaming FDR for leading us through the Depression - even though many of the programs he got through Congress really didn't work. And he dragged his feet into getting us into WWII. And blaming Truman for dropping the A-Bomb on Japan! We still do that!

    MAybe - just maybe and bear with me - because it's HISTORY.

    And when folks look back on the beginning of the 21st Century, they are going to see that the US went into two horrible wars based on the incompetence of the Bush II Administration. They are going the see the ramifications - like the creation of ISIS. They are going to see a budget shot to shit. They are going to see a financial collapse - that did have it's roots in the Clinton administration but never the less came to frustration with the lax regulatory environment of a Republican controlled government.

    And then we'll see how the next President got stuck with the problems and through brinkmanship and obstruction by the Republicans in Congress for all 8 years of his term, he was barely able to get anything done - but blamed him for it - even though they kept on these ridiculous quests and held the government hostage to get rid of the ACA and defund Planned Parenthood over some video that was a lie.

    And now that they are back in power? They are going to replace the ACA - OK good - but not get rid of it because now it's "their" idea.

    So, I will keep blaming Bush for the stupidity and the utter nonsense we're in - especially the crap in the Middle East. Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence - and frankly, I think it's contributing to our current downfall.

    1. Re:Why not? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do you mean FDR dragged his feet on US involvement in WWII? That was an isolationist Congress. FDR pushed as close to the line, and even a little across the line. He managed to push through Lend-Lease, but it was Pearl Harbor that finally gave him the political capital to get war declared on the Axis.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Why not? by slew · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence

      If you actually think we have ever been on a track for peace in the Middle East, you have simply ignored the last 300 years of history. The last time it was remotely peaceful in the Middle East was back in the times before the decline of the Ottoman Empire which started before the existence of the USA... If you want to "thank" anyone for there never being "peace", you can thank Russia for defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1774...

      In modern times, there was perhaps a moment of false hope during the time of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but as expected Yasser Arafat nixed the whole thing...

    3. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACA really was "their" idea -- and that's the worst part! Republicans thought the ideas were great until Democrats took control, at which point it was all heretical.

      Like a spurned lover who kills his ex, his ex's new lover, and himself in a 3-way murder-suicide, the Republicans decided that if the Democrats were going to go with affordable healthcare, nobody could have it!

      dom

    4. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot, there will never be peace in the middle east either way. Bush didn't change that. 9/11 happened because during the years that Al Quaida was planning the attack, Bill Clinton did nothing to stop or thwart them, leaving Bush holding that steaming pile of crap to deal with.

    5. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back away from the Kool aid, Skippy.

    6. Re:Why not? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And to give you an example of how Roosevelt secretly crossed the line into open hostility, there is the "Undeclared Naval War" that his administration initiated in the summer of 1941, five months before the declaration of war on Germany.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Why not? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There would have NEVER been peace in the middle east regardless of Bush being president or not. You do know there hasn't EVER been peace in the middle east, for thousands of years, right?

      Why would you expect all that history to disappear, when you're clamoring about "because it's HISTORY" only a few sentences earlier?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are going to see a financial collapse - that did have it's roots in the Clinton administration

      Why do people keep saying this? Bill Clinton does not write and pass bills. The only thing he can do is veto them. The Republican-majority Senate and House started and voted to overturn FDR's banking regulation,FDR's regulation worked quite well. The Gramm-Leech-Bailey Act, the actual act which overturned Glass-Steagall, was also veto-proof. Senate voted 90-8 and House voted 362-57.

    9. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there was never peace in the middle east before Bush. Before Washington even.

    10. Re:Why not? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The ACA really was "their" idea

      Two things to note. First, the relevant part of Obamacare had a huge difference between the Republican and Democrat versions. It was a reward to have insurance in the Republican version and a tax penalty to not have insurance in the Democrat version. Aside from the latter being unconstitutional, we have that the cost of the incentives were pushed onto taxpayers.

      Second, Obamacare was over 2000 pages. People forgot that there was a lot more bad law in the thing than just the individual mandate.

    11. Re:Why not? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      What do you mean FDR dragged his feet on US involvement in WWII? That was an isolationist Congress. FDR pushed as close to the line, and even a little across the line. He managed to push through Lend-Lease, but it was Pearl Harbor that finally gave him the political capital to get war declared on the Axis.

      The thing is, we dont just have to deal with fake news but fake history also.

      Many Americans still cling to the false history that puritans were fleeing England due to receiving persecution... The reality was that England of the time tolerated many religions and it was the puritans who were not permitted to persecute others.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Why not? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FDR dragged his feet on war with Japan, his actions trailing rather than leading US sentiment. He wanted to get into the war against Germany, and didn't want Pacific distractions. He had us in all-out naval war from September 1941 on, although we really didn't do well against the U-boats until later in the war.

      What I find interesting here is that FDR didn't ask for a declaration of war against Germany immediately after Pearl Harbor, only after Germany declared war on the US. I'm not sure why he delayed, and I don't know if anyone else knows. FDR normally had his reasons for things and frequently didn't share them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Why not? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The ACA was held to be constitutional. You can disagree with Supreme Court decisions (I do), but they're the ones who make the decisions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Hillary lost the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is the President Elect. Quit crying and get on with your life.

    1. Re:Hillary lost the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's much better when people who didn't vote for the President Elect try to say it doesn't count because he wasn't born in this country.

  17. So I guess H-1B reform is out... by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    All I can say is it'll be very interesting to see what happens over the next 4 years. He's basically signaling to every single corporation out there that favors are available for the right price (see Carrier, Ford, etc.) The first thing tech executives are going to ask for is the removal of limits on the H-1B program. This way they can import the workers themselves and not have to go through the body shops to reduce IT and developer salaries. (I think the program is fine and sometimes necessary, but using it to replace a mid- to late-career $100K DBA or sysadmin with a new, mediocre $50K one who won't complain about mandatory unpaid weekend work is not keeping with the spirit of the law.)

    No matter how much of an egomaniac I became, I would never want this job. Imagine having to keep hundreds of millions of exceedingly diverse people protected, somewhat happy and balance the diplomatic demands from other countries against your own interests. Seeing Trump's picks for advisors, I wonder how this is going to work out. Yes, Clinton "lost" and I accept that, but I am a little upset that we're getting a real estate huckster, surrounding himself with pro-business buddies, who all seem ready to fire-sale the country to the highest bidder. Hopefully the balance of power will keep some of this in check, but with majorities in both houses he's going to have a very long time with little opposition, and a lot can happen.

    The other interesting thing is that he has a lot of very different groups of people who voted him in to satisfy. The religious nuts are going to want abortion bans and fully privatized education, the libertarian/tea party crowd is going to want the government dismantled piece by piece starting with the healthcare law, and all the factory workers are going to want their jobs back. How do you satisfy all of these?

    1. Re:So I guess H-1B reform is out... by Dripdry · · Score: 2

      You don't, because the factory workers were useful rubes. He's a businessman: once someone is used up, you cast them aside.The way most politicians go back on their campaign "promises."

      --
      -
    2. Re:So I guess H-1B reform is out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Clinton "lost" and I accept that, but I am a little upset that we're getting a real estate huckster, surrounding himself with pro-business buddies, who all seem ready to fire-sale the country to the highest bidder.

      It's already an improvement. Clinton was going to sell it to the lowest bidder. We're already gaining!

    3. Re:So I guess H-1B reform is out... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      that's racist.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    4. Re:So I guess H-1B reform is out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handwaving, blame shifting, finger pointing. Republican SOP.

    5. Re:So I guess H-1B reform is out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here I thought the libertarians voted for the libertarian candidate. Do you group all non Clinton voters into Trump supporters?

  18. Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by mi · · Score: 1

    My Latin is rusty, but the sentiment should be clear — the government should stay away from the industry and the markets. Its only legitimate role is to enforce laws and contracts.

    Trying to boost certain industries, while a welcome contrast to the previous Administrations' attempts to sabotage some, is just as suspicious and ultimately unfair.

    Maybe it is Ok for the State department to champion American companies abroad. Hopefully, Trump is not planning to go beyond the above listed activities and will not, as President, repeat the stunt he pulled with Carrier as President-elect.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at history. Every president who has done what you describe are considered one of the worst presidents of this country. One president's name I can't recall at the moment was famous for only using his veto power as needed and do little else. His philosophy was that executive branch was meant to prevent the Congress from making mistakes and staying out of running of the country.

    2. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In a perfect world, perhaps, but any nation government is going to have considerable interest in assuring, for instance, that agricultural output is stable, that energy production is able to support the economy, and that industrial capacity is maintained. A national government can deal with these issues in a number of ways; some governments have tried collectivism, some state ownership, some mixed model, but the US has tended to prefer private ownership with the government taking the "carrot and stick" approach. But one way or the other, the idea that any level of government should stay out of economics is absurd.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by mi · · Score: 1

      In a perfect world, perhaps, but any nation government is going to have considerable interest in assuring, for instance, that agricultural output is stable, that energy production is able to support the economy, and that industrial capacity is maintained.

      The government — indeed, all of us — have interest in this being the case, yes. That assuring this is, somehow, the government's responsibility is highly disputable.

      the US has tended to prefer private ownership with the government taking the "carrot and stick" approach

      You seem to imply, we stick to private property and (mostly) free markets, because they work better. I do not believe, we do. Our reasons are simply human rights — it is my right to sell my labor to whoever wishes to buy it, it is my right to buy labor from (employ) whoever wishes to sell it, it is my right to make and sell products and services. What few exceptions there are, they are regrettable and should be abolished.

      Yes, China or Russia may have adopted Capitalism and the free markets because it is more efficient. But America stuck to them, because we were — or strove to be — a free country, where everything is allowed unless explicitly prohibited as demonstrably injurious to others.

      Our prosperity is due to our freedoms, but even if some other method of running a society proves superior in the future (Technocracy?), we will, hopefully, stick to the liberties and the egalitarianism.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The US already tried a weak federal government with little power to influence, well, anything, and in short order they had to write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution as it stands affords the Federal Government fairly significant potential powers of economic management. As with all things, governing is a balancing act. If assuring industrial and agricultural capacity is of a national interest, then it is clear that the national government has a role in these sectors.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by mi · · Score: 1

      The US already tried a weak federal government with little power to influence, well, anything, and in short order they had to write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution

      That oversimplifies the events a bit, does not it?

      If assuring industrial and agricultural capacity is of a national interest, then it is clear that the national government has a role in these sectors.

      The only acceptable means of achieving those goals is for the government to stick to the enumerated activities: enforcing contracts, fighting crime, protecting against foreign enemies.

      Going beyond that erodes the very freedoms we value even above prosperity.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Timeo the Government et dona ferentes by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't think it oversimplifies at all. The Articles of Confederation created an impotent federal government. The Constitution was created to create a more expansive one.

      As to your national prosperity, that was by and large built by a government that was, even by Jefferson's presidency, going far beyond the purest view you take. The US's greatest growth, and its growth into the pre-eminent superpower, happened under what could best be described as a Lincolnian-Rooseveltian model of expansive executive.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. DOES ANYONE KNOW THEIR MULTIPLICATION TABLES?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation:
    I'm not sure what I'm doing so...feel free to help

  20. No one will "rescue" us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who's going to play the part of Jamie Lannister?

    No one. We're fucked, simple as that.

  21. He is. by DogDude · · Score: 1

    He really is. He said so!

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  22. "...anything we can do..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he is canceling software patents, overlong copyrights, and removing the DMCA?

    1. Re:"...anything we can do..." by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      He didn't rip up the U.S. Constitution. Not yet anyway.

    2. Re:"...anything we can do..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he is canceling software patents, overlong copyrights, and removing the DMCA?

      Don't get too excited, remember, he's talking to the likes of Apple...

  23. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.

  24. Good advice by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said.

    Yeah, I'm sure the the CEOs of Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and Tesla needed to be told to "keep doing what they're doing."

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Good advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Courage!

    2. Re:Good advice by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Its more a situation of reassuring them that they won't be stopped from doing what they're doing, which is probably quite welcome tidings for companies that are highly dependent on foreign (especially Asian) labor for their electronics components given that Trump based much of his campaign around xenophobia, isolationism and terminating trade relationships rather than improving them.

  25. Return the 1920's by Jodka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence, but we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it...But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, probably always will be, some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others.

    --Calvin Coolidge

       

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Return the 1920's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am that someone.
            - Donald Trump

  26. Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by mpercy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trump didn't even make the list.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/org...

    Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $316,977
    Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $218,975
    Bush, Jeb (R) Pres $203,550
    Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $87,600
    Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH) Senate $74,400
    McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $72,800
    Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $64,400
    Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $58,240

    He may be appointing them, but there's nothing showing he's beholden to them. Certainly not anymore than Sec. Clinton might have been.

    1. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He may be appointing them, but there's nothing showing he's beholden to them.

      The fact that he's appointing them for the Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the United States National Economic Council, members of the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee and having his campaign's chief executive officer from that same shop - kinda proves it all on its own.
      If it walks like a puppet, gesticulates like a puppet, talks like a puppet...

      Or you could just look at your own words. The "he's appointing them" part.
      Unless you're coming from a world where it is a custom to fill your team with your "enemies"?
      You know... After months of histrionic public resentment towards them - Br'er Rabbit style.

      Face it buster, USA (followed with the rest of the world) is about to be scammed and skinned for all it's worth.
      Trump-a-dump-dump... straight into the swamp.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by Bartles · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, unfortunately it looks kind of like Obama's cabinet.

    3. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump didn't even make the list.

      Why the fuck would anyone pay Trump to tell them his opinion about anything? GS types look at Trump and think "boorish wannabe".

    4. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're coming from a world where it is a custom to fill your team with your "enemies"?

      A good strategy when you want to control your enemies is to employ them.

    5. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Put another way, he's just handing them the keys to the kingdom for free instead of getting money for it.

      Asking about how much money they gave is missing the point - the concern was never that a candidate takes money, it's that the candidate will then turn around and do what money-givers (i.e. Goldman Sachs in this case) want, putting them in positions of power and influence, etc. If he's going to just give them whatever they want anyway, it's entirely irrelevant whether or not they gave him money for it.

      The money was never the point - it's what we expected to follow the giving of the money that was the concern, and now that's happening even without the money (which should be even more alarming).

    6. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by Altrag · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to be either their enemies nor beholden to them.

      He could just want the same things they want -- big business running the show -- and is appointing them simply because he thinks they're the best people for the jobs given that goal.

    7. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by denzacar · · Score: 1

      He could just want the same things they want -- big business running the show -- and is appointing them simply because he thinks they're the best people for the jobs given that goal.

      That pretty much means he IS beholden to them. Them (and his other appointees and presidential palls) being representatives of big business you are talking about.
      Arguing that it's actually about common ideology (best for the goal) doesn't work in this case. Cause the only ideology these guys have and understand is hoarding money.
      And that's not an ideology - that's just greed.

      It's not about "running the show". It's about profiting from the presidency.
      He doesn't need people for the job - he needs allies to help him plunder the company he took over.

      Bill Clinton's staff removed all the Ws from keyboards before leaving. Obama's staff should count the silverware.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    8. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Put another way, he's just handing them the keys to the kingdom for free instead of getting money for it.

      Nah... Not that kinda presidency.
      It's not a kingdom to be ruled - it's a kingdom to be plundered.

      Trump's a guy who sees nothing wrong in making money from being a president. He thinks a country is a company you take over in order to make profit out of it.
      So, he's hiring people who think the same - cause you need to delegate when you're running a company.
      You can't do the takeover and plunder all on your own.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    9. Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately it looks kind of like Obama's cabinet.

      Sure it does, comrade.

      Because a "foreclosure king" is the same as a guy who worked at various Treasury positions in two administrations, ran IMF and New York Fed. Among other things.
      Or that other guy who also worked for two administrations, held positions of Deputy Secretary of State, budget director and FUCKING Chief of Staff.

      Oh yeah... completely the same as the guy who got some palls together to buy up banks during the financial crisis so they could make a killing later on.
      And a huge part of it through aggressive foreclosures on people's mortgages.
      What a coincidence that he'd be picked to be a Secretary of the Treasury by a slumlord.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  27. Who you calling "friends of Putin"? by mi · · Score: 2

    The Friends of Putin Club

    The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

    Here is, what real friendship looks like

    Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Who you calling "friends of Putin"? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

      You must be smoking crack. According to CNN, The Friends of Putin are winning throughout Europe — and the U.S.

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/europe-handing-putin-a-win/index.html

  28. Government is a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah it is. They are in the business of maximizing tax receipts. That is a balance between a tax rate and economic growth, about a17% rate of taxation. The strange thing is that the Obama paid no attention to maximizing growth rate even though it raises tax receipts. It was that idiotic fairness thing he was into.

  29. Did he really mean 'No Competent Chain Of Command' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This rather illustrates how intent on screwing working class people Trump really is. He's basically saying "Hey big business if you want dodgy deals you no longer have to pay for lobbying you can just buy me out direct and I'll let you do whatever you want for $$$".

  30. Dell by ISoldat53 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shows you how far Dell has fallen when he isn't even invited to the kiddie table.

  31. Sore winner much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was that whiner, comrade?

  32. Just a reminder by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Consequences of laws once meant to help the "little guy". Regulatory capture. Rent seeking. Corporate welfare.

    Those dealership protection laws were put in place to protect the "little guy" from the "big evil corporations". And specifically, to protect dealers with franchise contracts from being put out of business by corporate stores. Even Ford, which is always pulled out as an example of "fairness" whenever "living wage" laws are discussed, was forcing dealers to accept inventory they could not move and other things.

    "As this system evolved, though, those dealers who had made large investments became
    concerned that they would be at the mercy of their affiliated manufacturer, especially with few
    automobile manufacturers to turn to as alternatives. Dealers turned to policymakers about what
    they believed were abusive and coercive practices by manufacturers and the regulation of
    automobile distribution ensued. Over time, all fifty states passed laws regulating the
    relationship between auto manufacturers and dealers." [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/909813/ramirez_-_auto_distribution_workshop_opening_remarks_1-19-16.pdf]

    Now the wheel has turned and the media darling big corporation is--currently (no pun intended)--not perceived as "evil" and should be allowed to bypass laws on the books.

    It's simple enough. Tesla needs to lobby each state to change its laws to allow direct sales (just like the dealers lobbied for the laws 80 years ago). Or Tesla can enter the market like other car makers and use dealers within the existing framework of laws and regulations.

  33. His OTHER responsibility. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    "...we have no formal chain of command around here."

    ...says the Commander in Chief.

    It's times like this that we should consider military experience as a mandatory prerequisite to holding this position.

    Trump has done absolutely nothing to recognize the fact that he will be responsible for wielding a military sword to go along with that corporate pen of his.

    Perhaps if he pulled his head out of his biznass long enough, he would realize that.

    1. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's times like this that we should consider military experience as a mandatory prerequisite to holding this position.

      Trump has done absolutely nothing to recognize the fact that he will be responsible for wielding a military sword to go along with that corporate pen of his.

      Perhaps if he pulled his head out of his biznass long enough, he would realize that.

      Being in charge of the military is but one of the president's responsibilities. The civil service is larger than the military - perhaps we should require the president to have been a civil service employee? The president also responsible for diplomacy and treaties - perhaps we should require diplomatic experience?

      Or perhaps we should pick presidents who are good at selecting and listening to knowledgeable advisers. It's harder, but far more important than their personal experience.

    2. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Military service should be a requirement for any government job.

    3. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Service guarantees citizenship!

    4. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BHO had no military experience. Nor experience running a large enterprise. DJT knows how to make a buck and save a buck--and when he's getting ripped off.

      POTUS is a civilian position. Having POTUS be a military leader does have the potential for troops to support the person and not the position.

      How about an argument such as: If you collect money from the government, either by employment, retirement, or welfare, you are disqualified to vote.

    5. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good to me.

      Dems don't have military experience. (guns are scary!)
      They send other peoples kids to die in wars. Never their own.

    6. Re:His OTHER responsibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...we have no formal chain of command around here."

      ...says the Commander in Chief.

      It's times like this that we should consider military experience as a mandatory prerequisite to holding this position.

      Trump has done absolutely nothing to recognize the fact that he will be responsible for wielding a military sword to go along with that corporate pen of his.

      Perhaps if he pulled his head out of his biznass long enough, he would realize that.

      I'd just as rather he never realize he has that sword. I can't imagine him wielding it sensibly.

  34. Pres. Obama said his election would save the world by mpercy · · Score: 1

    "I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals."

  35. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lol? He mentioned me in his comment and I responded. I also own the place, not an employee.

  36. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.

    The choice of quote is meant to reflect negatively on Trump. Had Clinton said any of that, a different quote (or none at all) would have been used.

    If you paid attention to CNN over the last year you'll notice that every time they had a picture of Donald Trump it was a raw photo of him - usually taken candidly - that made him look angry or even like he was yelling. Pictures of Clinton were normally either posed or taken when she was relaxed and smiling, and they were heavily photoshopped to make her look literally 20 years younger.

    Now, CNN just posted pictures of each of them, right?

  37. Give the guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give the guy a chance.
    Maybe he will surprise America and the world.

    Just keep an open mind about it. At least he is reaching out and trying to understand things

    1. Re:Give the guy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, he's already surprising the Chinese, who are becoming deeply concerned that the detente that has ruled Sino-American affairs for over forty years is being thrown out the window. Not that I'm necessarily against giving China a few well-earned kicks in the nuts, and really, Obama had already started doing that with frequent sail-bys and fly-overs by the US Navy of that artificial island in the South China Sea. One could almost see Trump's phone call to the Taiwanese president as merely a more overt display of support for Taiwan, because, after all, even though the US normalized relations with the PRC in the 1970s, it has consistently worked to assure Taiwain's defense, to the point where the island of Formosa is one of the most heavily defended chunks of earth that has ever existed.

      It's so hard to tell where Trump will go, but I have a feeling he'll work for a few quick wins, and then the reality of the office and the weight of decades of US foreign policy will drag him inevitably on the same course as his predecessors. He has to support Israel, so that's going to mean working within the power dynamics of the region, so no big innovations there. About the most I see in that regard is no more interventions, but we'll see, everyone assumed the same of Obama, and then the Arab Spring came along. The biggest foreign policy innovation, IF IT HOLDS, is thawing of relations with Russia, but here Trump has a serious problem in that he has a Congress that is clearly unconvinced that there is a new relationship to be had, or if there is, that it is worth pursuing. There seems a lot of bipartisan support for Congressional investigations of Russian influence on the US election, which tells you that Senate Republicans aren't just going to be Trump's lapdogs, and they're not going to shy away from making determinations that might prove embarrassing for him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Give the guy by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure. Trump has been considering what he would do in the white house for a very long and now he is there for real. He is surrounding himself with some very seasoned and capable professionals who have little fear of saying "No" to pretty much anyone. These are not a bunch of 30-something Ivy League grads and think tank wonks. Donald himself is a tireless worker and doesn't seem to have much interest in either golf or surrounding himself with mindless or conniving sycophants. Much remains to be seen.

      --
      **>>BELCH
    3. Re:Give the guy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      His "inner" inner circle is his family and the likes of Bannon, so while they aren't sycophants, they're hardly the kind of people who are likely to take a tact that opposed to Trump's. A lot of it depends on whether you espouse the theory that Trump is going to be a "president" (in other words, Pence and his cabinet will do a lot of the heavy lifting, much as how GWB's administration functioned) or a "President", as in a more "imperialist" notion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  38. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Clinton was President-Elect, and had said this, we would cover it.

  39. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 0

    >>I also own the place, not an employee.

    Congrats? Not sure why that makes a difference other than you should really know better then. I stand by my comment.

  40. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a prudent comment and well-thought out. I was going to say "hear! hear!" but noticed that a "mod" has stepped in to ad hominem you so I guess we have our answer.

    Any other ideas for sites that discuss technology instead of partisan politics?

  41. Well-educated journalists by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

    most journalists are well-educated

    Citation needed. Desperately... Have they become better educated, on average, than they were 10 years ago? You did read the article I linked to, right? It says the percentage of Republicans in the profession declined over the decades — has there been an increase in education quality among journalists during the same period?

    Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else

    Can I ask for a citation again? Or should I accept the fact, that New York, Chicago, LA, and the Silicon Valley are such Republican strongholds, as evidence for your assertion?

    Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.

    Point was — and remains — journalists are, overwhelmingly, Illiberal. Whatever the reason for it, the fact explains their bias in coverage in general and assigning blame in particular.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Well-educated journalists by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Point was - and remains - journalists are, overwhelmingly, Illiberal.

      That's not what your referenced article says. You read it wrong.

      the percentage of Republicans in the profession declined over the decades

      That's partly because Republicans are growing increasingly anti-subject-expert, and that's against the very idea of universities, specialists, and science. Prayer and "common sense folks-logic" is their new guiding star.

      Republicans changed.

      Or should I accept the fact, that New York, Chicago, LA, and the Silicon Valley

      The fact that some progressives care about money doesn't contradict my point. Learn set theory.

    2. Re:Well-educated journalists by mi · · Score: 1

      The fact that some progressives care about money doesn't contradict my point.

      The "point", which you stated, but would not substantiate with any citations — despite my request...

      You seem to consider yourself entitled to your own facts and I have no interest in discussions with such people. Psychiatry always seemed a depressing subject to me.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Well-educated journalists by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There are no definitive studies either way. We cannot kill them and dissect their neurons to find out exactly why they do what they do, so we have to rely on indirect information and speculation.

      I do see a general trend with conservatism that is anti-subject-expert. Do you disagree with this observation?

  42. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I have to agree with Whipslash.

    The most visible metric for Slashdot's readership is the "number of comments per story". That certainly doesn't appear to be decreasing. However, I will say that the quality of comments has been slowly decreasing for many years. Don't blame the ACs for that, though - nobody should get a +2 starting bonus for their posts, however good their karma is. Cap the bonus at +1 and let them earn their upmods. Give out a few extra mod points to balance the system out if you have to.

  43. no formal chain of command? by gordona · · Score: 1

    He will be (gasp) commander in chief. The buck stops with him! Who is in charge? Methinks his children are the brains of the operation and he is just tagging along with his mouth and twitter account. scary shit.

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:no formal chain of command? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The sad fact is that his children actually seem to be reasonably intelligent individuals. Honestly, I'd rather have Pence and Trump's children running the show than Trump, and I expect that's how it's always been. Trump is a brand name, its his inner circle that actually runs the business. He's one big photo op.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  44. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    So Taco and the other editors never used to respond to comments? Oh wait, yes they did.

    The "demise of Slashdot" has been declared and/or predicted thousands of times in the comments, and yet here we all are.

  45. Trade by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."

    I thought he was against free trade. It was one of the defining features of his campaign, that he was going to back out of every trade deal going.

    This is what I find so alarming.It's the sheer unpredictability of the guy. He's so scatterbrained that he can't even remember what was said a few minutes ago, to say nothing of months ago.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Trade by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between us being forced into trades that import goods and export labour vs. trades that are exporting goods and import labour.

      Unless you want NAFTA/TPP and the associated global copyright police to continue proliferating. Those are bad examples, they force Western labor into a marketplace they cannot compete with (namely the cheap, unregulated Asian work/slave forces).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Trade by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I thought he was against free trade.

      Indeed he was, but that was yesterday and today he's against it. I mean, geeez, can't a guy go back on his campaign promises and positions whenever he wants?

      Just wait until tomorrow and he'll be for it again, or undecided, or whatever the voices in his head tell him to say.

      He's probably typing "what is free trade???" into the Google right now.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so are most the people who voted for him

    4. Re:Trade by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Can we start praising Trump for hypocrisy and going back on his word rather than criticizing him? Because I sure as hell don't want to see the America Trump was describing before the election.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. From the summary, here it is again:

      "They're going to do fair trade deals," Trump said.

      The key distinction here is "fair" versus "free." Nobody believes any nation can operate without trade deals; the critical questions revolve around how those deals are constructed. -PCP

  46. Stop thinking about it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    That's not how this is suppose to work.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  47. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 2

    I was pointing out some facts. Carry on.

  48. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Ad hominem? I just clarified a few facts.

  49. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised someone of your stature is so insecure that he has to ad hominem critics and delete comments.

  50. Re:Pres. Obama said his election would save the wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Bogarted that blunt big time.

  51. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 2

    Can you point out where I ad hominem attacked someone? Also I didn't delete any comments.

  52. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by deadwill69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep up the good work!

    As someone whose been around as a lurker from almost the beginning, i would recommend people who don't like the way the site has become take a trip down the way-back machine. Everything old is new again. The articles have always followed the same general format and subjects. The conversations have generally followed the same format and digressions. The only thing that seems to change around here are the grumpies who want to complain about how much it's changed. Sure, a few of the conversations are a little more hostile. Sometimes, but this discourse has been here from the beginning on anything that might be remotely interpreted as political. //rant: But, at the end of the day, we are all sharing our opinions in an effort to find the truth. A little open mindedness goes a long way to productive and meaningful discourse. Everybody is not always right. Calling it fake news because or a contextual error is disingenuous. You're basically take the nuclear route on your own discussion. To call out a grammatical error is acceptable.

    I'll just end the rant there before I get carried away.

  53. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Right you are.

  54. Oh, he will... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    He will definitely surprise America and the World.
    Just not in the way you think.

    My only consolation about this mess is that the people he will hurt most will be the ignorant midwestern poor who voted for him.

    I personally am already comfortable enough to not care what he does, short of nuclear war. And even then, I have done some prepping. But the rest of you may be in for a shock.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  55. No formal chain of command here by necro81 · · Score: 1

    "We're all good friends here. Equals among peers. You guys are awesome, and I have tremendous respect for what you guys are doing. Except that Jack Dorsey, what an asshole! Sad!"

    This is all very congenial and friendly. But how much you want to bet that, if there is ever a public disagreement between these companies and Trump, he'll suddenly decide that the non-existent chain of command is going to suddenly turn into a twitter barrage along the lines of "do it my way, you big meanies!"

  56. Things are a bit different now. by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Historically that's how it works, but Trump is a different kind of President. I wouldn't use any kind of "how things normally work" as a model for the Trump Presidency.

    And in any casethe switchboard blocks people because they're told to block people. "The Switchboard" isn't some entity that makes its own decisions. If the administration wants to do things differently it's completely possible, but probably not recommended.

  57. Gov't by the corporations, for the corporations by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    At least now it's out in the open. I have to wonder about the deals Trump will make and the policies he will enact in order to give his own businesses an advantage. I think he's going to make out like a bandit during his presidency.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  58. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then maybe you should stop reading Slashdot and get back to work. Wait a sec...

  59. No Fucking Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I'd say both have been into unethical behavior equally,

    I'm sorry but no fucking way.

    Clinton's "unethical behavior" was so huge that when the AP reported on her malfeasance they spent 11 paragraphs on the 'scandal' of when Clinton tried to help Muhammad Yunus a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. When the NYT reported on her ethical failures, they spent nearly an entire story on the "expose" of how she arranged for Bill Clinton to rescue political hostages from North Korea. Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation received top scores from Charity Navigator and Charity Watch.

    The only reason people think trump is at all equivalent to clinton is because trump's olympus-sized pile of shit caused outrage fatigue and the media tried to do its false balance reporting schtick by digging for bottom of the barrel stories on Clinton to somehow even out the coverage in the name of being 'objective.' But that's only a valid approach when they are actually equal.

    1. Re:No Fucking Way by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I trust that Charity Watch rating about as much as a rating on a mortgage backed security.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:No Fucking Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I trust that Charity Watch rating about as much as a rating on a mortgage backed security.

      And I trust your judgment even less.
      Unless you've got some actual verifiable criticism, not breitbart level rants, why should anyone give a damn what you think?

      Meanwhile, your lack of criticism of every other point says you are in total agreement with them.

    3. Re:No Fucking Way by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      > I'd say both have been into unethical behavior equally,

      I'm sorry but no fucking way.

      It's hard to compare their ethical behavior, scope, subject, and severity.

      And I don't disagree with what your saying, I was trying to be diplomatic towards Trump supporters.

  60. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by unixisc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.

    Reporting a direct quote from the president elect may not be partisan, but continually posting stories about the election and about the president for a year - regardless of whether they are tech related or not - definitely is. The GP was commenting not about one particular post, but a trend that has been pretty visible for at least a year now. In the meantime the number of tech related articles has fallen, while articles about pet Left 'science' causes - AGW/climate change, Russian hacking of the election, Uber, et al has taken over.

    Slashdot used to be a site where people, regardless of their political opinions, could come and discuss technical issues. However, articles about things like major OS advances, CPUs, semiconductor process shrinks, IPv6 adaption, et al have become a rarity, and what substitutes it are posts promoting Leftist pet causes. Sorry, Whipslash, but the GP's recommendation is right on: focus on technical issues, and leave the political stuff to Politico, Huffington Post and their comrades. Unless you want the rest of us to leave, which would defeat the purpose of Dice buying you

  61. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Also I didn't delete any comments.

    Reddit got in some shit recently for editing comments.
    Personally I think it was totally overblown, the comments themselves were shitposts and the edits were non-substantive.

    But it got me thinking. It would be way cool if slashdot had away to externally authenticate comments. So that they could neither be deleted nor edited. So here's my suggestion for you to think about - every comment gets hashed when posted and then once an hour or so all the hashes get inserted into the bitcoin blockchain. That way if anyone ever claims that a comment was edited or deleted, you can actually prove its not true by pointing them to the blockchain.

  62. Talk about misrepesentation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're totally misrepresenting that gallup poll. Bush did bad shit. FFS, we still complain about NIXON! But WHAT HE DID is what we complain about.

    The poll was whether Bush was a worse president by his legacy than Obama.

    NOT FUCKING BLAMING BUSH.

    Re WaPo. How many OWNERS of said media are leftwing? The list could include the interns and part time staff. Is Fox overrun by leftwingers? Given the past 30-40 years has been a desperate grab for the "middle ground", there's fuck all difference between R and D in that time, so quite why you think this is somehow indicating something escapes anyone who isn't welded to the "us and them" mentality that allows you to leap to conclusions without effort.

  63. exploding heads? by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1

    Some of my friends on Facebook experienced 'exploding head syndrome' when they heard about this. I take that as a bellweather that good things are coming.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  64. I didn't repost that by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    You're probably aware of this, but the post above that you are responding to is a duplicate of a post I made earlier to a different story.

    I didn't repost it here, and I never post as AC as a point of pride, so someone else has reposted it for me. I strongly suspect you (whiplash) reposted it in order to respond. All of which is fine - thinking things through it seems that reposting as AC to respond is quite reasonable.

    My original post was in the article Elon Musk and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Will Advise Trump On Business Issues of about a day ago.

    The actual situation described in that article is a council which will meet with Trump which has 19 members and represents a wide swathe of industry. Musk and Kalanick are only barely 10% of the council. Other extremely notable members are Cook from Apple, Iger from Disney, Rometty from IBM, Nooyi from PepsiCo, and (obviously) 13 others.

    Describing the council as "Musk and Kalanik advise Trump on Business Issues" is a reframing of the situation specifically to provoke anger and derision about Trump. It's clickbait and it's misleading.

    Another title recently was "Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report". This was reported by Politico who gives no attribution, and which the Trump campaign denies. Twitter is worth $13 billion, while Amazon is at $372 billion and Apple is $624 billion, so it seems reasonable that Twitter was left out not out of spite, but because they aren't big enough to be a player. As many people have pointed out, Twitter employs a few thousand people while the other players employ tens and hundreds of thousands.

    A fair number of Slashdot articles are slanted click-bait meant to supply a platform for people to insult each other.

    You say that you're not interested in traffic, but that you post things you think should be covered. I eventually you'll get your wish: you'll post things that you think need to be published, and you won't have any traffic.

    To a business owner, negative feedback is like gold, because it shows you how to improve your business.

    I strongly recommend that you put your partisan leanings aside and make the health of the business your first priority. My original posting attracted a +5 insightful and many responses in support. Not all responses were supportive, of course, but enough to show that a fair proportion of readers think that this is a problem.

    Also of note the original post was way down the page, and as you know few readers will read that far down. If the post was nearer the top there might be a lot more support.

    And finally, Slashdot has polls. How about making a couple of well-formed polls to gather reader sentiment?

    That should give you an idea of how strongly people feel about political click-bait, and whether this is a real issue that should be addressed.

    1. Re:I didn't repost that by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the feedback. The vast majority of our articles have nothing to do with politics. People don't need to click on them if they don't want to read them.

  65. Interesting, knowledgeable comment by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Mod Parent UP!

    Interesting quote from Trump, from the Slashdot story:

    "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said. "There's no one like you in the world....anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you. You can call my people, call me â" it makes no difference â" we have no formal chain of command around here."

  66. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.

    Not much of an ad hominem, but you wanted an example. Insinuating someone is triggered is sufficient to make many believe they are not worth listening to.

    You knew what you were doing.

  67. He's playing the Negotiation Card [Re:Trade] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It seems contradictory, but perhaps not.

    His view is that better negotiations will open up opportunities to sell more in countries we do a lot trade with it. Currently it's usually lopsided trade, and he wants to fix that with negotiations to have more 2-way trade.

    Whether he can actually pull that off is another matter. It's going to be an interesting 4 years...

    1. Re:He's playing the Negotiation Card [Re:Trade] by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      It seems contradictory, but perhaps not.

      Being against free trade one day and for it the next? Maybe it's just me but that does seem contradictory.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  68. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Climate science is not a 'left' issue. Sorry. The uptick in political articles was due to the recent election. They will subside.

  69. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Nobody's forcing anyone to click or read on any story. Scroll on by if you don't want to read it.

  70. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and visa versa w/ Fox & Clinton. I agree it sucks for us.

    I didn't take the headline negatively. Do you feel that an informal chain-of-command is negative?

  71. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not the same person. I am merely responding to your request of where you used ad hominem to attack the messenger instead of the message.

  72. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

    Troll-feeding is bad, m'k.

  73. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    If Clinton was President-Elect, and had said this, we would cover it.

    I have no doubt you would have. The point is that you would almost certainly have picked a better quote to put in the headline. The quote given is taken out of context and made to make Trump look bad.

    The story here is that Trump is reaching out to people who were against him a couple of months ago, with this being the latest good example. Had Hillary won it's highly doubtful she would be doing the same (President Obama certainly never did). His quote was trying to sound open to input from these people at any time. That's news to me.

  74. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    If she said it we'd cover it.

  75. The "job" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, are a man with integrity. You feel like you have to keep your end of the bargain. You feel like if you apply for a job and get it, you have to assume the responsibilities and do the work in exchange for the benefits. You understand avoid conflict of interest, why it is necessary to create a meritocracy. You are an embodiment on why the American dream is possible - because people like you make the country more of meritocracy than anywhere else.

    But for someone who is in it for themselves, and doesn't care about the implied contract, none of the integrity constraints that you have imposed on the situation apply. So, favors for other corporations buy favors for his businesses. Things become easier for business owners (his class, and the class of his family), which in his eyes is a good thing. He can privatize education by giving everyone a voucher and then funding the department of education through vouchers (which will eventually defund it completely). It may help the religious nuts, but it helps his extended family and golf buddies because they can continue sending their children to private school, and now keeping their money instead of that money going to provide public education to the poor. This in his eyes is a good thing. He can put people in charge that will dismantle parts of the government that give him trouble - EPA that might impact the building code or prevent development in sensitive areas. Again, this helps his golf buddies. As far as foreign policy goes, there is a such a long tail, that he can appoint people who return his favors to diplomatic positions that will help cut business deals for his network. These favors will circulate back to his family and propel his net worth into the stratosphere. And he will be satisfied. To hell with what the job description.

  76. Re:Pres. Obama said his election would save the wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like he nailed a few of those to me.

  77. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No no. Wait people, give this post a chance. It's actually quite insightful.

    Climate change is science. But it's science that "the Left" cares about, and "the Right" does not. And talking about it therefore makes Slashdot a partisan hack and pisses off a subset of Slashdot.

    This guy wants his news bubble enforced. A news site he goes to is talking about a topic he wants to ignore. And he is upset.

  78. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

    Seems like you're confusing the Slashdot management with the Reddit management... https://slashdot.org/story/16/...

  79. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Bravo

  80. Re:Pres. Obama said his election would save the wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And conservatives said to buy gold when he got elected. Then the stock market went up continuously for 8 years breaking through all time highs dozens and dozens of times. And yet conservatives can't give him any credit. Likely because they were so stupid as to buy gold and are now seeing their bet that the country failed, lost big time.

  81. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The President and election are important issues. Made even triply so by having someone with no political experience as president-elect. Which is kind of a big deal, we're not in North Korea we can talk about these things openly. Revel in your time

  82. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by unixisc · · Score: 1

    They are relevant for political sites, not ALL sites. Which is the point

  83. A better political spectrum by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

    That is true that left and right simply isn't good enough, and the Nolan chart is a step in the right direction, but I still think it doesn't go nearly far enough. I find myself wanting to be further left than the top of the chart, but also further up than the left of the chart, in a region outside the chart entirely.

    This is the political spectrum I think in.. The orientation of my chart is a bit of a compromise; the original sense of the terms "left" and "right" would run from what on that chart is upper left to lower right (which is the sense in which I meant "left" in my previous post), while a growing modern sense of the terms tends to run from what on that chart is lower left to upper right, so I've oriented it halfway between those.

    Things tend to drift downward and rightward by default unless actively fought against -- that's where we started from, before anyone had the thought that maybe governments should be anything more than the reign of strong men over weak -- and those positions are stable, easily entrenched, and hard to escape from. Things in the upper half and left half meanwhile are unstable and tend to easily collapse -- back to the lower right, of course. That makes those (far upper and far left) positions impractical, but they're exactly the kind of crazy I think we need to make people realize just how far off the spectrum we think in true moderation is. In addition to that, we also need more moderate "right"-libertarians (like the Libertarian party) and European style social democrats (like the Green party).

    I find the mainstream Democratic party as expressed in recent decades (Clinton and Obama) to be a lukewarm centrist compromise position, neither libertarian enough nor socialist enough, but certainly a better alternative than contemporary Republicans, who share most of the same flaws and then add a bunch of their own; just so long as they can avoid slipping down into their own form of "left"-authoritarianism that's just as bad in a different way.

    But we really need the crazies way out in the upper left lunatic fringe to shift the perceived center up and to the left; not actually out into that fringe, but further away from the black hole of tyranny we (everyone) are always continually slipping toward unless we can manage to fight it.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  84. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also energy sector which is most definitely tech.

  85. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Climate and Energy are completely different entities. Climate only comes into the picture some, when it's solar and wind, but otherwise, energy is its own entity spanning things like nuclear, solar and wind. I'm assuming here that traditional energy sources like coal, oil and even hydro don't fall under tech (except maybe biodiesel)

  86. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    If she said it we'd cover it.

    Dude, I'm not claiming you wouldn't cover it. My first line is "I have no doubt you would have." At this point I believe you're simply trying to deflect attention from the actual point I'm making.

  87. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 1

    I don't think it makes him look bad.

  88. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Slashdot... Please don't feed the trolls.

  89. Moderation on the post above is hilarious. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year, posted to Donald Trump To Tech Leaders: 'No Formal Chain Of Command' Here, has been moderated Insightful (+1).

    It is currently scored Normal (2). ...
    has been moderated Insightful (+1).

    It is currently scored Insightful (3). ...
    has been moderated Overrated (-1).

    It is currently scored Insightful (2). ...
    has been moderated Insightful (+1).

    It is currently scored Insightful (3). ...
    has been moderated Insightful (+1).

    It is currently scored Insightful (4). ...
    has been moderated Troll (-1).

    It is currently scored Insightful (3).

    What a bunch of sore winners those Trumpeters.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens