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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
Someone had to do it.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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?
Do you have ESP?
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.
Table-ized A.I.
"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
> 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.
Yeah, unfortunately it looks kind of like Obama's cabinet.
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.
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.
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.