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."

67 of 488 comments (clear)

  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 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".

    4. 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.'"
    5. 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).

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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!

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

  2. "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 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."
    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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...

    5. 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
    6. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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."
  8. 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/
  9. 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.
  10. 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."

      --
      -
  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Dell by ISoldat53 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shows you how far Dell has fallen when he isn't even invited to the kiddie table.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Clinton was President-Elect, and had said this, we would cover it.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. Re:Slashdot is killing itself by whipslash · · Score: 2

    I was pointing out some facts. Carry on.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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."