For the same reason it's on, say, the paperwork for someone who wants to fly a 4-pound plastic toy with a camera on it in order to save themselves the risk of climbing up a ladder to give someone a quote for $75 worth of roof gutter cleaning. For the same reason the government wants to know the eye and hair color of a farmer who buys a $100 rimfire.22 rifle to use on rodents around his grain storage.
Hey, look! A snarky liberal who, knowing he can never address the substance of any subject without betraying his mixed premises and shallow, vitriolic nature... resorts to lazy ad hominem in hopes of distracting from his empty, disingenuous, hypocritical world view. Thanks for staying true to form!
Do you realize that California hosts several military academies and a world renown naval postgraduate school ?
Yes, they "host" them. And almost all of the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coast guards come from other places. Observing that California has the equivalent of a military Harvard and implying that therefore they'll have no problem staffing their own navy with people who mostly make $25k a year... hilarious. It's EXACTLY this sort of willfully distorted understanding of the bigger picture that has shrill, cranky elitist liberals still baffled as to why they lost hundreds more state house seats, yet more governorships, still both houses of congress, the White House and shortly the Supreme Court. "But Silicon Valley is so successful! If the entire country would just be Silicon Valley, everyone would be rich and vote for liberals and everything would be wonderful! And by the way, you all are irredeemably deplorable and we hate you, but you should really do what we say, OK?"
No. Having military academies on your soil does not mean you can raise, fund, and run an actual military in the country of California. Let me guess - you'll offshore that part, right?
Amazon doesn't need to push for any laws. Drones are considered aircraft. Attacking them in flight or otherwise interfering with operations is a big-time federal felony no-no. Combine that with doing it in an attempt to steal the payload and/or the aircraft, and there's plenty for both local LEOs and the feds to go after you on.
Hey, look! Fake news from a whiny liberal who lost pretty much everywhere but a couple of counties in California! Do carry on. Probably best if you propose an amendment to the constitution so you can rule the country from California. Everyone will like that.
If Trump had any backbone, he would not have sourced his products from China, nor would he have used Chinese steel in his buildings.
Or maybe if he had backbone he would do the rational things for his business that any person would do (purchase where it makes the most sense for the bottom line viability of the project/product given the reality of the market in which he's doing business), and then at some point when he has the resources and a family to which he can trust his businesses, do something like, say... run for president with an eye on changing the lopsided international agreements and other policies that chased textile and steel manufacturing out of the US in the first place.
This type of detail is probably too nuanced for Trump to understand nor be bother with.
Yes, you're right. Your own observations and skills clearly far, far outweigh his and those of the people he's engaged over the years to become successful. Your own international operations are probably much more successful. Congratulations!
I see the fake news really works on you. Fell for an altered screen shot memegurgitation because it fits your narrative. No wonder you're so snarky, if that's how well you gather and process information. China's utter lack of concern in grabbing our equipment in the open ocean and giving us and everyone else with an interest in them not taking over the Pacific is 100% on Obama. He'd act more quickly, but he's probably still being weighed down by that Nobel Peace Prize.
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.
So what you're saying is that we need fact checkers who are not biased towards facts?
No, just fact checkers that don't slant their decisions about what, when, and how to fact check in ways that support their operators' own agenda. Or, you can use your own critical thinking skills, check multiple adversarial sources, and be done with it.
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?"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
No doubt it would have made much more sense to choose you and maybe your mom for those two roles, given your collective expertise and lifetime of familiarity with the subject matter. Or were you thinking of perhaps some of Hillary Clinton's best buddies, instead? Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures. Clinton has a long track record of running only one (which failed, criminally) and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State. I know, you prefer her corruption because it's more familiar. Or something. 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. I wonder why that's your preference? Interesting.
If you want him to meet people, why not the ones who need help rather than the ones who have no need for it?
So who do you think he should be meeting with, specifically? He's just had a meeting with people who rabidly opposed his candidacy, and offered to be a partner in their deep involvement in the health of the economy rather than an obstacle. I suppose you'd rather he met with a collection of homeless heroin addicts who live on the street in San Francisco? Or perhaps a kitchen worker at a local elementary school?
Why do you assume that everyone who spent months throwing vitriolic invective at him during the campaign, then meets him and talks to him and comes out saying how glad they are to have had constructive and interesting time with the transition team, are secretly considering themselves to be "terrorized?" Are you even listening to yourself? You want to know who was feeling terrorized? Every business owner who has been trying to grow their business, hire people, and survive in a difficult economic climate that has been made far, far more so by liberal politicians bent on regulating and taxing them out of existence. "Terrorized" is having the IRS acting against you for purely political reasons. I know - that sort of thing was all done by politicians of whom you approve, so you LIKE it when they do things like that. Hypocrite.
I mean, with all these goddamn meetings happening in goddamn Trump Tower, am I the only one thinking that it's like a goddamn prolog to a bad cyberpunk-dystopia novel?
Oh no! The president elect is having meetings with all sorts of people that play major roles in the US economy! We can't have THAT! A US president should only have meetings with academics, mainstream media figures, and think tank people. We can't have them talking to people who actually run huge businesses employing thousands of people who work on things that are used by huge portions of the country every day. Outrageous! Only in a dystopia would THAT happen.
Of course other president elects do the same thing, with the people THEY think they want to talk to, but some of them do it in lavish, supporter-donated homes in the DC area or in expensive hotels where they set up shop for weeks before they are sworn in and move to the White House. Trump, on the other hand, is having his meetings in the place where he already lives, in one of the most important cities in the world. Outrageous!
I don't have anything of substance to this particular conversation
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no understanding of current, recent, or historical events.
Yes because every single US intelligence agency like the CIA is so liberal
They are currently being run by Obama political appointees. You do understand that, right?
You know who else is super liberal: Wikileaks. They confirmed that they got emails from Russian sources.
No, they explicitly said they did NOT get them from the Russians. What's with the phony narrative? How does that help anyone?
weight and height, race, and eye and hair color.
Why the hell is that on the application?
For the same reason it's on, say, the paperwork for someone who wants to fly a 4-pound plastic toy with a camera on it in order to save themselves the risk of climbing up a ladder to give someone a quote for $75 worth of roof gutter cleaning. For the same reason the government wants to know the eye and hair color of a farmer who buys a $100 rimfire .22 rifle to use on rodents around his grain storage.
Hey, look! A snarky liberal who, knowing he can never address the substance of any subject without betraying his mixed premises and shallow, vitriolic nature ... resorts to lazy ad hominem in hopes of distracting from his empty, disingenuous, hypocritical world view. Thanks for staying true to form!
Do you realize that California hosts several military academies and a world renown naval postgraduate school ?
Yes, they "host" them. And almost all of the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coast guards come from other places. Observing that California has the equivalent of a military Harvard and implying that therefore they'll have no problem staffing their own navy with people who mostly make $25k a year ... hilarious. It's EXACTLY this sort of willfully distorted understanding of the bigger picture that has shrill, cranky elitist liberals still baffled as to why they lost hundreds more state house seats, yet more governorships, still both houses of congress, the White House and shortly the Supreme Court. "But Silicon Valley is so successful! If the entire country would just be Silicon Valley, everyone would be rich and vote for liberals and everything would be wonderful! And by the way, you all are irredeemably deplorable and we hate you, but you should really do what we say, OK?"
No. Having military academies on your soil does not mean you can raise, fund, and run an actual military in the country of California. Let me guess - you'll offshore that part, right?
Amazon doesn't need to push for any laws. Drones are considered aircraft. Attacking them in flight or otherwise interfering with operations is a big-time federal felony no-no. Combine that with doing it in an attempt to steal the payload and/or the aircraft, and there's plenty for both local LEOs and the feds to go after you on.
Well then maybe California should just take their marbles and go home. #CalExit
That will be fantastic. It will be especially fun to see how California handles the raising, training, and ongoing operations of its own military.
Hey, look! Fake news from a whiny liberal who lost pretty much everywhere but a couple of counties in California! Do carry on. Probably best if you propose an amendment to the constitution so you can rule the country from California. Everyone will like that.
If Trump had any backbone, he would not have sourced his products from China, nor would he have used Chinese steel in his buildings.
Or maybe if he had backbone he would do the rational things for his business that any person would do (purchase where it makes the most sense for the bottom line viability of the project/product given the reality of the market in which he's doing business), and then at some point when he has the resources and a family to which he can trust his businesses, do something like, say ... run for president with an eye on changing the lopsided international agreements and other policies that chased textile and steel manufacturing out of the US in the first place.
This type of detail is probably too nuanced for Trump to understand nor be bother with.
Yes, you're right. Your own observations and skills clearly far, far outweigh his and those of the people he's engaged over the years to become successful. Your own international operations are probably much more successful. Congratulations!
The only foreign policy 'boo-boo' so far was Trump talking to President Tsai and the Chinks getting a hemorrhage over it
What makes you think that was a mistake or even a bad thing?
I see the fake news really works on you. Fell for an altered screen shot memegurgitation because it fits your narrative. No wonder you're so snarky, if that's how well you gather and process information. China's utter lack of concern in grabbing our equipment in the open ocean and giving us and everyone else with an interest in them not taking over the Pacific is 100% on Obama. He'd act more quickly, but he's probably still being weighed down by that Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobody is handing anything to China. China is grabbing it.
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.
So what you're saying is that we need fact checkers who are not biased towards facts?
No, just fact checkers that don't slant their decisions about what, when, and how to fact check in ways that support their operators' own agenda. Or, you can use your own critical thinking skills, check multiple adversarial sources, and be done with it.
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?"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
heck of a choice
No doubt it would have made much more sense to choose you and maybe your mom for those two roles, given your collective expertise and lifetime of familiarity with the subject matter. Or were you thinking of perhaps some of Hillary Clinton's best buddies, instead? Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures. Clinton has a long track record of running only one (which failed, criminally) and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State. I know, you prefer her corruption because it's more familiar. Or something. 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. I wonder why that's your preference? Interesting.
If you want him to meet people, why not the ones who need help rather than the ones who have no need for it?
So who do you think he should be meeting with, specifically? He's just had a meeting with people who rabidly opposed his candidacy, and offered to be a partner in their deep involvement in the health of the economy rather than an obstacle. I suppose you'd rather he met with a collection of homeless heroin addicts who live on the street in San Francisco? Or perhaps a kitchen worker at a local elementary school?
Why do you assume that everyone who spent months throwing vitriolic invective at him during the campaign, then meets him and talks to him and comes out saying how glad they are to have had constructive and interesting time with the transition team, are secretly considering themselves to be "terrorized?" Are you even listening to yourself? You want to know who was feeling terrorized? Every business owner who has been trying to grow their business, hire people, and survive in a difficult economic climate that has been made far, far more so by liberal politicians bent on regulating and taxing them out of existence. "Terrorized" is having the IRS acting against you for purely political reasons. I know - that sort of thing was all done by politicians of whom you approve, so you LIKE it when they do things like that. Hypocrite.
I mean, with all these goddamn meetings happening in goddamn Trump Tower, am I the only one thinking that it's like a goddamn prolog to a bad cyberpunk-dystopia novel?
Oh no! The president elect is having meetings with all sorts of people that play major roles in the US economy! We can't have THAT! A US president should only have meetings with academics, mainstream media figures, and think tank people. We can't have them talking to people who actually run huge businesses employing thousands of people who work on things that are used by huge portions of the country every day. Outrageous! Only in a dystopia would THAT happen.
Of course other president elects do the same thing, with the people THEY think they want to talk to, but some of them do it in lavish, supporter-donated homes in the DC area or in expensive hotels where they set up shop for weeks before they are sworn in and move to the White House. Trump, on the other hand, is having his meetings in the place where he already lives, in one of the most important cities in the world. Outrageous!
I don't have anything of substance to this particular conversation
Your single accurate observation.