Obama Overtime Circle Jerk idea should be overturned and never be thought about ever again. Federal government stay the hell out of American small business employee/employer operation function, you're clueless.
This Obama wet dream has cost employers hundreds for nothing and to some employees lost wages, time, lost of promotions, raises .....another shitty idea by a community organizer ..... Obama don't matter

HitsRus;1826007 wrote:Kissinger had a great take on this....Trump is unique....he comes to the presidency with no baggage...he doesn't owe anybody anything (least of all the Republican party).....not even his supporters who elected him because he was an outsider.

that is why I voted for him. non politician that is not bought and paid for. All the Bernie sanders supporters should actually like trump. But they are blind stupid mice and they don't even know it

Belly35;1826021 wrote:Obama Overtime Circle Jerk idea should be overturned and never be thought about ever again. Federal government stay the hell out of American small business employee/employer operation function, your clueless.
This Obama wet dream has cost employers hundreds for nothing and to some employees lost wages, time, lost of promotions, raises .....another shitty idea by a community organizer ..... Obama don't matter

Obama and his cronies sit around in a secret room and try to come up with ways to redistribute money like communists. they just cant call it communism

iclfan2;1825671 wrote:Ehh, I'm sure it has worked at some point. And if it doesn't work on someone then what harm is done?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well see this is an example of what gives me hope for Trump.

IClfan2 here is an idealogical conservative. His reaction to a great warlord's opinion that torture is ineffective is the backfire effect in action - he rejustifies his preconceived belief on less principled terms....who cares if they might be innocent and it MUST have worked once.

When Mad Dog Mattis tells Trump it doesn't work he changes his mind.

BoatShoes;1826052 wrote:Well see this is an example of what gives me hope for Trump.

IClfan2 here is an idealogical conservative. His reaction to a great warlord's opinion that torture is ineffective is the backfire effect in action - he rejustifies his preconceived belief on less principled terms....who cares if they might be innocent and it MUST have worked once.

When Mad Dog Mattis tells Trump it doesn't work he changes his mind.

I was pretty surprised by Mattis' take, but I would take his word on it over many other "experts." I still think sleep deprivation works [emoji23].

Our only hope for trump not being a POS president is if he listens to the experts and isn't stubborn about it. There are always two sides to a debate (most of them at least), but it takes a lot to suck up your pride and change your stance because somebody with more credibility tells you so.

BoatShoes;1826052 wrote:Well see this is an example of what gives me hope for Trump.

IClfan2 here is an idealogical conservative. His reaction to a great warlord's opinion that torture is ineffective is the backfire effect in action - he rejustifies his preconceived belief on less principled terms....who cares if they might be innocent and it MUST have worked once.

When Mad Dog Mattis tells Trump it doesn't work he changes his mind.

Ehh I've never said it should be used on innocent people. Iraqis with rocket launchers on their backs aren't exactly innocent. So I don't actually give a shit what happens to people trying to kill Americans. Also, to say "it never worked" was an absurd exaggeration.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My belief from the beginning is that Trump would run the presidency like a successful business owner. You hire the right people for the jobs and let them do it. Since you aren't tied to any favors you can hire whomever you want for each position. Whereas Hillary would have had a cabinet on day 1 full of delivered promises ala Frank Underwood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1826093 wrote:My belief from the beginning is that Trump would run the presidency like a successful business owner. You hire the right people for the jobs and let them do it. Since you aren't tied to any favors you can hire whomever you want for each position. Whereas Hillary would have had a cabinet on day 1 full of delivered promises ala Frank Underwood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spot on

HitsRus;1826007 wrote:Kissinger had a great take on this....Trump is unique....he comes to the presidency with no baggage...he doesn't owe anybody anything (least of all the Republican party).....not even his supporters who elected him because he was an outsider.

The problem is, it's not true.

He's not unique. Not really, anyway. His campaign was CERTAINLY unique, and it was rather easy to see the fact that he managed his presidential campaign like a successful advertising campaign in a brand war.

But as a candidate for the office, he's not unique. Sure, he's never been voted into political office at another level. I don't believe Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina have, either (though the latter has held a couple bureaucratic positions). But Trump has admitted to engaging in quid-pro-quo deals with politicians ... the Clintons among them. Moreover, his cabinet picks hardly seem indicative of a Washington outsider.

And we can always just listen to how he speaks (and waffles) over the years when he does so on politics when in the public eye. He's been a politician in every sense but his title.

bases_loaded;1826093 wrote:My belief from the beginning is that Trump would run the presidency like a successful business owner. You hire the right people for the jobs and let them do it. Since you aren't tied to any favors you can hire whomever you want for each position. Whereas Hillary would have had a cabinet on day 1 full of delivered promises ala Frank Underwood.

There are other traits of a successful CEO. Focus on increasing the net revenue of the company, for example. Putting the company's interests above that of a given cog within it. Also, in efforts to keep shareholders happy, it's hardly unheard of to exchange favors or engage in leveraging information.

A political office is not a business. They shouldn't be treated as the same thing, and they shouldn't be run in the same way. The ends are different. The interests are different. The rules are different. The motives are different.

O-Trap;1826113 wrote: A political office is not a business. They shouldn't be treated as the same thing, and they shouldn't be run in the same way. The ends are different. The interests are different. The rules are different. The motives are different.

Maybe in previous centuries. Not now. And this mentality is exactly why Trump was elected. A political office should also not be an inefficient, money-bleeding atrocity with very little practicality, logic or reasoning behind things.

Azubuike24;1826163 wrote:Maybe in previous centuries. Not now. And this mentality is exactly why Trump was elected. A political office should also not be an inefficient, money-bleeding atrocity with very little practicality, logic or reasoning behind things.

I didn't say it should be an inefficient, money-bleeding atrocity with very little practicality, logic or reasoning behind things.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. To suggest otherwise is a false dichotomy.

There are ELEMENTS of a government run well that would be shared by a business run well. Hell, those elements would probably be shared by ANY entity run well. As such, it's not governing like a CEO. It's governing like an adult. Being responsible with the funds isn't indicative of a CEO, though a CEO certainly should exude financial responsibility. Being responsible with the funds is indicative of just being sensible and realistic.

Corporations are run, at the end of the day, fundamentally for the interests of those who own them. That why the owners risked their money to build them. It doesn't necessarily mean the companies are designed to piss on the employees or the consumers, but the deal-breaker is that they need to be good for those ultimately making decisions. Those "in charge."

There is a reason elected officials are referred to as "public servants." Unlike CEOs, it is the job of such elected officials to represent their relative constituencies. While a CEO (often also at least a partial owner) will run a business for his own benefit, at least in part, a public servant should manage his post for the benefit of those he was elected to represent.

Businesses are private in their interest. Government is public in its interest. Given the history of when the two mix, it's probably best to keep them as separate as possible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

Maybe Kasich will be encouraged to take on the state public workers again. The teacher's and police unions have protected the underperforming teachers and policemen long enough. Maybe he can put their benefits more in line with the private sector.

http://usuncut.com/politics/paul-ryan-privatize-medicare/

What do you think?

ppaw1999;1826747 wrote:http://usuncut.com/politics/paul-ryan-privatize-medicare/

What do you think?

Retirees have funded roughly 20% of their Medicare costs....so Paul Ryan's plan covering 40% of their costs is a fucking gift.

Setting aside the dumb tweets over the weekend, does this concern anyone else on here?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/donald-trump-international-business.html?_r=0

Does anyone on here care how the President elect divides his businesses and eliminates conflicts of interest?

"Federal law does not prevent Mr. Trump from taking actions that could benefit him and his family financially; the president is exempt from most conflict-of-interest laws."

As long as he doesn't take gifts or payments from a foreign government entity he will be fine. I'm sure *he will be watched closely. It's the political, Washington way and it can function as part of our checks and balances. He has more to risk politically than legally.

I'll be concerned if he does something illegal and that hasn't been afforded to other Oval Office holders.

ptown_trojans_1;1826847 wrote:Setting aside the dumb tweets over the weekend, does this concern anyone else on here?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/donald-trump-international-business.html?_r=0

Does anyone on here care how the President elect divides his businesses and eliminates conflicts of interest?

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 2, 3 tops. Many bigger fish to fry.

I'm more concerned at the fact he thinks it should be illegal to burn the flag. I hate when anybody thinks this and fails to see the irony.

The NYT has assclench over Trump.

Must be Tuesday.

like_that;1826856 wrote:I'm more concerned at the fact he thinks it should be illegal to burn the flag. I hate when anybody thinks this and fails to see the irony.

Funny enough I think he might be trolling. Everyone was freaking out over this on my drive this morning. Whatever you think about Trump, his ability to essentially set up a distracting story for the entire news media is unmatched.

Carrier is staying in the US....but Zwick probably already knew that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: CARRIER STAYS...

TRUMP RALLY CONTINUES...

GOLDMAN SACHS: Presidency Will Benefit Almost Every Sector...


Today's links

bases_loaded;1826898 wrote:Carrier is staying in the US....but Zwick probably already knew that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nope.. of course this wasn't announced a year ago. See how that works? of course you don't.

QuakerOats;1826965 wrote:GOLDMAN SACHS: Presidency Will Benefit Almost Every Sector...

So, is this to suggest that you value Goldman Sachs' political leanings?

They were the top donor to the Obama '12 campaign, and they were top-5 for Clinton in this election.

Just saying.

O-Trap;1827017 wrote:So, is this to suggest that you value Goldman Sachs' political leanings?

They were the top donor to the Obama '12 campaign, and they were top-5 for Clinton in this election.

Just saying.

Trump criticized Hillary for being in Goldman Sachs' pocket.
Trump gets elected.
Trump placed GS people in high positions.

Shows that he at least knows how to play the game like a life-long politician!