Is that the guy off Guardians Of The Galaxy?
No, it's Andy Dwyer.
Originally Posted by randomlegend
I'm all for letting an elected President get on with their plans and judging them based on that. But if we're to judge him on what he's done so far, his cabinet appointments have been uniformly terrible and, in many cases, downright destructive. It doesn't bode well.
The website stuff is all a little silly, because the first thing they're going to do is wipe the slate clean. But the cabinet appointments are pretty terrible. I'm just glad the Pacific Ocean is large. Not My Problem.
Except for climate change, the threat of the nuclear arsenal, and cooling relations with China over Taiwan. Those could wind up being my problem. But not much I can do about those.
...yeah pretty terrible that he picked appointees who would implement the ideas that he campaigned on
So they are protesting the democratically elected government...before it's done anything...with no specific policy being targeted...
Dude this sort of retardation is why Trump won. At least be smart enough / half the self-awareness to see that.
There exist plenty of good conservative candidates with expertise, knowledge and ability for cabinet positions....yeah pretty terrible that he picked appointees who would implement the ideas that he campaigned on
I'd pick you as the secretary of energy, education, or housing, or the attorney general ahead of the rabble that have been appointed.
It is fascinating how politicians (in general, although I'd argue that one side does it harder than the other - but I'm hardly objective) have started going hard on classical abuser tactics. In particular, "don't believe anyone but me". It's is a classic tactic employed by the guilty party in abusive relationships. It's like how cults always separate people from their families and friends.
Don't listen to scientists. Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to any other voices. Only listen to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38707722
Surely at this point you're just swinging for swinging's sake. How can anyone realistically claim more people were at Trump's inaugaration?
Cheers for the advice.
Why are Trump's team even responding to this "not a lot of people there" shit - have they not got more important things to be doing?
Baited by a tweet.
It kinda does. There's a strong, strong contingent that opposes Trump's message and, worryingly, Trump's response is a. "What people? I don't see any people. Did you hear something?" For a guy talking about uniting America, he's willing to let the resentment fester instead of diffusing it.
And should the opposition not pipe up when he's been campaigning for 18 months on these messages?
Can we not do the 'The thing I agree with is why Trump won' thing. It's pathetic.
Having to come out in your first press conference to straight up lie about crowd sizes and not allow questions is some Chemical Ali shit.
It's incredibly troubling when a new government is formed that has no political reputation on day one. We're about to see what four years of "Nice to see a change from career politicians." gets you.
But the other voices have been exhaustively shown to have their own agenda and lie constantly. It wouldn't work if those other voices retained any credibility.
Let's see the numbers. The media was openly posting and spreading falsehoods, they are hardly more reliable than Trump. He's not this dumb.
It doesn't matter that he didn't win the popular vote, which is constantly being cited as evidence of his lack of legitimacy. The opposition (quote unquote) had their opportunity to pipe up at the elections themselves, and they failed to do so in sufficient numbers. Congress exists as a check on his power. Beyond that, the only legitimate question regarding Trump's agenda is whether aspects of his agenda are unconstitutional or not, for which the Supreme Court can decide.
Protests on the street by an aggrieved minority do not matter a fuck, nor does "piping up" after the event. You can be sure, with a high degree of confidence, that 99.99% of the attendees yesterday weren't out pitching Hillary on front lawns in the swing states at a time when "piping up" might have actually mattered.
It's odd, I agree. But they must have facts to back up their claims and wow would that completely expose and humiliate the media.
The fannies of the world wringing their hands over the media getting a kick-in is seriously lol. They should remember how they treated people like William Hague (or Ed Miliband for that matter) and man up.
No political discussion is complete without memes:
Maternity leave.
You mean paid maternity leave, which isn't a right.
LOL. You mean the policy which further exacerbates unequal pay and discrimination against women in hiring?
Churchill back in the Oval Office:
http://fortune.com/2016/09/28/europe-female-ceo-sp/
When your mam smacked youn as a child did you get an erection?
Something the left routinely fail to understand is the cost to small business of national top-down "workers' rights" like this. Companies get shafted by maternity leave and ever-increasing minimum wage requirements.
Poor companies
It's almost hard to believe that most people choose not to waste their time on here any more.
No. Poor workers who don't have jobs because the companies can't afford to expand their employment rolls.Poor companies
They're not all multinationals with reams of free cash, you know. See: here. It is small companies (<25 staff) who are particularly at risk as they require free cash or other capital sources for expansion.Poor companies
Poor workers
If only we lived in a communist state where workers were given all the rights they deserved guaranteed at the end of a gun barrelPoor workers
Fucking mong. Free market capitalism has done more to lift workers out of poverty and improve their quality of life than ANY government regulation / social program / other form of economic organization.
The alternative is the French model, where they're highly reluctant to engage in extensive recruitment because it can be nigh on impossible to get rid of them when theres a downturn. Business requires flexibility. Until such time as some new economic system somehow displaces the successful, albeit imperfect, one we have, the left would do well to recognise that a balance needs struck.Poor workers
Then again, that would require a break from virtue signalling and we're surely reaching the point in the cycle where they'll all be volunteering to invite refugees into their home again.
My sister got the boot days after announcing her pregnancy. At the time she worked for Nissan.
Should have thought about that before she got pregnant. Think of the companies.
Whether or not it makes sense to have it, it isn't a 'right' (and how much unpaid leave do men get?), so I think we're back to marching against imaginary societal problems like non-existent wage disparities and 'rape culture'.
Socialism has been a disaster anywhere it's been implemented. It escapes me how anybody sensible can advocate it as a genuine alternative. As you say, capitalism and free(r) trade contributed more to alleviating poverty and increasing living standards than at any other time in human history. Some people just aren't interested in acknowledging this salient facts.If only we lived in a communist state where workers were given all the rights they deserved guaranteed at the end of a gun barrel
Fucking mong. Free market capitalism has done more to lift workers out of poverty and improve their quality of life than ANY government regulation / social program / other form of economic organization.
My question yesterday was around the point of protesting , what was the aim? I guess it shows the DONALD he hasn't got universal support in the States and he should realise that but then again, I doubt Donald gives a fuck so it's all a bit pointless.
What's your point?
Take cover.
Wasn't yours the whole, "It hurts small companies!"?
GS finds the banning of child labor a disgusting attack on the free market.
Predominantly, but not exclusively.
That would require a certain amount of coercion / exploitation wouldn't it, so isn't a valid point as the worker is able to take their labour elsewhere in a free market.
How did Child Labour require coercion or exploitation? It was just the norm until it wasn't.
Politically this is a brilliant move IMO.
1. Shows the world he's not afraid to do what he wants, and he won't be cowed by the emotional needs of weaker nations.
2. Will divide Jewish people in America who are overwhelmingly Democrat, and uncover the underlying anti-semitism masked as anti-Israel sentiment existing under the surface among the Left. Great play for Jewish voters (and donors) in the future.
Reply With Quote
