Is this the kind of nonsense talk we can expect on a daily basis from Trump and his team?

[Camp]

Trump NEVER simply obfuscates! He outright fucking LIES most of the time!!!!

He will continue to lie. His method of evading responsibility for a lie is to tell a new lie or make an outrageous statement that will draw attention away from the lie. The lie then becomes ignored as it is simply placed on the list of "previous lies". Unbelievably, his recent whopper of dishonesty and lying is still being bandied about and repeated as if there was some kind of truth to his claim of having won the election in a landslide and won more electoral votes that any other President in decades. Provable lies just by a simple and quick review of numbers. No one even pays attention to one of his oldest provable lies of having seen thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey on 9/11.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not disputing the results of the election. I understand how and why the Electoral College works.

But the subject is Trump's rhetoric, specifically his credibility. His appointees seem to disavow the missions of the departments they are to head. His personal attacks on private citizens. The promises made on the campaign trail measured against his attitude on them now.

I didn't support Trump, as millions of Americans agreed. Like any incoming President Elect, I am giving him the respect of the office. But there is something to respect. I believe it is earned, not merely bestowed.

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Because:
1) they are redundant and not needed
2) they make regulations to justify their existance
3) they cost alot of money



And the most important reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Id rather they have private sector jobs to contribute to taxes rather than take from taxes

I am a Public Sector worker. I have been the Building Code Inspector for my county for the past fourteen years. I have never enacted any regulation nor advocated for an enactment of any new regulations since I took this position. I pay federal, state and local taxes. My earnings are not tax free. I have not had a raise in salary for fourteen months when I received my first raise in six years. I was given a 5% raise. My retirement account, OPERS or Ohio Public Employee Retirement Service, has been reworked twice under Republican governors. My retirement age has been delayed until I'm 67. I'll be 60 next month.

I show up to work every day. I'm on roofs, in pits formerly containing leaking underground storage tanks, in asbestos containing building materials in crawl spaces, in slum properties so contaminated by debris as to render them uninhabitable. I work hard.

The work I do keeps people safe, helps prevent insurance claims, increases the property value of the building and its neighborhood. No private sector company does what I do. My professional seal on my work places me at a degree of liability.

My department runs on 3% of the county budget. The value we bring in terms of health and safety and property value is emensce in comparison of our costs.

So, you see, you're arguing from anecdote and I'm arguing from a front seat. I can claim you're wrong on all four points of your premise.

I am not redundant because the private sector offers no alternative.

I have never enacted a single regulation.

I make the county wealthier as a result of my work while costing the county 3% in taxpayer expenditures.

I pay federal, state and local taxes from my salary.

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Because:
1) they are redundant and not needed
2) they make regulations to justify their existance
3) they cost alot of money



And the most important reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Id rather they have private sector jobs to contribute to taxes rather than take from taxes

I am a Public Sector worker. I have been the Building Code Inspector for my county for the past fourteen years. I have never enacted any regulation nor advocated for an enactment of any new regulations since I took this position. I pay federal, state and local taxes. My earnings are not tax free. I have not had a raise in salary for fourteen months when I received my first raise in six years. I was given a 5% raise. My retirement account, OPERS or Ohio Public Employee Retirement Service, has been reworked twice under Republican governors. My retirement age has been delayed until I'm 67. I'll be 60 next month.

I show up to work every day. I'm on roofs, in pits formerly containing leaking underground storage tanks, in asbestos containing building materials in crawl spaces, in slum properties so contaminated by debris as to render them uninhabitable. I work hard.

The work I do keeps people safe, helps prevent insurance claims, increases the property value of the building and its neighborhood. No private sector company does what I do. My professional seal on my work places me at a degree of liability.

My department runs on 3% of the county budget. The value we bring in terms of health and safety and property value is emensce in comparison of our costs.

So, you see, you're arguing from anecdote and I'm arguing from a front seat. I can claim you're wrong on all four points of your premise.

I am not redundant because the private sector offers no alternative.

I have never enacted a single regulation.

I make the county wealthier as a result of my work while costing the county 3% in taxpayer expenditures.

I pay federal, state and local taxes from my salary.

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

Liberals, do you guys hear yourselves?
I didn't say ALL, where did I say that?
How did you come to that conclusion?
We do need govt employees, but do we need that many? NO, not even close.
As for the dept of education, put those programs in HHS, it used to be called the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare.
We do not need an entire cabinet department to do that, the department is just a payoff for govt workers.

Its like this we believe we need govt, but we want a small, efficient govt.

 

[Kosh]

Let's start with a premise. It's this: All politicians, to one extent or another, obfuscate the truth.

definition of obfuscate: being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts.

So, almost any politician can be selective in what he says or how he says something which is sometimes meant to conceal rather than reveal.

I can usually, but certainly not always, tell when it's happening. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are usually more blatant in "framing issues" in such a way as to make a mockery of what is actually true. Presidents and their staff are generally more circumspect in this regard due to both the sheer impact of their statements and the high degree of scrutiny their statements get both here at home and abroad.

Frankly, to be fair, I can think of some whoppers told by every president of the modern era. Some of these false or misleading statements, one can argue, are said in the interest of national security. Others are purely self-serving. Clinton's "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman..." statement immediately comes to mind.

With that said, Trump and his team seem to be charting new ground even before taking office.

What prompts me to post this is a news report I just saw about the CIA continuing to look into Russia's meddling in last month's US national election due, at least in part, to the fact that president Obama had ordered a full review to be done in this regard.

Trump team responds to report that Russia helped Trump win

At any rate, as I read the article, I saw an unattributed quote from someone on Trump's transition team. The person reportedly said the following: "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history."

Really? I didn't think the margin was particularly large. Consequently, I decided to see if I could find out how large it really was when compared to ALL the other presidential elections from George Washington onward.

Here's what I found:

We've had 58 presidential elections over our entire history. Trump's electoral margin of victory was 46th out of 58, AND he still managed to lose the popular vote by somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.7 MILLION ballots cast. So, what this all means is that approximately 78% of the winners of previous elections had a higher winning electoral margin than Trump had.

List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin - Wikipedia

So, I can't help but ask the question again. Is this the kind of nonsense talk we can expect on a daily basis from Trump and his team? If so, the nation is going to tire of it in short order. Of that, I am sure!

Apparently you were asleep the last eight years!

Oh that is right you are a far left drone that voted for worse than Bush 5 times!

 

[Mustang]

Let's start with a premise. It's this: All politicians, to one extent or another, obfuscate the truth.

definition of obfuscate: being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts.

So, almost any politician can be selective in what he says or how he says something which is sometimes meant to conceal rather than reveal.

I can usually, but certainly not always, tell when it's happening. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are usually more blatant in "framing issues" in such a way as to make a mockery of what is actually true. Presidents and their staff are generally more circumspect in this regard due to both the sheer impact of their statements and the high degree of scrutiny their statements get both at here at home and abroad.

Frankly, to be fair, I can think of some whoppers told by every president of the modern era. Some of these false or misleading statements, one can argue, are said in the interest of national security. Others are purely self-serving. Clinton's "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman..." statement immediately comes to mind.

With that said, Trump and his team seem to be charting new ground even before taking office.

What prompts me to post this is a news report I just saw about the CIA continuing to look into Russia's meddling in last month's US national election due, at least in part, to the fact that president Obama had ordered a full review to be done in this regard.

Trump team responds to report that Russia helped Trump win

At any rate, as I read the article, I saw an unattributed quote from someone on Trump's transition team. The person reportedly said the following: "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history."

Really? I didn't think the margin was particularly large. Consequently, I decided to see if I could find out how large it really was when compared to ALL the other presidential elections from George Washington onward. Here's what I found out.

We've had 58 presidential elections over our entire history. Trump's electoral margin of victory was 46th out of 58, AND he managed to lose the popular vote by somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.7 ballots cast. So, what that means is that approximately 78% of the winners of previous elections had a higher winning margin than Trump.

List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin - Wikipedia

So, I can't help but ask the question again. Is this the kind of nonsense talk we can expect on a daily basis from Trump and his team? If so, the nation is going to tire of it in short order. Of that, I am sure!

Well that would explain this --

Trump's favorability jumps since election

I wouldn't put much stock in ANY favorability rating which is calculated more than a month prior to actually taking office.

I've never put any stock on Obama's "favorability" ratings...talk about a bunch of BS. it's liked they polled San Freak Show

Fine.

However, I'm going to offer a prediction that I personally think is a no-brainer.

I predict that people are going to miss (REALLY miss) no-drama Obama and his sober, reflective, calm and reassuring leadership style very soon, especially considering that Trump is SO reactive and easily (and quite obviously) agitated by even the smallest seemingly insignificant thing (Think Alec Baldwin on SNL). Trump's excitable reactive style is going to make a LOT of people very nervous simply because he's predictably unpredictable. I would liken it to having a friend who is so emotionally excitable about almost anything that you're always trying to tip toe through a conversation because you're never really sure what's going to set him off. It's tiring, and taxing. My bet is that America is going to sour on Trump in record time. That's when his fragile ego is going to shift into a self-pity mode which is going to make people long for the days of Obama and how he maturely handled adversity like a man who understood it came with the territory and that there was no point on dwelling (or should I say, obsessing) on unimportant issues that would merely serve to distract his focus from the job at hand.

People missed Bush after he left office. The previous office holder's favorability always goes up after they're gone.

Who was it who missed Bush, exactly? I ask for the simple reason that he's been a no show at every GOP national convention since leaving office, although I seem to recall that he sent a prerecorded message back in 2012 that was played on the screen. I guess that was the happy middle ground between the two options of
1. Not wanting him to be physically there due to his disastrous presidency (see Iraq, Katrina, and the financial meltdown) and
2. Not wanting to answer nagging questions about why he wasn't at the national convention like ex-presidents typically are in an election year when their party is picking their standard bearer.

And let's not even delve into what the country as a whole thinks of Dick Cheney.

 

[RealDave]

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Because:
1) they are redundant and not needed
2) they make regulations to justify their existance
3) they cost alot of money



And the most important reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Id rather they have private sector jobs to contribute to taxes rather than take from taxes

I am a Public Sector worker. I have been the Building Code Inspector for my county for the past fourteen years. I have never enacted any regulation nor advocated for an enactment of any new regulations since I took this position. I pay federal, state and local taxes. My earnings are not tax free. I have not had a raise in salary for fourteen months when I received my first raise in six years. I was given a 5% raise. My retirement account, OPERS or Ohio Public Employee Retirement Service, has been reworked twice under Republican governors. My retirement age has been delayed until I'm 67. I'll be 60 next month.

I show up to work every day. I'm on roofs, in pits formerly containing leaking underground storage tanks, in asbestos containing building materials in crawl spaces, in slum properties so contaminated by debris as to render them uninhabitable. I work hard.

The work I do keeps people safe, helps prevent insurance claims, increases the property value of the building and its neighborhood. No private sector company does what I do. My professional seal on my work places me at a degree of liability.

My department runs on 3% of the county budget. The value we bring in terms of health and safety and property value is emensce in comparison of our costs.

So, you see, you're arguing from anecdote and I'm arguing from a front seat. I can claim you're wrong on all four points of your premise.

I am not redundant because the private sector offers no alternative.

I have never enacted a single regulation.

I make the county wealthier as a result of my work while costing the county 3% in taxpayer expenditures.

I pay federal, state and local taxes from my salary.

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

Liberals, do you guys hear yourselves?
I didn't say ALL, where did I say that?
How did you come to that conclusion?
We do need govt employees, but do we need that many? NO, not even close.
As for the dept of education, put those programs in HHS, it used to be called the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare.
We do not need an entire cabinet department to do that, the department is just a payoff for govt workers.

Its like this we believe we need govt, but we want a small, efficient govt.

in 2015, Obama asked Congress for the authority to streamline & combine agencies.

Republicans did shit.

They want bloated government so they run on cutting government but they never do.

 

[edthecynic]

Trump's favorability jumps since election

Fake news.

 

[Darkwind]

You got crickets because many refuse to learn what the Electoral College is all about.

Hint - Only a third of the population supported succession from the Crown before the Revolutionary War.
The Electoral College is there for the citizens to overthrow an oppressive goverment that is doing our Nation harm and towards the citizens harm.
The E.C. is Set up for minorties to be able to do so against the majority.

Trump won more counties over Hillary.
Hillary lost, deal with it.

I'm not disputing the results of the election. I understand how and why the Electoral College works.

But the subject is Trump's rhetoric, specifically his credibility. His appointees seem to disavow the missions of the departments they are to head. His personal attacks on private citizens. The promises made on the campaign trail measured against his attitude on them now.

I didn't support Trump, as millions of Americans agreed. Like any incoming President Elect, I am giving him the respect of the office. But there is something to respect. I believe it is earned, not merely bestowed.

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Public sector workers? No. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is conservative state that the workers are the problem.

Public sector unions, yes. When you own the politician on the other side of the negotiating table, it is the tax payer who gets screwed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Because:
1) they are redundant and not needed
2) they make regulations to justify their existance
3) they cost alot of money



And the most important reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Id rather they have private sector jobs to contribute to taxes rather than take from taxes

I am a Public Sector worker. I have been the Building Code Inspector for my county for the past fourteen years. I have never enacted any regulation nor advocated for an enactment of any new regulations since I took this position. I pay federal, state and local taxes. My earnings are not tax free. I have not had a raise in salary for fourteen months when I received my first raise in six years. I was given a 5% raise. My retirement account, OPERS or Ohio Public Employee Retirement Service, has been reworked twice under Republican governors. My retirement age has been delayed until I'm 67. I'll be 60 next month.

I show up to work every day. I'm on roofs, in pits formerly containing leaking underground storage tanks, in asbestos containing building materials in crawl spaces, in slum properties so contaminated by debris as to render them uninhabitable. I work hard.

The work I do keeps people safe, helps prevent insurance claims, increases the property value of the building and its neighborhood. No private sector company does what I do. My professional seal on my work places me at a degree of liability.

My department runs on 3% of the county budget. The value we bring in terms of health and safety and property value is emensce in comparison of our costs.

So, you see, you're arguing from anecdote and I'm arguing from a front seat. I can claim you're wrong on all four points of your premise.

I am not redundant because the private sector offers no alternative.

I have never enacted a single regulation.

I make the county wealthier as a result of my work while costing the county 3% in taxpayer expenditures.

I pay federal, state and local taxes from my salary.

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

Liberals, do you guys hear yourselves?
I didn't say ALL, where did I say that?
How did you come to that conclusion?
We do need govt employees, but do we need that many? NO, not even close.
As for the dept of education, put those programs in HHS, it used to be called the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare.
We do not need an entire cabinet department to do that, the department is just a payoff for govt workers.

Its like this we believe we need govt, but we want a small, efficient govt.

in 2015, Obama asked Congress for the authority to streamline & combine agencies.

Republicans did shit.

They want bloated government so they run on cutting government but they never do.

you have a link on that? I'd love to see the details

 

[bripat9643]

Let's start with a premise. It's this: All politicians, to one extent or another, obfuscate the truth.

definition of obfuscate: being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts.

So, almost any politician can be selective in what he says or how he says something which is sometimes meant to conceal rather than reveal.

I can usually, but certainly not always, tell when it's happening. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are usually more blatant in "framing issues" in such a way as to make a mockery of what is actually true. Presidents and their staff are generally more circumspect in this regard due to both the sheer impact of their statements and the high degree of scrutiny their statements get both here at home and abroad.

Frankly, to be fair, I can think of some whoppers told by every president of the modern era. Some of these false or misleading statements, one can argue, are said in the interest of national security. Others are purely self-serving. Clinton's "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman..." statement immediately comes to mind.

With that said, Trump and his team seem to be charting new ground even before taking office.

What prompts me to post this is a news report I just saw about the CIA continuing to look into Russia's meddling in last month's US national election due, at least in part, to the fact that president Obama had ordered a full review to be done in this regard.

Trump team responds to report that Russia helped Trump win

At any rate, as I read the article, I saw an unattributed quote from someone on Trump's transition team. The person reportedly said the following: "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history."

Really? I didn't think the margin was particularly large. Consequently, I decided to see if I could find out how large it really was when compared to ALL the other presidential elections from George Washington onward.

Here's what I found:

We've had 58 presidential elections over our entire history. Trump's electoral margin of victory was 46th out of 58, AND he still managed to lose the popular vote by somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.7 MILLION ballots cast. So, what this all means is that approximately 78% of the winners of previous elections had a higher winning electoral margin than Trump had.

List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin - Wikipedia

So, I can't help but ask the question again. Is this the kind of nonsense talk we can expect on a daily basis from Trump and his team? If so, the nation is going to tire of it in short order. Of that, I am sure!

Fake news suckers another leftwinger.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You got crickets because many refuse to learn what the Electoral College is all about.

Hint - Only a third of the population supported succession from the Crown before the Revolutionary War.
The Electoral College is there for the citizens to overthrow an oppressive goverment that is doing our Nation harm and towards the citizens harm.
The E.C. is Set up for minorties to be able to do so against the majority.

Trump won more counties over Hillary.
Hillary lost, deal with it.

I'm not disputing the results of the election. I understand how and why the Electoral College works.

But the subject is Trump's rhetoric, specifically his credibility. His appointees seem to disavow the missions of the departments they are to head. His personal attacks on private citizens. The promises made on the campaign trail measured against his attitude on them now.

I didn't support Trump, as millions of Americans agreed. Like any incoming President Elect, I am giving him the respect of the office. But there is something to respect. I believe it is earned, not merely bestowed.

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Public sector workers? No. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is conservative state that the workers are the problem.

Public sector unions, yes. When you own the politician on the other side of the negotiating table, it is the tax payer who gets screwed.

BINGO! why are there public sector unions? I thought unions were to protect workers from the big bad capitalists, why do we need govt unions?

 

[regent]

Vote in a new political party and there was a mass layoff of the party that lost the election.. To the victor belonged the spoils was the political battle cry.

 

[RealDave]

You got crickets because many refuse to learn what the Electoral College is all about.

Hint - Only a third of the population supported succession from the Crown before the Revolutionary War.
The Electoral College is there for the citizens to overthrow an oppressive goverment that is doing our Nation harm and towards the citizens harm.
The E.C. is Set up for minorties to be able to do so against the majority.

Trump won more counties over Hillary.
Hillary lost, deal with it.

I have no problem with it, Peach. But it was not a landslide of historic proportions. Perhaps the word he wants is "upset" ? Maybe it was an upset of historic proportions. But EC wise, he didn't do so hot. Which is fine, he still won, but the POINT is, why is he flat out making shit up?

He's a CEO not a polititian, not a community organizer, not a lawyer.

Is that an excuse for acting like a 5 year old?

 

[RealDave]

You got crickets because many refuse to learn what the Electoral College is all about.

Hint - Only a third of the population supported succession from the Crown before the Revolutionary War.
The Electoral College is there for the citizens to overthrow an oppressive goverment that is doing our Nation harm and towards the citizens harm.
The E.C. is Set up for minorties to be able to do so against the majority.

Trump won more counties over Hillary.
Hillary lost, deal with it.

I'm not disputing the results of the election. I understand how and why the Electoral College works.

But the subject is Trump's rhetoric, specifically his credibility. His appointees seem to disavow the missions of the departments they are to head. His personal attacks on private citizens. The promises made on the campaign trail measured against his attitude on them now.

I didn't support Trump, as millions of Americans agreed. Like any incoming President Elect, I am giving him the respect of the office. But there is something to respect. I believe it is earned, not merely bestowed.

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Public sector workers? No. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is conservative state that the workers are the problem.

Public sector unions, yes. When you own the politician on the other side of the negotiating table, it is the tax payer who gets screwed.

BINGO! why are there public sector unions? I thought unions were to protect workers from the big bad capitalists, why do we need govt unions?

To protect them from big bad politicians.

 

[RealDave]

Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government

I am a Public Sector worker. I have been the Building Code Inspector for my county for the past fourteen years. I have never enacted any regulation nor advocated for an enactment of any new regulations since I took this position. I pay federal, state and local taxes. My earnings are not tax free. I have not had a raise in salary for fourteen months when I received my first raise in six years. I was given a 5% raise. My retirement account, OPERS or Ohio Public Employee Retirement Service, has been reworked twice under Republican governors. My retirement age has been delayed until I'm 67. I'll be 60 next month.

I show up to work every day. I'm on roofs, in pits formerly containing leaking underground storage tanks, in asbestos containing building materials in crawl spaces, in slum properties so contaminated by debris as to render them uninhabitable. I work hard.

The work I do keeps people safe, helps prevent insurance claims, increases the property value of the building and its neighborhood. No private sector company does what I do. My professional seal on my work places me at a degree of liability.

My department runs on 3% of the county budget. The value we bring in terms of health and safety and property value is emensce in comparison of our costs.

So, you see, you're arguing from anecdote and I'm arguing from a front seat. I can claim you're wrong on all four points of your premise.

I am not redundant because the private sector offers no alternative.

I have never enacted a single regulation.

I make the county wealthier as a result of my work while costing the county 3% in taxpayer expenditures.

I pay federal, state and local taxes from my salary.

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

Liberals, do you guys hear yourselves?
I didn't say ALL, where did I say that?
How did you come to that conclusion?
We do need govt employees, but do we need that many? NO, not even close.
As for the dept of education, put those programs in HHS, it used to be called the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare.
We do not need an entire cabinet department to do that, the department is just a payoff for govt workers.

Its like this we believe we need govt, but we want a small, efficient govt.

in 2015, Obama asked Congress for the authority to streamline & combine agencies.

Republicans did shit.

They want bloated government so they run on cutting government but they never do.

you have a link on that? I'd love to see the details

 

[kaz]

Let's start with a premise. It's this: All politicians, to one extent or another, obfuscate the truth.

definition of obfuscate: being evasive, unclear, or obscure in the telling of the facts.

So, almost any politician can be selective in what he says or how he says something which is sometimes meant to conceal rather than reveal.

I can usually, but certainly not always, tell when it's happening. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are usually more blatant in "framing issues" in such a way as to make a mockery of what is actually true. Presidents and their staff are generally more circumspect in this regard due to both the sheer impact of their statements and the high degree of scrutiny their statements get both here at home and abroad.

Frankly, to be fair, I can think of some whoppers told by every president of the modern era. Some of these false or misleading statements, one can argue, are said in the interest of national security. Others are purely self-serving. Clinton's "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman..." statement immediately comes to mind.

With that said, Trump and his team seem to be charting new ground even before taking office.

What prompts me to post this is a news report I just saw about the CIA continuing to look into Russia's meddling in last month's US national election due, at least in part, to the fact that president Obama had ordered a full review to be done in this regard.

Trump team responds to report that Russia helped Trump win

At any rate, as I read the article, I saw an unattributed quote from someone on Trump's transition team. The person reportedly said the following: "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history."

Really? I didn't think the margin was particularly large. Consequently, I decided to see if I could find out how large it really was when compared to ALL the other presidential elections from George Washington onward.

Here's what I found:

We've had 58 presidential elections over our entire history. Trump's electoral margin of victory was 46th out of 58, AND he still managed to lose the popular vote by somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.7 MILLION ballots cast. So, what this all means is that approximately 78% of the winners of previous elections had a higher winning electoral margin than Trump had.

List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin - Wikipedia

So, I can't help but ask the question again. Is this the kind of nonsense talk we can expect on a daily basis from Trump and his team? If so, the nation is going to tire of it in short order. Of that, I am sure!

Obama: If you like your plan, you can keep it.

Obama: “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious"

Obama: I heard about Hillary's e-mail server "...The same time that everybody else learned it, through news reports"

Obama on spying on European leaders including Merkel, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”

Obama on IRS targeting conservative groups, I learned about it “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday"

Obama on wiretapping AP and Fox reporters: I “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road"

Obama on VA healthcare waiting list scandal: “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”

Obama on photo OP scandal flying over the Statue of Liberty: “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

You're such a flaming hypocrite.

Then there's how you don't care Democrats are lying to you, you only care it was disclosed

 

[kaz]

Trump NEVER simply obfuscates! He outright fucking LIES most of the time!!!!

He lies for sure, but wow, he's way more honest than pretty much any politician out there. Democrats repeatedly blasted him for that. The country saw through you

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm not disputing the results of the election. I understand how and why the Electoral College works.

But the subject is Trump's rhetoric, specifically his credibility. His appointees seem to disavow the missions of the departments they are to head. His personal attacks on private citizens. The promises made on the campaign trail measured against his attitude on them now.

I didn't support Trump, as millions of Americans agreed. Like any incoming President Elect, I am giving him the respect of the office. But there is something to respect. I believe it is earned, not merely bestowed.

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Public sector workers? No. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is conservative state that the workers are the problem.

Public sector unions, yes. When you own the politician on the other side of the negotiating table, it is the tax payer who gets screwed.

BINGO! why are there public sector unions? I thought unions were to protect workers from the big bad capitalists, why do we need govt unions?

To protect them from big bad politicians.

Wait, how so?
I thought govt was great and would never treat workers bad.
You're whole argument for private sector unions goes out the window, because you are saying that's life.

but just for fun, how are they treated badly?

 

[RealDave]

Well republicans want smaller government and less activism, so there will be conflicts. We want the Dept of Education eliminated since Reagan, so if we can't do that, we'll have someone who makes it irrelevant, but at the same time gives us vouchers and fucks public sector unions, which lets face it are an oxymoron.

Are Public Sector workers the bad guys? Why are so many Conservatives so interested in screwing people who work for a living?

Public sector workers? No. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is conservative state that the workers are the problem.

Public sector unions, yes. When you own the politician on the other side of the negotiating table, it is the tax payer who gets screwed.

BINGO! why are there public sector unions? I thought unions were to protect workers from the big bad capitalists, why do we need govt unions?

To protect them from big bad politicians.

Wait, how so?
I thought govt was great and would never treat workers bad.
You're whole argument for private sector unions goes out the window, because you are saying that's life.

but just for fun, how are they treated badly?

I believe all workers have the right to organize. You right wing dipsticks hate the idea. Which is really stupid because some of you work.

Yes there are unions that take things to far but there are more good unions looking out for the safety & well being of their members. To think government employees don't have the same issues as those in the private sector is stupid.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government

Well good for you, are you saying that every govt employee is needed? and provides that much value or that they are all unbiased objective people?
you do realize that when the pubs took the house in 94, they still have elevator operators, for automatic elevators and people who brought buckets of ice?
What does the Dept of Education do? It should be eliminated for one example.

You seem to be saying all Public Sector workers are superfluous at best, tax dollar leeching slugs, corrupt, inept and self important at worst.

There are, no doubt, individuals who meet those criteria.

I suggest the work of removing those individuals be done with a scalpel rather than a chain saw. First, Public Sector employees are seen as one big group. Faceless bureaucrats with an innate hatred of the "Free Market" system in their collective hearts. Lazy, corrupt layabouts doing obsolete jobs on the taxpayer's dime.

Then, armed with this attitude, officials are elected and appointed to rid the lot of them because they deserve it. And then reductions to pension funds are made, wages and benefits are cut and retirement ages are pushed forward in spite of promises made before.

The truth is Public Sector workers are your neighbors., your customers, your family and friends.

Should we do away with Public Sector workers? Will we also do away with the programs they administer? That is my response to the Department of Education question. Would you do away with Pell Grants? With extracurricular activitie' with lunches and breakfasts?

Liberals, do you guys hear yourselves?
I didn't say ALL, where did I say that?
How did you come to that conclusion?
We do need govt employees, but do we need that many? NO, not even close.
As for the dept of education, put those programs in HHS, it used to be called the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare.
We do not need an entire cabinet department to do that, the department is just a payoff for govt workers.

Its like this we believe we need govt, but we want a small, efficient govt.

in 2015, Obama asked Congress for the authority to streamline & combine agencies.

Republicans did shit.

They want bloated government so they run on cutting government but they never do.

you have a link on that? I'd love to see the details

Details man, that's why I like the links

The new department would combine the trade and commerce functions of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Trade and Development Agency.

The problem is it sounds like he's just shuffling the deck chairs. It seems like the article was saying that the Dept of Commerce would be removed, which I agree with, but that a new department would be made, so we still gain zero.