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

[RealDave]

Trump said he did not need to get the daily intelligent briefings because he is already intelligent. He does not need to see it everyday because he is smart. Evidently Mike Pence is a dumbass because he listens to them everyday.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well the reasons they give for private sector unions, wouldn't make sense for govt civil service jobs. Unions may have been necessary, but now they are not. You have safety regulations, you have a 40 hour workweek, you have benefits. The problem with modern unions, like all organizations is they have to make up fights and cause unnecessary issues to justify their existence. Like NATO, no point in it anymore, it was designed to counter the Warsaw Pact, scrap it, if you find you need a new organization, then make one, but NATO's reason for existing is over, but people would lose jobs, sorry folks.

 

[RealDave]

Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government

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.

Combining some in a new name department is still combining. Your problem is that if Obama wants it, it can't be good.

Look, you were so uninformed that you were totally unaware of Obama's actions here. Then you read one article & think you're a fucking expert. I have a thought, look up more articles & become better informed. I posted one as an example.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Well the reasons they give for private sector unions, wouldn't make sense for govt civil service jobs. Unions may have been necessary, but now they are not. You have safety regulations, you have a 40 hour workweek, you have benefits. The problem with modern unions, like all organizations is they have to make up fights and cause unnecessary issues to justify their existence. Like NATO, no point in it anymore, it was designed to counter the Warsaw Pact, scrap it, if you find you need a new organization, then make one, but NATO's reason for existing is over, but people would lose jobs, sorry folks.

Organized labor created workplace safety, the 40 hour week and benefits. If those are the only workplace issues, you may have a point. But wage disparity, equal pay, family leave and pensions are still active and vital issues for working families.

Labor is not just another commodity or raw material. And that's how labor is regarded among Conservatives and employers, public and private.

 

[deltex1]

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!

Tit for tat....check ninety percent of the horseshit threads created by libtards on this board.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Just jump out of the window already....

 

[jc456]

No more fake news? You betcha

 

[jc456]

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!

Why did obummer let you down?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Well the reasons they give for private sector unions, wouldn't make sense for govt civil service jobs. Unions may have been necessary, but now they are not. You have safety regulations, you have a 40 hour workweek, you have benefits. The problem with modern unions, like all organizations is they have to make up fights and cause unnecessary issues to justify their existence. Like NATO, no point in it anymore, it was designed to counter the Warsaw Pact, scrap it, if you find you need a new organization, then make one, but NATO's reason for existing is over, but people would lose jobs, sorry folks.

Organized labor created workplace safety, the 40 hour week and benefits. If those are the only workplace issues, you may have a point. But wage disparity, equal pay, family leave and pensions are still active and vital issues for working families.

Labor is not just another commodity or raw material. And that's how labor is regarded among Conservatives and employers, public and private.

Equal pay?

We have FMLA, I thought Clinton solved it

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

 

[jc456]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

Well they could just thank the Democrats for moving all their jobs overseas!

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Well the reasons they give for private sector unions, wouldn't make sense for govt civil service jobs. Unions may have been necessary, but now they are not. You have safety regulations, you have a 40 hour workweek, you have benefits. The problem with modern unions, like all organizations is they have to make up fights and cause unnecessary issues to justify their existence. Like NATO, no point in it anymore, it was designed to counter the Warsaw Pact, scrap it, if you find you need a new organization, then make one, but NATO's reason for existing is over, but people would lose jobs, sorry folks.

Organized labor created workplace safety, the 40 hour week and benefits. If those are the only workplace issues, you may have a point. But wage disparity, equal pay, family leave and pensions are still active and vital issues for working families.

Labor is not just another commodity or raw material. And that's how labor is regarded among Conservatives and employers, public and private.

Equal pay?

We have FMLA, I thought Clinton solved it

How does Family and Medical Leave address the fact women are paid 79 cents on the dollar?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

Well they could just thank the Democrats for moving all their jobs overseas!

Aren't Republicans free traders?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

I do work, when I was young wrong I lost jobs die to outsourcing and the internet ( Egghead software and Auto Zone tech support), so yes I have had to move on. It isnt easy, but life isnt easy and its not supposed to be. Thats why education is fucking people over by not letting them fail or deal with people on different views or to even be insulted.

You are not guaranteed a job or anything else in life.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

You couldn't be more wrong bud.
You did however outline one very important thing that made REAL American's fall in love with Trump and his methodology.
You see REAL American's like to see ACTION, we hate a calm calculated demeanor with all the trivial word play...we see right through that bullshit...we know that's just a shady method to conceal and make people think everything is okay...a calm demeanor almost always shows lack of motivation to get shit done!
We also hate it when a leader turns a blind eye to the 'little things'....we're smart enough to know that 'little things' turn to big things real fast and it's always better to be proactive and set precedent early on. See how this works?
Nut-job Liberals love to play pretend and keep their heads in the sand as long as they get their free shit and acknowledgement.
REAL American's want and need a motivated, charismatic REAL leader who listens to the people that matter...who isn't afraid to make decisions and isn't cautious in everything said and done...it's time to make shit happen and that scares the shit out all the weirdo's, low-lifes and immigrants...anyone truly legit is safe...everyone else is and should be paranoid. Enjoy the show as America is made American again....hahaha

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

Well they could just thank the Democrats for moving all their jobs overseas!

Aren't Republicans free traders?

Yes but theyre learning, ironically when we find out it hurts the country, democrats are embracing it.

 

[jc456]

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?

Do you believe there is a right to collective bargaining?

No, I dont. Because jobs are work that someone needs done. I can mow the lawn or hire someone, if you dont like my conditions, then move on.

Are you a worker? Can you afford to move on?

Let's play a game. You live in an economically depressed region. Home prices have tanked. The factory has closed. The ancillary businesses, barber shops, hardware stores, shoe stores etc., have been closing now for months and months.

Now, move on. Who will buy your house? What will you do for money while you try to find a new job. What about your kids and school?

It's easy to sit back and sneer and say 'move on' until you face that prospect for yourself. And they call Conservatives cold and heartless! I wonder why?

Well they could just thank the Democrats for moving all their jobs overseas!

Aren't Republicans free traders?

What is your definition of free trade? Right now it's not even trade, it's weighted toward global countries not the US.! By many factors that weren't Republican base so please define free-trade