President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

El_Duderino 09

ebbsy wrote:

Donald tweets. Sets the agenda for the day. Free advertising.

Everyone follows.

This is exactly what happened. He can drop a dead cat on the table like nobody else.

Imagibe trying to hold him to account when he can distract the entire media with fake news. If I didn't hate everything about him I'd admire him. I sometimes wish I didn't care about the future because it must be great fun to be a trump supporter right now. He has the entire media wrapped around his finger.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Post more constructively than this please.

Sorry.

Boeing's share value saw a billion dollars wiped off after this tweet.

The share price recovered when investors realized that it was just Donald, and not real.

BoJack Horseman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The share price recovered when investors realized that it was just Donald, and not real.

What part wasn't real?

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What part wasn't real?

Both Boeing and the White House put out PR that countered what Trump said and the price rebounded.

One would have to admit, it was a sharp drop following a tweet!

RobbingBandit

If he does successfully cut the corporations tax will it entice companies to relocate back to America again or is that just a pipe dream like the wall and locking up Hillary.

Zubeneschamali

RobbingBandit wrote: »

If he does successfully cut the corporations tax will it entice companies to relocate back to America again or is that just a pipe dream like the wall and locking up Hillary.

It might entice some companies to move some jobs.

But American companies do not generally set up in Ireland to dodge US corporation tax. They set up here to have a presence in Europe - then they choose between European countries based on tax, grants, workforce skills and availability etc.

Lower corporate taxes in the US will mainly change where and when they declare profits, not where they put jobs.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Both Boeing and the White House put out PR that countered what Trump said and the price rebounded.

No.... I'm wondering what part of Trumps tweet wasn't real?

One would have to admit, it was a sharp drop following a tweet!

It was 2 cent?
Wow.... how outrageous by Trump!

Meanwhile after St Barry's similar criticism of the Marine-1 replacements the Lockheed share price plummeted by nearly $20!!.... or by 1000 times more than Trumps criticism of Boeing.



Are you lads not seeing your double standard here?

Billy86

What a shock, turns out there is a reason for Trump's random, lying outburst against Boeing:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/806192671891083264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Company criticises Trump over his trade plans, Trump responds with childish outburst, potentially putting hundreds, if not thousands of their manufacturing and production line staff's jobs at risk.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

Trump responds with childish outburst, potentially putting hundreds, if not thousands of their manufacturing and production line staff's jobs at risk.

In your opinion where you as outraged by Trumps much publicised cricitism of Lockheed & their F-35?

The Boeing project is a beefy $4bn acquisition contract for 2 aircraft......
Lockheed's project is a behemoth $320bn acquisition contract for 2,400 aircraft....

Far far more jobs rely on the latter than on the former.
The Joint Programme Office state a staggering 146,000 jobs are reliant on the Lightning-2.... which, as I said, Trump has been excoriating about.

Did that get a mention here?

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Both Boeing and the White House put out PR that countered what Trump said and the price rebounded.

One would have to admit, it was a sharp drop following a tweet!

Interesting, Boeing said the AF1 deal Trump tweeted about was only contracted at $170 million. But the number Trump quoted, $4 Billlion, is more accurate as the planes won't be ready until 2023 or 2024. And investors rebounded the stocks based on Boeing's mistruth? And we put our money in the hands of these investors?

Every corporation is being put on notice by Trump. No one is too big to nail. The American people like that.

“The $4 billion figure looks reasonable,” says Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who previously oversaw Department of Defense acquisitions at the White House Office of Management and Budget.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No.... I'm wondering what part of Trumps tweet wasn't real?

It's 2 planes for $3.75bn over 12 years.

It's factually inaccurate at best.

It was 2 cent?
Wow.... how outrageous by Trump!

As you are aware, 2c can and in this case did wipe over $500m off shareholders.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As you are aware.......

So, to summarise: The Donald makes a comment about AF-1 and knocks 2% of Boeing's share price which recovers within 4 hours... and boardsies are massing the high-horses...

Obama makes comments about Marine-1 that plunges Lockheed's share price by around 25% which takes far longer to recover, but no one cares......

Please tell me you can see the hypocrisy here?

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, to summarise: The Donald makes a comment about AF-1 and knocks 2% of Boeing's share price which recovers within 4 hours... and boardsies are massing the high-horses...

Obama makes comments about Marine-1 that plunges Lockheed's share price by around 25% which takes far longer to recover, but no one cares......

Please tell me you can see the hypocrisy here?

I must have forgotten the part where Obama made blue collar manufacturing jobs across America one of the absolute centre points of his campaign, and then went and tried to put the jobs of thousands of those very jobs potentially at risk because they criticised his trade plans.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, to summarise: The Donald makes a comment about AF-1 and knocks 2% of Boeing's share price which recovers within 4 hours... and boardsies are massing the high-horses...

Obama makes comments about Marine-1 that plunges Lockheed's share price by around 25% which takes far longer to recover, but no one cares......

Please tell me you can see the hypocrisy here?

If Obama made a completely unqualified statement on Twitter, I would see loads of hypocrisy. Although, I believe if you do some fact-checking that the statement was made by Senator McCain who identified the fact that the LH contract for the Marine-1 replacement was more than two times over budget.

Would you admit that on prompted by Senator McCain, Obama saying that he has asked for a review into the procurement process for the Marine-1 replacement is more than slightly different than the Twitter bile "Cancel order!"

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

I must have forgotten the part where Obama made blue collar manufacturing jobs across America one of the absolute centre points of his campaign

Indeed.... having spent 8 years shipping loads abroad the Dems lose Wisco, Michigan & Pennsylvania!

Perhaps the democrats might want to start talking to the working poor again?

Anyway, that wasn't an answer....
Would you agree Billy that if you think Trump was wrong to criticise the cost of the AF-1 contract then Obama was also wrong to criticise the Marine-1 contract (seeing as the stock market impact was far greater from the Obama intervention)?

And aren't you even more angry by Trumps outbursts regarding Lockheeds Lightning-2 programme which.... (in your words).

Billy86 wrote:

potentially putting hundreds, if not thousands of their manufacturing and production line staff's jobs at risk.

That must have really boiled your pee, no?

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.... having spent 8 years shipping loads abroad the Dems lose Wisco, Michigan & Pennsylvania!

Perhaps the democrats might want to start talking to the working poor again?

Anyway, that wasn't an answer....
Would you agree Billy that if you think Trump was wrong to criticise the cost of the AF-1 contract then Obama was also wrong to criticise the Marine-1 contract (seeing as the stock market impact was far greater from the Obama intervention)?

And aren't you even more angry by Trumps outbursts regarding Lockheeds Lightning-2 programme which.... (in your words).

That must have really boiled your pee, no?

Not mine, I don't work there. Just shows what a hypocrite and con artist he really is.

I've already answered your question - what a president ran their campaign on dictates how their actions are viewed. Now can you show us where Obama ran on a platform of manufacturing jobs or not?

And I see you've backed away from your "Obama only created 2mn full time jobs during his presidency" and "Obama was only a community organiser" let's say... 'untruths'... and now are churning out another one as FreudianSlippers pointed out.

Anything to detract from talking about Trump inside the Trump thread, eh!

Yourself isit

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's 2 planes for $3.75bn over 12 years.

It's factually inaccurate at best.



As you are aware, 2c can and in this case did wipe over $500m off shareholders.

This wiping off shareholders value effects the people who sold before it recovered. And it's within normal fluctuations.

And the $4B seems right, close enough. Albeit for two planes. But isn't that number absurd for 2 planes?

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I believe if you do some fact-checking that the statement was made by Senator McCain

Lots of people had lots to say on that project...

Obama criticised it by saying:
"I think it is ... an example of the procurement process gone amuck.."

Accordingly the project was cancelled at the insistence of the White House.
Lockheed ate a lot of it & the taxpayer even more so.

So, again..... Obama cancels project... no one cares!
Trump threatens cancellation.... grrrr... bad!

Lockheed stocks crater..... no one cares
Boeing has a 4hr/2% tim..... grrrr.... bad!

Seem ok to you?

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

Not mine, I don't work there

Indeed..., you don't really care.... so why pretend?

Why the faux-outrage on a Trump tweet about a boeing project but Trump eviscerating a Lockheed project doesn't require response?

You seem selective in your outrage Billy?
Why is that?

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Accordingly the project was cancelled at the insistence of the White House.

Sure you're not leaving something out here... ?

In June 2009, the VH-71 program was canceled due to these cost overruns.[11] By this time, cost estimates had ballooned to more than $13 billion.[9] The Government Accountability Office issued a report in March 2011 that pointed to three sources for the cost overruns. First, asking for development at the same time as production led to extensive retrofitting of built models. Second, a full-scale review of the system's requirements did not occur until four months after production started. Only then was it discovered that the VH-71's design could not meet the system's needs. Third, DOD and the White House asked for excessive combat and communications capabilities.[9]

Shortly after the program's cancellation, however, the Marine Corps started the program again.

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed..., you don't really care.... so why pretend?

Why the faux-outrage on a Trump tweet about a boeing project but Trump eviscerating a Lockheed project doesn't require response?

You seem selective in your outrage Billy?
Why is that?

Not a fan of hypocrites myself, nor people who willfully defend them and 'stretch' the truth to do so.

Did Obama run on a central policy of manufacturing jobs?

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Lots of people had lots to say on that project...

Obama criticised it by saying:
"I think it is ... an example of the procurement process gone amuck.."

Accordingly the project was cancelled at the insistence of the White House.
Lockheed ate a lot of it & the taxpayer even more so.

So, again..... Obama cancels project... no one cares!
Trump threatens cancellation.... grrrr... bad!

Lockheed stocks crater..... no one cares
Boeing has a 4hr/2% tim..... grrrr.... bad!

Seem ok to you?

Ok, who brought it up and who made the biggest "allegation" - not McCain?

Manic Moran

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

But then, there wasn't really a bidding process on this..... EADS/Airbus pulled out so it was awarded to Boeing without competition.

And of course this is not unique on the part of Trump.
Back in the day St Obama was scathing towards Lockheed on the costs of the Marine-1 replacement programme.......
T'would be hypocritical to attack Trump for echoing his predecessor.

That may be for the best. Look at the KC-X saga, where protests between EADS and Boeing resulted in a re-start of the process. I seem to recall similar with the LUH contract.

I've had to study the US military procurement system. It's absolutely eye-watering. The checks and balances which are built into it to make sure there is no fraud and that we get the best value for what we're paying for are so god-awful that you may be better off just accepting the fraud (or at least, 'best guess') and saving the money overall.

Earlier this year, the head of the Army expressed his frustration at the $17million dollar pistol testing process (Just the testing, mind), saying in effect "Just give me a credit card with a $17m limit, I'll go to the local sports store, and buy everyone a bloody pistol. And get a bulk discount"
https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That must have really boiled your pee, no?

Mod:
You are around long enough to know that isn't acceptable in the forum.

More substance and less personals please everybody!

El_Duderino 09

It's amusing to watch role debate the relative truth of Trump's Boeing tweet.

The truth, in case anyone missed it, us that Trump can wipe a billion off your stock value in he time it takes him to do a sit-down wee. That news won't have escaped any CEO in the world.

Does anyone want to stand over the statement that Trump can't leverage companies to relocate to Pennsylvania, Transylvania, or anywhere else he wants?

Boeing stock recovered this time. Now everyone knows he is likely to play with company stocks on a whim. Wait until the next time he does it. Who wouldn't be monitoring his Twitter account for mention of companies? Who wants to be left holding stock that Trump rubbished? Who would buy stock in a company that stands up to Trump?

recedite

I presume he made a few dollars on it for himself too
Its not insider trading when you're an outsider.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

I presume he made a few dollars on it for himself too Its not insider trading when you're an outsider.

That's a disgusting thing to say and you should be ashamed. Donald Trump would never do something like that. He completely divested from the Trump business and his children are running it now.

On a completely unrelated topic, I'd be shocked if Donald Trump Jr. didn't make a small fortune

FreudianSlippers

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's amusing to watch role debate the relative truth of Trump's Boeing tweet.

The truth, in case anyone missed it, us that Trump can wipe a billion off your stock value in he time it takes him to do a sit-down wee. That news won't have escaped any CEO in the world.

Does anyone want to stand over the statement that Trump can't leverage companies to relocate to Pennsylvania, Transylvania, or anywhere else he wants?

Boeing stock recovered this time. Now everyone knows he is likely to play with company stocks on a whim. Wait until the next time he does it. Who wouldn't be monitoring his Twitter account for mention of companies? Who wants to be left holding stock that Trump rubbished? Who would buy stock in a company that stands up to Trump?

My issue is not the President or President-elect making statements in the course of his/her office in the appropriate forum. 140 characters on Twitter is not the appropriate forum, particularly when the basis of the statement appears to be factually inaccurate.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

My issue is not the President or President-elect making statements in the course of his/her office in the appropriate forum. 140 characters on Twitter is not the appropriate forum, particularly when the basis of the statement appears to be factually inaccurate.

Tell trump that. It's much more convenient than a press conference on the news that takes concentration on the part if the receiver, requires a third party medium (media elites) to carry the content and is subject to pesky follow up questions and evidence standards from journalist.

It's his way of communicating with his supporters. He knows his demographic is less educated and isn't going to spend 5 mins reading an article. They want the message in 5 seconds and that's what the given them.

The fact that it's so brief also leaves lots of unanswered questions for the cognitively engaged which means it sets the media agenda for the entire day.

Posters like yourself will try to dig deeper and uncover the relative truth of his tweet and other posters will argue the points. Both of you are missing the point of the message. It was a demonstration of his power over all businesses.

FreudianSlippers

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

(media elites)

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West.

Idiocracy and populism is the problem.

El_Duderino 09

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West. Idiocracy and populism is the problem.

Nope, you stopping reading when you see a phrase you don't like/understand is the problem. I don't like the idea that actual journalism is 'elite media' but that's he world we live in.

Idiots get their news from Twitter. Twitter is ideal for populism. Trump communicating his populist ideas to idiots via Twitter is the new normal.

Stop reading wherever you like. But please stop being surprised that the reality of what's appropriate has changed. The president elect uses Twitter and so will the next President

Zubeneschamali

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

I wondered if that would happen.

I saw a trailer for it last week and it occurred to me that it bucks the trend of movies and TV at the moment. They tend to be apocalyptic, zombie, turmoil and having to reimagine the whole system of government. Think walking dead, the 100, Westworld, designated survivor, man in the high castle.. There isn't much from the point of view of outnumbered outgunned rebels fighting against the huge, evil empire.

I wondered if it was released at the wrong point in time. FWIW it was the only star wars movie that ever appealed to me. Looks class.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope, you stopping reading when you see a phrase you don't like/understand is the problem. I don't like the idea that actual journalism is 'elite media' but that's he world we live in.

Idiots get their news from Twitter. Twitter is ideal for populism. Trump communicating his populist ideas to idiots via Twitter is the new normal.

Stop reading wherever you like. But please stop being surprised that the reality of what's appropriate has changed. The president elect uses Twitter and so will the next President

It doesn't matter where you read your news as long as you are skeptical put it through the bullsh1t detector courtesy of Carl Sagan.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge.

Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

PopePalpatine

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

They did it last year for Episode VII, because apparently JJ Abrams is a "beta male" orchestrating a cultural Marxist conspiracy against white men...or some other Mountain Dew-fuelled conspiracy theory along those lines. :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They did it last year for Episode VII, because apparently JJ Abrams is a "beta male" orchestrating a cultural Marxist conspiracy against white men...or some other Mountain Dew-fuelled conspiracy theory along those lines. :rolleyes:

You forgot "cuck" their favourite insult!

El_Duderino 09

Akrasia wrote:

It doesn't matter where you read your news as long as you are skeptical put it through the bullsh1t detector courtesy of Carl Sagan.

Well I agree with you but the reality is there is so much information available right now, that you can pick your own 'truth'.

You can live in fox news land or the guardian land (not the same level of terrible but they illustrate the point). The electorate was divided by education in a way that isn't normal in US elections. Brexit was similar where people with only junior cert equivalent and O level (less academic version of A level, leaving cert equivalent), were overwhelming likely to vote to leave. People with A level and above, increasingly voted to remain.

Dividing people by how educated/smart they are, means you can't expect the same level of thought to be done by both sides. You also can't expect the same arguments to be convincing to both sides. The third thing is that you can't expect the better educated people to understand that what they consider a convincing argument, is often received as talking down to trump voters. They don't understand it and they can go back to fox news land which speaks directly to their education/comprehension level. They have guests like Phil Robertson from duck dynasty to help explain the issues for them.

That's why terms like 'elite' are so convincing to trump supporters, while meaning nothing to you and a lot of other people. If you dont know who the elites are, then you're almost certainly an elite.

In conclusion. Trump voters don't care about Carl Sagan or his bullsh1t detector.

oscarBravo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well I agree with you but the reality is there is so much information available right now, that you can pick your own 'truth'.

You can live in fox news land or the guardian land (not the same level of terrible but they illustrate the point). The electorate was divided by education in a way that isn't normal in US elections. Brexit was similar where people with only junior cert equivalent and O level (less academic version of A level, leaving cert equivalent), were overwhelming likely to vote to leave. People with A level and above, increasingly voted to remain.

Dividing people by how educated/smart they are, means you can't expect the same level of thought to be done by both sides. You also can't expect the same arguments to be convincing to both sides. The third thing is that you can't expect the better educated people to understand that what they consider a convincing argument, is often received as talking down to trump voters. They don't understand it and they can go back to fox news land which speaks directly to their education/comprehension level. They have guests like Phil Robertson from duck dynasty to help explain the issues for them.

That's why terms like 'elite' are so convincing to trump supporters, while meaning nothing to you and a lot of other people. If you dont know who the elites are, then you're almost certainly an elite.

In conclusion. Trump voters don't care about Carl Sagan or his bullsh1t detector.

Ye gods, that's depressing. Not necessarily wrong; just depressing.

If there are two sides to an argument, of which one tries to use reason and logic and the other side just shouts that one down, it's obvious that reason and logic can't win. The only alternative is to try to shout louder, which means that reasoned discussion is replaced by a shouting match.

Who's the winner? Anyone who can't make their case logically, but is good at shouting. Who's the loser? Pretty much everyone.

El_Duderino 09

oscarBravo wrote:

If there are two sides to an argument, of which one tries to use reason and logic and the other side just shouts that one down, it's obvious that reason and logic can't win. The only alternative is to try to shout louder, which means that reasoned discussion is replaced by a shouting match.

Well trump appealed to emotion and Clinton was appalling at getting people excited. He talked about how America doesn't win anything anymore and he would make America win again. Simple message not confused with facts or figures.

Some people are convinced by logical argument. Premise 1 + premise 2 =conclusion. Those arguments have a longer lasting affect but they take more effort to understand.

Emotional arguments are simpler and quicker get behind, but they don't have as long lasting affect - this is why trump supporters aren't turning against him for reneging on campaign promises like locking up Hillary, banning Muslims and repealing Obama care. They were emotional appeals which whipped people into a frenzy and we're forgotten about soon after.

I don't now how you win without turning your message into complete garbage.

All I know it that Michelle Obama should be right when she said 'when they go low, we go high'. Go high maybe, but for god sake don't go high brow!

El_Duderino 09

I couldn't think of the name if the psychological theory that explains the depth of cognition someone gives and the affect in terms of strength of attitude change and length of affect. It's called the elaboration likelihood model.

You might prefer the 'central route' which takes a lot of thought and critical analysis of the evidence.

Trump supporters are more likely to prefer the 'peripheral route' which uses heuristics and emotion. It doesn't rely on reasoned argument or critical analysis.

'I'll make America win again, believe me' is a preamble yo the argument for you, but it IS the argument for someone else. Trump tapped into that psychological process. Clever, no?

K-9

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump's followers are now boycotting Star Wars, apparently because they just noticed the political message.

#dumpstarwars

It's the alt right. They are becoming quite the SJW's!

El_Duderino 09

A surprising consequence of Trump's presidency will he the compliance of the press.

I listened to two interviews in NPR 'fresh air' podcast, this week. Megan Kelly from fox news and the editor of the New York times. Both spoke about the intimidation trump applied to them. In Kelly's case her life was turned upside down since the primary debates. Death threats, rape threats, reporters harassing her and her family.

Trump blew hot and cold with her for about 9 months. Each time he tweeted about yer it would result in her life going into lockdown for fear of these threats. Now she is back on good terms with him -only doing topical stuff or positive pieces.

Very few journalists will be willing to go beyond reporting on the topic of the day as set by major events or trumps Tweets. Investigative journalism could results in harm to the journalist so I expect analysis to be limited to day-to-day reporting/bitching rather than serious investigation.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A surprising consequence of Trump's presidency will he the compliance of the press

As opposed to what? The way they relentlessly pursued Bush?

osmiumartist

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I stopped reading there. The dumbing down of the Western world is a shame and elitism and education is not the problem with the West.

Oh look. You're pretending he was complaining about "education" when he said "elites" and nothing more.
But who'd notice you added in an extra word or two there, huh?
So you're against Trump and orphanages yourself?

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

As opposed to what? The way they relentlessly pursued Bush?

More topical. I think he'll use Twitter to make it easy for journalist to follow the day to day story. He'll also make life hell for journalists who do investigations and write about things outside the story of the day. That's exactly what he did to Megan Kelly.

Like with Boeing, he showed what he can do if he wants to. If you were an investigative journalist, you'd know all about the hassle it cost Kelly.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Raise the standard please.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Megan Kelly from fox news.... Now she is back on good terms with him -only doing topical stuff or positive pieces.

Similar to the way Enda Kenny is back on track with him, and now has the auld shamrock run booked for 17th March. These people tried to diss Trump during his campaign because it was seen as the trendy thing to do at the time, and they failed to take out into account the possibility that he might actually win. Now they are having to eat humble pie. Good enough for them.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Similar to the way Enda Kenny is back on track with him, and now has the auld shamrock run booked for 17th March.

These people tried to diss Trump during his campaign because it was seen as the trendy thing to do at the time, and they failed to take out into account the possibility that he might actually win. Now they are having to eat humble pie. Good enough for them.

That's a bit cynical. They dissed him because he is a serious threat to world stability. He doesn't play by the established rules so he threatens the rest of the world who abide by he rules and are somewhat hamstrung by them.

That's why he'll get so much done in his first term -for better or worse.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

That's why he'll get so much done in his first term -for better or worse.

Oh expect overall bad things to happen, with Goldman Sachs shares up 33%, somethings brewing!

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a bit cynical. They dissed him because he is a serious threat to world stability. .

Absolute nonsense. The current secretary of defense Ashton Carter is an old school cold war type who still acts as if the Soviet Union is the main enemy. The administration have stoked up tensions with Russia while allowing islamic terrorism to spread globally, and while the ME burns.

After January that will all change. Mad Dog Mattis will take control. Good relations with Russia will be restored, US support for jihadists in Syria will end. Relative peace will be brought to the the Levant, within a couple of months max.

By that time Merkel will be out on her ear and the EU will also change tack. Kenny, as always, will be the bamboo flexing and bowing to the prevailing wind.