President Trump

[Avatar]

Had Clinton won there would have been upset people, maybe even some picket signs, but there wouldn't be masked gangs in the streets spray-painting "fuck clinton" on buildings...

I have however seen that there's apparently been a sudden surge of people spray-painting anti-semitic graffiti all over the states.

--A

[peter]

I don't get it. If each region has electoral college votes in proportion to the number of voters in that region then why does the result of electoral college votes not reflect the popular vote in the final result?

This explains it in great detail.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos ... 108382513/

Many thanks rdhopeca: I've picked up quite a bit about the American political system over the course of this election, but this one has been a puzzle to me.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Had Clinton won there would have been upset people, maybe even some picket signs, but there wouldn't be masked gangs in the streets spray-painting "fuck clinton" on buildings...

I have however seen that there's apparently been a sudden surge of people spray-painting anti-semitic graffiti all over the states.

--A

There are always statistical outliers who receive media attention. Some of these incidents are probably Trump haters hoping to make it look like the work of Trump supporters.

Other people suspect that the protests are not random and/or spontaneous but funded and organized. Either way, just like other protest movements here it will die down quickly--the holiday season is approaching.

Ironically, Kaepernick--the quarterback who started that trend of football players not standing for the national anthem--did not vote. I guess he thought it wasn't important or figured Clinton would win because she was HRC. *shrug* Trump should thank him personally for his unspoken support.

Finally, this election is causing rifts between family members and long-time friends similar to what happened with the Vietnam War. People are unfriending each other at almost alarming rates. I find that particularly funny--it is almost as if social media matters.

[SoulBiter]

I for the most part have been just allowing people the opportunity to cool down and register the truth. I have also been killing them with kindness and not allowing myself to get dragged into anyone's madness. It has been interesting to find out how misinformed some of my friends and family are

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The CEO of GrubHub sent out a memo suggesting that any employees of the company who supported and/or voted for Trump should leave. Does he realize that he just lined up the company for a number of wrongful termination and/or workplace harassment suits?

I still log on to Facebook every now and then but I never post anything or reply to anything there, even birthday wishes, anniversary wishes, or tags from my wife. I am also a member of the official Intertel group but I never say anything there, either. Truthfully, some of them are the dumbest smart people I have ever seen, but that is a topic for another thread.

[Avatar]

There are always statistical outliers who receive media attention. Some of these incidents are probably Trump haters hoping to make it look like the work of Trump supporters.

Not that it couldn't be, but that seems too convenient a dodge to me.

edition.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I was merely guessing. I don't engage in those sorts of activities and I don't know anyone who is so I cannot accurately determine the motives of the people who are perpetrating these acts. Most of them probably are acting out in an arrogant and aggressive manner because their guy won. As many have noted, real winners do not gloat.

What will happen in 2020 is that the Democrat candidate is likely to win, whoever that may be, at which time you will see Republican supporters out rioting in the street protesting the election. The genie is out of the bottle.

[Avatar]

Seem to recall protests from that side when Obama won too, although not to this extent I'll grant.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Trump is already poised to shake things up in Washington. Here's the blueprint for his plan to radically change civil service--government employees--so that they are more like the private sector employees who aren't guaranteed a job for life, with raises and government pensions, regardless of performance. Currently it's virtually impossible to fire government employees. The system is bloated with people spending their work days watching porn. Trump will freeze hiring, make it easier to fire unproductive (or worse) employees, shift their pensions to private sector 401k like the rest of us, and eventually cut whole agencies that aren't needed.

Yeah! This is change. This is hope. I think people are going to be shocked at how effective a businessman can be in this position. Everyone is under the impression that nothing can change in Washington, but that's only because we've seen nothing but politicians running it.

If you think the election was shocking, just wait!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If he manages to trim waste in the Federal Government then he will have managed to do what conservatives--notice I said "conservatives", not "Republicans" because the two groups are not the same--have been wanting to do for a long time.

[Avatar]

Don't think he's ever said anything about reducing government spending though.

--A

[Zarathustra]

He said that he wants to run the government more like a business: getting projects done ahead of schedule and under budget. Whether we save any money in the long run doesn't matter to me as much as spending our money efficiently, intelligently. There are things we NEED to spend money on, like our military and NASA, which Obama has let slip.

I honestly don't believe that Trump will shrink government spending. But who knows, maybe he will. If he cuts out entire agencies--like the EPA--it's possible. If he privatizes Medicare, Social Security, etc., it's possible.

But in the end, as long as he fulfills his promise of getting more money in people's pockets by cutting taxes and getting our economy moving again, I think conservatives will be happy even if he doesn't dramatically reduce government spending.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The New York Post is reporting that Trump is not going to try to press charges against Hillary. Truthfully, though, that source is such a rag that I really need to find additional confirmation of the story.

Also, it appears that Putin is moving missiles in Europe again. I seem to recall he did that with Obama back in 2008 to measure the character of the person who was President.

[TheFallen]

It is undeniably true that the larger a bureaucracy grows, the more inefficient it is likely to become. It's always dangerous to over-generalise from the specific, but over the last 18 months I have (for the first time in my career) needed to work closely with both national and regional government here in the UK and seeing first-hand the innate stupidity and wasteful inefficiency inherent in how the public sector works - and note, entirely regardless of how well-meaning - has been jaw-droppingly surprising.

I am more cynical than Z - I suspect that governmental bureaucracy is has just become too large, amorphous and by this stage self-sustaining to be dramatically improvable. However, I absolutely would agree that there are definitely areas within government where if standard private sector business practices were properly brought in - and if (and only if) those brought in to run the function were fully and properly empowered - things would operate far FAR more efficiently and cost-effectively. A classic example here is government procurement.

I find myself agreeing in full with an erstwhile long-term employer of mine, now sitting in the House of Lords. Ironically enough, from a reality TV point of view, this guy remains the figurehead of the UK version of The Apprentice TV show - so clearly also a highprofile businessman, but IMO a little less prone to bizarre flights of fancy, when compared to the POTUS-to-be. While not without his faults, I'll personally guarantee that Lord Sugar knows the ways along which and the drivers to which the real world operates and conceptually at least, how such methodology should be ported in (or better yet, imposed) to hugely increase public sector efficiency and provide a far FAR better value for the taxpayer's dollar.

If anyone's interested in this blast of sheer common sense and pragmatism, here's the transcript of his maiden speech in the House of Lords from 5 years back. Not that anything subsequently changed, but even so, I have to completely concur with the sentiment...

Bottom line? The private sector is all about survival of the fittest and as such provides an environment that near on forces an ever-evolving drive towards efficiency and cost-effectiveness - which is pretty much the reverse of what goes on in the public sector, where such pressures simply don't apply (jobs for life, guaranteed pensions, automatic salary increases unrelated to performance etc etc).

On that basis, where appropriate, why not leverage the private sector's well-honed methodologies within the public sector? Sure there'd be a simply massive culture clash, but I doubt it'd be a bad thing at all...

[Ur Dead]

this guy remains the figurehead of the UK version of The Apprentice TV show

That was the problem the media and liberals had.
They only saw this guy as a TV personality. The show was a spinoff of what
he has done in the business world.
(the show had it basis off the UK show no doubt but it's the people whom make or break the show)

He was a member of the democrats until 3 years ago. So what changed?
He still the businessman he started out to be. Only after he declared to run
was his character and past actions open to full warfare. Why didn't the same group of people lambasted him while he was "On their side"?
Gives the term - hypocrisy - an expanded meaning.

They laugh when he declare his intentions to seek the office.
They laugh when he took on the field of 17.
They still dismissed him when he got the nomination.
They (the media, pundits, pollsters) ignore the message he was saying while campaigning.
The media showed only the negative of him and were blinded by the
narcissistic first women president who was awaiting a coronation.
Is Trump narcissistic .. sure.. but he wasn't looking for a crown.
He was out to surpass his competition. To gain the advantage over them.
That was his business aspect at work.

I don't know now if he will succeed in his plan. Whom or what that stops his
deal. I know, unlike the "The Apprentice", he can not fire Congress.
(My version of "Ross Perot Syndrome")
But we shall see..

[Avatar]

Close down the EPA? Really?

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Federal agencies fall under the Executive, so technically the President does have the authority to shut down the agency...except...there are Federal laws which the EPA is charged with enforcing so I am uncertain if such a thing could be done in reality. The President could appoint someone as Director of the EPA who allows the agency to take a very passive role, doing only the minimum amount necessary; this option seems more likely, presuming he actually makes any real changes at all.

It appears that Trump has decided to go with Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the United Nations. She is viewed favorably among many Republicans, as far as I can tell from news stories, and even the Democrats were receptive of her rebuttal to Obama's last SotU. This is actually a pretty good decision. Not only will it giver her experience at diplomacy at the international level, it will also give her foreign affairs experience and could set up her up as a future SecState, VP, or even Presidential bid.

[Zarathustra]

From the link I provided above:

He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one passed and shut down the Education Department and parts of the Environmental Protection Agency.

We don't need a massive education bureaucracy that educates no one. Schools educate. Education is a local issue. If teachers don't know how and/or what to teach after getting a degree to do precisely that, then what the hell was *their* education for?? No other profession requires a government bureaucracy to practice it. Professionals in the field, combined with standard practices honed after centuries of doing that trade, should be enough.

We also do not need the EPA Nazis telling every land owner what they can or can't do with their own property. The environment is a local issue, too, largely self-correcting. All major pollutants were already sharply declining prior to the existence of the EPA, due to improved efficiency in our modes of production. Cleaner is cheaper, cleaner is better business. Customers demand it. We don't need laws to force corporations to do things their customers and neighbors already want them to do.

Now if we could only get the government to stop polluting and mismanaging the environment ...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The Federal Government wants to control education so that they can ensure that succeeding generations are good little drones who know how to obey rather than think.

It looks like Ben Carson will probably be SecHUD.

[Avatar]

Speaking of taking away Trump's devices (in another thread)...

Trump: Flag burners could lose citizenship

US president-elect Donald Trump has warned in a tweet that anyone who burns an American flag should face unspecified "consequences", such as jail or even a loss of citizenship.

This is in direct conflict with free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution and comes as Trump struggles to name a secretary of state.

He tweeted: "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!" It was not clear what prompted the tweet on Tuesday morning.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment.

--A