Trump

[esd]

Well this thread's gotten personal again, so I'm locking it. I might unlock it tomorrow, or another mod might, or it might just stay locked. At the very least it's getting a time-out, because it was only the last page that I posted this:

I am quite willing to pull the plug on this thread if people don't stay on their best behavior.

[CBJ]

Unlocked again after a few hours of cool-down time. Formal warnings and/or bans will be on the cards for anyone else who fails to heed moderator warnings.

[Bishop149]

Ok this will be my last contribution to this particular over long discussion, I think its clear we aren't going to find common ground.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm diminishing them because of the narrative you were pushing are giving the wrong impression.
- The Trump's bailout package was negotiated with his debtors (a.k.a the banks), it was not a government bailout similar to the like we saw in the last depression that were given to GM motor and Morgan, which come out of the tax's payer dollar. Unless you have a personal skate, I don't see why you would be grumbling?

GM and Morgan are single corporations, Trump is an individual with interests in multiple entities.
Economically these are two VERY different things.
All I have stated is simple historical fact, just go look it up. Trump's bankruptcy was unique (at the time*) and was thus granted an unique solution.

Yes, Trump was given that because he was too big to fall, and I see simply this as shared liabilities between business partners. In the end, after a few years everyone involved ended up better than they would have if Trump was simply let go under. I don't know about you, that's the definition of good business decision. And if you think this is only exclusive to people like Trump, think again:

It probably was a good decision (for the people involved), it was however NOT Trumps decision which is the point.

At no point that I see you're making a point as a objective and reasonable economist, or even attempt to.

Ok cool, I'm full of sentiment and biased because I don't like capitalist economics (the latter is at least true).
Go and talk to an objective economist about Trump 1970-1990, see what they say.
Hint: They aren't going to agree with you.

But, anyone with a basic knowledge of economy, and willing to spend a little of their time in looking up some facts instead of just blindly following convenience narrative then ... well, let's just say if this person gets her wish of serving in the Budget committee in the house, then may God help us all.

We've already covered this, you are happy with the economy as it is and happy to throw out platitudes such as "Its reality" or "just the way things are" to explain such things.
This has the benefit of being correct in the moment but obviously ignores any potential alternative scenarios, which you would no doubt declare "impossible" from your particular worldview. . . . . right up until the moment they happen.
This is just the fundamental difference at the root of many of our disagreements here, you are either happy with the status quo and/or think that changing it is impossible. I am, and do, not.

Did you treat what I said as a challenge or competition? Because if so you missed the points, completely. The points are:

- You can not do it, I can not do it, the people who are more qualified then us can not do it, and those who had been trying to do it has been consistently failing for 50-60 years.

No, you misunderstand. I DID do it, I educated myself up until the point were I could at least have a stab at it myself and satisfied myself that the conclusions drawn were at least broadly correct. This much at least was not THAT hard, I did not have to fully understand the stockbroking tricks involved, just enough to be able to apply them within the rules and judge the likelihood of their application is specific circumstances (for which again there are a set of standards to help).
But by all means go do the same, I will warn you however that I at least did not find it an at all enjoyable experience, rather a dull and depressing one.

I was going to leave with the parting suggestion that if you are such a fan of Mr Trump's economic savvy that you go put your money where your mouth is and invest heavily in one of his enterprises.
Then I realised that thanks to his rampant attempts at kleptocracy, this might NOW actually be quite good financial advice . . . . . or maybe this is correct and Trump is failing at this as he does in most things . . . . . a fairly typical Trump business proposition then. Red or Black, 50:50, Get rich or go broke.

*Worth noting that whilst individuals have lost billions in the time since none have ever been quite like Trump. In every other case the person involved either:
- Was a white collar criminal of such a calibre that they went to prison for a long time.
- So rich that a billion wasn't that big of a deal to them.
- Actually genuinely went bankrupt. . . . the markets having learned the lesson provided them by one Mr Trump.

[pjknibbs]

Ok this will be my last contribution to this particular over long discussion, I think its clear we aren't going to find common ground.

I think that was clear approximately 548 pages ago...

[Bishop149]

I think that was clear approximately 548 pages ago...

Suckers for punishment aren't we?

[BugMeister]

watching the establishment in the US coming to terms with the chaos is interesting..
also very enlightening to see how forces for good are martialling for the ultimate denoument..
The strength of national support for the Constitution is gradually awakening..
- most interesting to view the political manoeuvring as the boat rights itself..

- the necessary procedures are going to be severely tested, and rightly so..
- some good may come of it all, if checks are properly placed..

- meanwhile, the Brexit circus still plays to an increasingly bored audience in the UK..

[Morkonan]

Ok this will be my last contribution to this particular over long discussion, I think its clear we aren't going to find common ground.
...

And, when it is finally revealed that Trump is a baby-eating Reptilian from Orion, how fast are you going to come back to this thread?

Secondary explosions always draw attention, even if everyone knows it's just a dumpster fire...

We already have "Common Ground" - We want to discuss this topic with others. If anyone comes here with the goal to "convince" anyone of anything or think that they'll find some sort of "common ground" other than what made them click on the thread title to begin with, they're gonna have to put in a heck of a lot of work.

I'm here because I want to read what the opinions of others happen to be on whatever just assploaded all over Trump's Twitter account or the press headlines... Will my own opinion change? Maybe, but some of my opinions would take near-Biblical revelations. (Maybe even with a capital "R." )

[Bishop149]

And, when it is finally revealed that Trump is a baby-eating Reptilian from Orion, how fast are you going to come back to this thread?

Oh not the thread, just that particular quotathon of an exchange with Mightysword.

I doubt my morbid fascination with the ongoing portaloo fire that is the Trump presidency will ever end.
This is indeed the common ground we all share

[Mightysword]

GM and Morgan are single corporations, Trump is an individual with interests in multiple entities.
Economically these are two VERY different things.
All I have stated is simple historical fact, just go look it up. Trump's bankruptcy was unique (at the time*) and was thus granted an unique solution.

How is this in anyway relevant to what we have been talking about all along?

It probably was a good decision (for the people involved), it was however NOT Trumps decision which is the point.

He was still one of the party who signed, and I sincerely doubt he was simply sitting there and the bankers just come to his desk and say "sign here please".

Ok cool, I'm full of sentiment and biased because I don't like capitalist economics (the latter is at least true).

Sentiment and bias for any reason are still sentiment and bias, which run counter to an objective argument.

No, you misunderstand. I DID do it,

And you misunderstood mine. Many people did do it, only problem none had proven to got it right.

I was going to leave with the parting suggestion that if you are such a fan of Mr Trump's economic savvy...

And I will leave with a correction of your partiing suggestion with a suggestion of my own (unless you change your mind and continue )
You can't be more wrong about me.

- I'm obsessed with being debt free:
+ As a student I prefer to work myself to bone with 2,3 jobs instead of taking out a student loan.
+ In the 15 years of me using credit card, not even one penny was paid to interest. I use it merely for a better protection of liability (oh and the cashback reward).
+ The only debt I currently have is the morgate, which I secured under the best possible condition. It's currently worth exactly one year of my salary, and well being on its way to disappear.

- I'm not a risk taker:
+ Thought about flipping house in 2009, didn't do it.
+ Few years later my mother proposed she and I split 50/50 of our saving and buy gold (since it was low at the time). I didn't take her up on the offer.
+ I chicken out the stock market faster then its score board can change.
+ I'm the type who save pennies until they add up to a dollar, then put that dollar away and collect the next penny.

So ... fan of Trump's economic? Try "antithesis", it's be a much more accurate word to describe me.

The point here being you don't have to be a fan of Trump to acknowledge his qualities, just like you don't have to hate Trump to call him an arsehole. The only thing you need to do both is being objective.

Visit the X4 forum lately? My experience with it last week seems to be you can't talk about the bug, the launch, the features without words like fanboys, hater, braindeath, impatient flying around:

- Think the game great even despite all the bugs? Must be a fanboys.
- Thinking the launch has too many bugs to be acceptable? Must be a hater.
- Thinking the game is too confusing without instructions? Must be brain death.
- Judging the game in 2h and ask for a refund? Must be impatient.

Again, the truth somewhere in between all of them. In case you missed it, I wasn't really argue about Trump is the best or anything, the whole reason I addressed you because when you said:

As I alluded to earlier he would be richer than he is today if he had simply taken the money his dad left him, invested it in the stockmarket (in the safest possible way) and then buggered off to spend his life playing golf.
Zero business acumen required, by applying his he has made himself poorer . . . . and has only avoided complete personal bankruptcy thanks to the grace and favor of the government.

They are pretty much factually wrong, and I mean the 1+1 = 3 kind of wrong. Trump can be just an average economist, not even amazing, and none of that would apply to him

[Morkonan]

...The point here being you don't have to be a fan of Trump to acknowledge his qualities, just like you don't have to hate Trump to call him an arsehole. The only thing you need to do both is being objective...

That's dangerous argumentative ground you're taking, there...

So, how far must we go, how hard must we look and how much energy must we devote towards being "objective."

"Hey, he's a great guy! You're just not being objective!"
"But he murdered fifty people!"
"But, he's a great Scrabble player! See? You're just not being objective."

...Again, the truth somewhere in between all of them...

That only matters if you're willing to accept a general, overall, point of view. If you're really worried about people who murder other people, you may not wish to consider their Scrabble-playing capabilities.

Today was the launch of Path of Exile's "Betrayal" League on XBox. They have four leagues a year with all new content, new items, skills, quests, stories, etc... (Free game, too.) So, I downloaded the new patch, patched up, made my plans for the sort of character I want to start off with, chose the class I wanted to play and then tried to name my character. "Tried." Unfortunately, an interim patch introduced this afternoon, after launch, borked the heck out of the text input app for XBox, making it practically impossible to create a character for the League because you couldn't name it.

So, what's my opinion of the quality of this new PoE league? Well, my experience so far has been... bad. But, I really don't have any experience nor can I consider anything about the gameplay past the point at which someone would create a character...

If I care about a President with what appears to be a strong moral code and who tells the truth, values his friends and family, and generally appears to be concerned about being a good leader, then it would take me all of fifteen minutes to develop an opinion of Trump that is entirely negative... no matter how well he plays Scrabble.

In other words, my willingness and the willingness of most people, I would think, to consider a subject "objetively" only extends so far. I do not have to smell it, taste it, or feel it to develop an opinion that it's a good thing I didn't step in it...

Cheech and Chong - Dog poop (Language warning)

[Mightysword]

...The point here being you don't have to be a fan of Trump to acknowledge his qualities, just like you don't have to hate Trump to call him an arsehole. The only thing you need to do both is being objective...

That's dangerous argumentative ground you're taking, there...

So, how far must we go, how hard must we look and how much energy must we devote towards being "objective."

"Hey, he's a great guy! You're just not being objective!"
"But he murdered fifty people!"
"But, he's a great Scrabble player! See? You're just not being objective."

Uh Mork, I think you greatly misunderstood something here.
Being objective seemly means you acknowledge things as they are, without the influence of subjective bias that cloud your judgement. It doesn't mean "whitewashing". In parallel to your example, I would have to say something like "Because I believe Trump is a good businessman, thus I believe he's also a good human, you just misunderstood him!". I'm not saying that, hell no.

See, as demonstrated by your example, I think the #1 reason people have a hard time thinking objectively is because they can not 'separate' arguments and look at it for what it is, especially when you ask them to detach their own bias and sentiment on the subject matter. Put it this way: someone is born under a lucky star and gifted with a brilliant mind, that will be a fact that is never change. If the person put that mind to work toward good, we will see some of the most brilliant advancements. But if that person decide to use that prowess for evil, we may see crime more heinous then we can imagine. The problem here is most people had long formed a bias that "we should not associate good quality to bad people". If you're a good guy, I have no problem acknowledging you're smart, but if you're a bad guy, I will never acknowledge you no matter how smart you are! Because no smart people can be evil, right? And frankly, I think that's the issue people have with Trump. No matter whether it's true or not, people probably feel disgust if they have to acknowledge anything positive about him, at the same time it'll also give people great psychology pleasure to paint him in any negativity they can come up, and it seems half of the time it is done regardless of "facts".


P.S: in fact just remember this, sometime ago one or two people in this thread called me out during one of my usual call for "remain neutral in the middle" as simply being "indecisive, because it's not possible to be neutral otherwise". What you said is pretty an equally misguide assumption as that statement.

[Morkonan]

...The point here being you don't have to be a fan of Trump to acknowledge his qualities, just like you don't have to hate Trump to call him an arsehole. The only thing you need to do both is being objective...

That's dangerous argumentative ground you're taking, there...

So, how far must we go, how hard must we look and how much energy must we devote towards being "objective."

"Hey, he's a great guy! You're just not being objective!"
"But he murdered fifty people!"
"But, he's a great Scrabble player! See? You're just not being objective."

Uh Mork, I think you greatly misunderstood something here.
Being objective seemly means you acknowledge things as they are, without the influence of subjective bias that cloud your judgement. It doesn't mean "whitewashing". In parallel to your example, I would have to say something like "Because I believe Trump is a good businessman, thus I believe he's also a good human, you just misunderstood him!". I'm not saying that, hell no.

The above is a fictional exchange between two people who value different things. When criticism is encountered by one, they've responded with the "you're not being objective" argument. The truth is that the other person reached a point in their considerations where they aren't willing to consider that quality of the person because they've been forced, by their differing "bias" towards a preferred quality.

For instance, I don't care about Trump's "business acumen." That means absolutely nothing at all in regards to his fitness for the office of President. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Null set.

Why?

Citizens are not shareholders. They're not investors. They are not anything other than "citizens." "Profit" is also not something the "business of government" is created to produce, either. That's not its purpose. Business management has crap-all to do with managing a political office. It has nothing at all to do with determining the future of a nation that holds to ideals that must be maintained, whether or not they are "profitable."

My "bias" is that I do not consider "business skills" to be a valuable trait for the President of the United States because they're not applicable.

...If you're a good guy, I have no problem acknowledging you're smart, but if you're a bad guy, I will never acknowledge you no matter how smart you are! Because no smart people can be evil, right? And frankly, I think that's the issue people have with Trump. No matter whether it's true or not, people probably feel disgust if they have to acknowledge anything positive about him, at the same time it'll also give people great psychology pleasure to paint him in any negativity they can come up, and it seems half of the time it is done regardless of "facts".

It's all about a person's behavior and actions, not their intrinsic qualities, right? If someone is brilliant, no matter what they do, if you were asked if they were a smart person, you'd likely have to say that they were based upon their IQ score or some sort of mental acumen they have displayed that is rare and is generally regarded as being a property of "smartness." However, you probably wouldn't acknowledge that they're a "good person" just because they're "smart," right? The qualities of being a "good person" don't have anything to do with how smart one is.

I am not intimately familiar with Trump. But, if hard pressed, I can't honestly say I know of any positive traits he may have. Does he have some? I'm not kidding - Does he have some attribute that can be said to be "positive?"

And, if he dose have a positive trait that we could both agree is a positive trait, how much does that matter to me, someone who may care more about his constant lies and childish behavior more than the trait being presented in an "objective" manner? Do I want to be objective in considering his possible positive traits in the light of the negative qualities he possesses? Is there a scale on which these things are balanced? CAN things that are not "likes" (Not similar) be adequately compared objectively?

P.S: in fact just remember this, sometime ago one or two people in this thread called me out during one of my usual call for "remain neutral in the middle" as simply being "indecisive, because it's not possible to be neutral otherwise". What you said is pretty an equally misguide assumption as that statement.

It wasn't misguided because it went exactly where I wanted it to go... You just chose to interpret it differently, to suit your point, instead of considering it.... objectively.

If a man abuses his wife and kids or murders people or sells drugs, robs people, hurts others, takes advantage of the innocent, etc... That's my "full stop" moment where I have reached a point in my consideration of the person that can't be easily progressed further if someone asks me what my opinion of them is. I can't go past that point because if I did, I'd be devaluing my own principles. I'd have to say of such a person - They're not a good person. BUT, also note that whenever I have been asked or have given a "general opinion" about a person, I usually include a disclaimer that acknowledges I don't know all of their qualities. Why? It's a long story, but the short of it is that I can not assume the role of an omniscient being that is capable of examining the totality that is that one person and making a judgement as to their overall quality. It's not my place. I can judge specific things, but that's usually as far as I will go... unless I forget myself and get ticked off and start ranting about something.

[Mightysword]

The above is a fictional exchange between two people who value different things.

Hence the problem, that difference is supposed to be to be irrelevant. That's the whole point of being objective, if 10 people look at one thing objectively, they're supposed to see the same thing, not 10 different depending on their "perspective".

For instance, I don't care about Trump's "business acumen."

Then simple, don't try to debate about that particular topic. You can pick another one like "Is Trump a good human?" for example. There is a reason why whenever I enter a debate with someone, I purposely force it to be very focus and not letting the peer "veer off" (you just saw I did that last page). Here we're talking about Trump's business acumen, that what was quoted after, and that what we will stay on. If we want to discuss his fitness as a President, we can start another line of argument on THAT topic. Usually what happens on the internet (or even just debate in general) that when one is being pressured, they'll try to deflect or change the topic. Press a person hard enough on the topic of business acumen and it'll become "but that doesn't make him a good president!", press them hard enough on that and it'll become "but he's still not a good human at the end!!".

And like I said, a few rounds like that and neither side gonna remember what they were even talking debating about.

However, you probably wouldn't acknowledge that they're a "good person" just because they're "smart," right? The qualities of being a "good person" don't have anything to do with how smart one is.

Exactly. Isn't that what I'm saying?

- A smart person can be either good or evil.
- A stupid person can be either evil or good.
- A evil person can be either smart or stupid.
- A good person can be either stupid or smart.

Mental capacity and moral alignment are two SEPARATED qualities. The problem with our bias is that we have a problem acknowledging a good Quality A in person who also possess a bad Quality B.

It wasn't misguided because it went exactly where I wanted it to go... You just chose to interpret it differently, to suit your point, instead of considering it.... objectively.

Please point out to me exactly where I'm not being objectively.

If a man abuses his wife and kids or murders people or sells drugs, robs people, hurts others, takes advantage of the innocent, etc... That's my "full stop" moment

So is mine. I don't see the point you're trying to make here. If there were a football player who won 5 consecutive Superbowl, and also murdered/raped 50 people, supposedly you ask me these question about him:

- Is he good or evil? - Absolutely evil, and he should face capital punishment.
- Is he a good football player? - he won 5 consecutive Superbowl, I would say he is.

That's being objective, I treat each question as its own topic. If you want to talk about him as a human being, then we can talk about how murdering/raping 50 people is wrong no matter what he had achieved in football. If you want to talk what he did and achieved on the field, then we'll talk about his football quality as a separate topic regardless what happens off the field. Because for me saying something like "he's such an evil person, someone like that can not be considered a good football player" simply does not compute.

[Morkonan]

...Please point out to me exactly where I'm not being objectively...

The point is that we have to start out with defining things, first, before we judge their quality against some personal or defined standard. For instance, if one wishes to put forth Trump's bank account balance and then make it into some positive quality, they'd obviously first need to establish that it was relevant to the point being discussed, right?

I think we might find that what might be more difficult when discussing the desirability of the qualities of a person is justifying why we're discussing those qualities in the first place. We might argue more forcefully for what we believe the necessary qualities a "President of the United States" must have than we would argue about behaviors are qualities that are plainly in evidence for any particular person/candidate.

I'm sure you've asked yourself why a particular political candidate is offering up whatever personal quality they're talking about as "evidence" they'd be a good candidate for an office, right?

"I've lived here my whole life and that makes me a good candidate to represent your interests!"
"Yeah... But, this place sucks. You're stupid for hanging around that long! I'm leaving just as soon as I can find a job to pay for a bus ticket to Anywhere Else, USA!"

So is mine. I don't see the point you're trying to make here. If there were a football player who won 5 consecutive Superbowl, and also murdered/raped 50 people, supposedly you ask me these question about him:

I think we'd have to establish what a "good football player" is, first. Wouldn't we? Can we assume that both of us hold to the same definition? Besides, is that American Football or That Other Game?

...Because for me saying something like "he's such an evil person, someone like that can not be considered a good football player" simply does not compute.

Some very prominent, successful, "good football players" have been booted from their team's rosters for reasons of "character." Committing crimes, unable to attend because they're in jail, beating their wives/relatives, bad behavior, etc... So, if these professional teams are considering things other than "player statistics" are we both sure that we are following the same definition of "good football player?"

Is Trump "a good President?"

What standards should we consider be included in making that judgement? Is it only that he successfully appointed two Conservative Supreme Court Justices? Is it the indexes in various stock markets? Is the reduction of regulations? Is it winning a war? Feeding people? Less rain? More rain?

[pjknibbs]

Since we're talking about what makes someone suitable for the office of President, while I don't think that Trump's (lack of) business acumen has anything to do with the job he's doing, it does echo the main reason people voted for him--because he's not a career politician. I'm personally all for that--I think being in politics as a career all your life insulates you from what the man on the street experiences and makes it impossible for you to properly represent them. However, this rather implies that the non-political career you've had doesn't *also* insulate you from the experiences of the man in the street, and with Trump, we're talking a guy who shits in a gold toilet. He's as out of touch with the common man as any career politician.

[Morkonan]

Since we're talking about what makes someone suitable for the office of President, while I don't think that Trump's (lack of) business acumen has anything to do with the job he's doing, it does echo the main reason people voted for him--because he's not a career politician. I'm personally all for that--I think being in politics as a career all your life insulates you from what the man on the street experiences and makes it impossible for you to properly represent them. However, this rather implies that the non-political career you've had doesn't *also* insulate you from the experiences of the man in the street, and with Trump, we're talking a guy who shits in a gold toilet. He's as out of touch with the common man as any career politician.

That's a good point. And, we saw that in the election and here, in this thread. There are other very ephemeral, hard to define, qualities or actions that people screamed at rallies, too.

"Make America Great Again" - Uh... That's defining a condition that is likely being misdefined to begin with, then posing a problem that isn't in evidence and announcing you have a solution to it. "Grumpkins are coming to rape your household pets! I WILL SAVE YOUR PRECIOUS KITTY FROM TEH GRUMPKIN SCOURGE!" I'm a 'Murican, so I thought America was pretty great to start with and any problems we had weren't because we weren't "great."

"Drain the Swamp" - I loved that one. It's like saying "Get rid of government by electing people to government!" Or, "Let's have an election that is just like every other election and we'll not change anything at all about how we decide who we're going to vote for, but we will surely expect them to be different." Well, Trump is different, that's for sure. So, maybe it wasn't such a crazy thing to expect? But... It's like inviting Genghis Khan to your Group Therapy Session "just to change things up and maybe get us started on a healthier subject we can all related to..."

"We want a Common Man" - That's sort of what you're talking about. But, people wanted someone who wasn't steeped in politics, but didn't seem to care much about why they wanted that or what qualities that person should have. It was just "Anyone who isn't entrenched in Washington politics." ie: We want something different. "Jelly Belly" makes an earwax flavored jelly-bean, but I don't want to eat one. I want a nice, comfy, encouraging flavor. Something wholesome that reminds me of Summers during my childhood. Brandy? A nice single-malt whiskey flavor? Definitely not "Coor's Light" flavor as it doesn't have a flavor, so I don't remember what it tasted like. It was... wet. That's all I remember of it.

[BugMeister]

re that Magnitsky Act thing - y'know, the Carry On Sanctions movie - brilliant cameo performance by Ronald MacDonald Putin as Mr Big-ski..
seems that SMERSH agent Maria Buttina has been dallying with a shady James Bond-like character - a Mr Erikson via the Not Really American group (- otherwise known as NRA)
in 2015/16 the Not Really Americans received a sudden unexplained injection of "kash" toward their lobbying funds - a three-fold increase to $30 million.. mostly received as hidden donations..
- Ms Buttina is now taking tea with a certain Mr Mueller.. while her boss, the mysterious Mr Torshin, has suddenly "retired" from his executive position with a large and somewhat slushy USSR bank..

- hmmm, mystery donations, slushy banks, Miss whiplash and her dopey boyfriend, a crooked politician (or three).. makes for a good spy movie, what.. (??)
- ever wonder why the rifle-rattling McConnell tribe of misfiring Replicant robots have been so quiet about the evil invasion of red-ski's..??

- the new movie in the series is Carry On Lying, starring Sid James as Dogger Drumpf, a rogue cockney cab-driver moonlighting in New York City..
- more popcorn..!!

- an advanced satellite has been dropped near Terran space, it is relaying trade offers to space-truckers..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1aTRS2-cY

- Argon Federation commissioners are investigating recent Split activity in Hatikvah's Faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypZLN81RXmg

- meanwhile science news: a deep-space satellite launched in 1960 playing pop radio muzak to the galaxy has suddenly ceased playing - the Kha'ak have issued a denial..
- the Boron Envoy continues to insist that the worst peace-time crime is potential treason, apparently without defining the parameters of "potential"..
- contact has been made with Teladi high command and negotiations indicate that it's total corruption from here on - so. business as usual..

- the truth is out there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record
Having realized their error, psycho-historian Hari Seldon has advised that we should send a retrieval ship to recover the disc..
- building is under way..

..quick,nurse - the screens..!!

[BugMeister]

- the lunatic is in the hall..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6muSIqgnWbg

- he's gonna take the ball home, if we don't let him play..

[Santi]

Since we're talking about what makes someone suitable for the office of President, while I don't think that Trump's (lack of) business acumen has anything to do with the job he's doing, it does echo the main reason people voted for him--because he's not a career politician. I'm personally all for that--I think being in politics as a career all your life insulates you from what the man on the street experiences and makes it impossible for you to properly represent them. However, this rather implies that the non-political career you've had doesn't *also* insulate you from the experiences of the man in the street, and with Trump, we're talking a guy who shits in a gold toilet. He's as out of touch with the common man as any career politician.

Career politicians take for granted that tax payers will fund not only their lifestyle but also their careers. While politicians will hire staff with the promise of influence and political power, an outsider like Trump, coming from the private industry, will hire based in results.

Also compare Trump with Macron, easy to spot who knows what people wants.

[felter]

So I haven't been paying much attention to Trump for some time now, so I don't actually know what is going on in Trumpland. So earlier on tonight I caught a small part of the G20 summit that recently happened and I have to say, I was totally surprised (not) that Trump was shunned by every major world leader on the planet, well 19 of them. It was kind of funny to watch and see him standing up on a stage, in the middle of all of these so called important people, and not one of them wanted anything to do with him, as they went around shaking each others hands and patting one another on the backs and not one of them wanted anything to do with Trump.

So it has only taken him less than 3 years to isolate America from the rest of the world, where 3 years ago everyone wanted to be America's friend, to now where no one wants to be associated with them. That's pretty well going, it's not an easy thing to do.

Is it also true that GM are for laying off somewhere in the region of 15,000 employees. Wasn't GM one of Trumps big thriving companies that he was always ranting on about hiring new employees and doing great things under his presidential leadership, what's he saying now.

So I take it things are not going his way right now.