Donald Trump To Tech Leaders: 'No Formal Chain Of Command' Here (cnbc.com) 488
A confab of tech titans had a "productive" meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower on Wednesday, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told CNBC, as Trump moved to mend fences with Silicon Valley before taking office in January. Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and Tesla were among the C-suite executives in attendance, with Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla CEO Elon Musk expected to get private briefings, according to transition staff. From the report: "We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said. "There's no one like you in the world. ... anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you. You can call my people, call me -- it makes no difference -- we have no formal chain of command around here." At the meeting, Trump introduced billionaire Wilbur Ross, his Commerce secretary pick, and Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, his choice for director of the National Economic Council. "They're going to do fair trade deals," Trump said. "They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Funny)
lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.
If and when he fails, we can always blame Obama!
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
64% blame Bush (Score:3, Informative)
You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment [gallup.com]. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.
Hardly surprising, given the personal politics of the overwhelming majority of journalists [washingtonpost.com].
Re:64% blame Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:64% blame Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:64% blame Bush (Score:5, Informative)
It also cannot be ignored that 2 years into Obama's presidency congress turned red, and rather vocally announced they would put the prevention of any Obama successes ahead of the best interest of the country. Having one whole branch of the government not operating in good faith is a very strong headwind, and despite that we have had very large job growth and historically low unemployment over the last 8 years.
Re:64% blame Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why this country needs a radical left. Anarchists and socialists of every stripe, most of them as wrong as the crazies dragging the whole country down to the right for a generation, just in the opposite direction. So that people can see that there's crazy at the fringe in either direction, and find where true moderation is somewhere in between them.
Kinda like how the existence of the Black Panthers made Martin Luther King, Jr., seem all the more reasonable. The Panthers were wrong, but they were useful, and a really crazy loud radical left would be usefully wrong in a similar way.
A better political spectrum (Score:3)
That is true that left and right simply isn't good enough, and the Nolan chart is a step in the right direction, but I still think it doesn't go nearly far enough. I find myself wanting to be further left than the top of the chart, but also further up than the left of the chart, in a region outside the chart entirely.
This is the political spectrum I think in. [geekofalltrades.org]. The orientation of my chart is a bit of a compromise; the original sense of the terms "left" and "right" would run from what on that chart is upper l
Re:64% blame Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
The "removed regulations" that led to the housing crisis and 2007 recession are mostly blamed on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org]. It was passed in 1999 and signed by... Bill Clinton. Blame is also cast on HUD lending policies mandating a larger share of loans be for affordable housing, also started under Clinton. And interest rates reduced to historically low levels [wikipedia.org] to combat the sluggish economy after the dot-com bubble bursting, responsibility for which also falls upon Clinton (if you buy into the idea that Presidents are wholly responsible for the economy). You can't even blame Bush for maintaining the low interest rates through 2005. The interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve, whose chairman at the time [wikipedia.org] was Alan Greenspan - a Reagan appointee retained through Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. because everyone though he was doing a great job. It was actually Bush Jr. who replaced him in 2006 with Ben Bernanke (who Obama retained).
Personally, I don't blame Presidents for bad economies. They only suggest a budget. Congress actually makes it (whether they follow any of the President's suggestions is up to them). And since we don't have a line item veto, the President has a take it or leave it choice when it comes to signing off on the whole thing. So I mostly blame Congress for bad economies, Presidents for bad executive decisions (e.g. the second Iraq war). But if you insist on blaming Presidents for bad economies, responsibility for most of what you listed falls upon Clinton, not Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not what your referenced article says. You read it wrong.
That's partly because Republicans are growing increasingly anti-subject-expert, and that's against the very idea of universities, specialists, and science. Prayer and "common sense folks-logic" is their new guiding star.
Republicans changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Or blaming Obama for the economy/budget deficit, despite the crash that took place under Bush before Obama was even elected. Could he have done more to fix it after he took office? Sure, but he was also facing huge resistance against anything he wanted to do towards that end.
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Shuttle was finally ended in 2011. After Obama took office, he had plenty of time to reinstate it.
Not without huge costs that the taxpaying public never would have accepted. The facility for building External Tanks had been decommissioned, the one for cleaning SRB parachutes had been repurposed, and NASA had pretty much depleted eBay [nytimes.com] as a source for obsolete electronics.
Re:heck of a choice (Score:4, Informative)
You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it.
I blame Bush for the Great Recession that caused me to be out of work for two years (2009-10), underemploy for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. Thanks to Obama, I'm now back to where I was before the Great Recession. Just in time for the overdue recession under Trump. Woo-hoo!
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon. Are you suggesting that if Bush hadn't been president of the US (say, Kerry was elected instead), that the entire world would NOT have gone into recession? Or that the world would have, but the US wouldn't have? I'm just curious.
The US is a cog. An oversized and important cog no doubt, but it's just one part of the whole.
Re: (Score:2)
The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon.
I blame Alan Greenspan for that one.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm always curious about this blame game. The "great recession" was a worldwide phenomenon.
Have you never heard of the economic principle that when America sneezes the world catches a cold? America for better or worse is an international monster. It's 1/20th of the world's population in control of the largest GDP in the world (more than all of Europe combined), and double that of China who have an incredible workforce behind them. They have an incredible amount of trade around the world both in production and especially in consumption.
When the economy of such a beast get's upset the repercussions
Re: (Score:2)
Overdue?
The economy moves in cycles. The up cycle under Obama is seven years old and the longest since World War II. What goes up must come down eventually.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/07/why-americas-big-banks-are-predicting-a-recession/ [fortune.com]
Were you expecting a recession under Obama?
Yes. Or the next administration. Depending on when this economic cycle peters out.
Or will this next recession also be caused by Bush?
I hate to break the news but Bush has been out of office for nearly eight years. It's time to move on.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...
Well, to the sound bite world we live in, it does sound unreasonable to blame past Presidents for current troubles. Like, why should be blame Lincoln for the getting the US through the Civil War and freeing the slaves? Why do we still blame him after all these years?!
And blaming FDR for leading us through the Depression - even though many of the programs he got through Congress really didn't work. And he dragged his feet into getting us into WWII. And blaming Truman for dropping the A-Bomb on Japan! We still do that!
MAybe - just maybe and bear with me - because it's HISTORY.
And when folks look back on the beginning of the 21st Century, they are going to see that the US went into two horrible wars based on the incompetence of the Bush II Administration. They are going the see the ramifications - like the creation of ISIS. They are going to see a budget shot to shit. They are going to see a financial collapse - that did have it's roots in the Clinton administration but never the less came to frustration with the lax regulatory environment of a Republican controlled government.
And then we'll see how the next President got stuck with the problems and through brinkmanship and obstruction by the Republicans in Congress for all 8 years of his term, he was barely able to get anything done - but blamed him for it - even though they kept on these ridiculous quests and held the government hostage to get rid of the ACA and defund Planned Parenthood over some video that was a lie.
And now that they are back in power? They are going to replace the ACA - OK good - but not get rid of it because now it's "their" idea.
So, I will keep blaming Bush for the stupidity and the utter nonsense we're in - especially the crap in the Middle East. Thanks to Bush, there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East and we the USA are going to have to deal with it for the rest of our existence - and frankly, I think it's contributing to our current downfall.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean FDR dragged his feet on US involvement in WWII? That was an isolationist Congress. FDR pushed as close to the line, and even a little across the line. He managed to push through Lend-Lease, but it was Pearl Harbor that finally gave him the political capital to get war declared on the Axis.
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? There's still people around here blaming Bush...
Most of the time you see people "blaming Bush" (and other previous administrations) is when others try to blame the Great Recession on Obama, or try to compare this recover to those which followed much smaller and less systemic recessions. If you are going to rate Obama's performance it is necessary to acknowledge he was left with the worst recession since 1929, and its more apt to compare the 2009-2016 recover with 1929-1936. Pointing that out often includes at least some casting of blame on previous administrations.
There is honestly very little to blame on Bush at this point. The systemic problems we still face either reach back to policies built up over the past 30+ years, or are primarily the result of a changing world (such as working class stagnation). At this point the only two major things I can think of to blame on Bush is the extra stimulus spending necessary because he let things get so bad and the after-effects of the war(s) he started. But even though I have little love for the man, its not very reasonable to blame many of our current problems on Bush anymore.
I'm sure people will blame Obama for leaving Trump too good of an economy, but overall he will have a hard time credibly blaming any of his problems on Obama. Then again he doesn't hasn't had to worry about his statements being credible for them to be believed so far.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say Bush's foreign policy can be directly linked to a lot of the shit that has gone on over the last six or seven years.
Re:heck of a choice (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of trusting geoengineering to a landscaper who's formal training was watching someone else have a lawn mowing job one summer.
Re: (Score:2)
How we got NYC and Boston, for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
i mean technically if you overfill a swamp with foetid detritus it will eventually matriculate into neighbourhoods, roads, schools, hospitals, and occasionally even an intended estuary or two. lets just give him a chance and see if he works out.
Is this 'seep up' economics instead of 'trickle down' economics?
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out the billion dollars in property tax breaks he's gotten, putting the tax burden on everyone else (mostly in New York City).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government isn't a business.
Correct. You win your straw man argument. Congratulations!
Trump's business "successes" hedged on him not paying contractors
BS meme, as you know. EVERY business refuses to pay contractors who fail to deliver on time, violate contracts, etc. Meanwhile, Trump's hundreds of businesses pick and choose from thousands of contractors who line up to compete for his business and get paid all the time. You know this, everyone knows this. But your urge to deliberately repeat some fake news says all we need to know about how to process anything else you say.
manufacturing overseas
Sure, just like everyon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hundreds of contractors have come forward. Many have filed lawsuits (which were settled). This isn't standard business practice - you don't just "not pay" and avoid phone calls asking for payment. Trump isn't exactly a stranger to lawsuits either - if the work wasn't done (or done to specification) he'd more than likely sue, not just avoid paying.
> He'd love to pay manufactur
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be clear...we lost the White House because of a (yet to be finalized) Electoral College vote. In terms of popular votes (ie what "the people" want) we actually won the White House.
That's a bit of fiction. Hillary received a plurality of votes (~48.0% to ~46.7%). She did not win a majority the popular vote (thanks to Gary Johnson). If we go by the constitution,if no-one wins a majority in the Electoral College, the presidency is decided by the House of Representatives. If we continue down this fictional route, I suspect if the results hinged on the House (where republicans hold a majority), it would be the same result as the Electoral College.
Face it, unless you redefine "the people
Re: (Score:3)
Your retorts are terrible. It's almost like you didn't read the critique, and just blindly wrote adoration to your Great Leader.
And you know how we can tell that you have nothing of substance to say? Because instead of actually addressing anything said, you do the default liberal thing, and go for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Thanks for being a consistent lefty who can only stamp your feet instead of addressing specific points. Keep it up! The whiny snowflake routine lost you hundreds of legislative seats across the country, the national legislature and executive, and the Supreme Court. Because people are tired of the smug phony
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The doublethink is incredible, when Trump is clearly and openly stating that he is about to fuck over the people who voted for him on the promise of bringing jobs home:
"They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."
Removing trade restrictions means removing the things that protect US workers from having their jobs moved overseas. Asking for ideas will be met with "let's have mor
Re:heck of a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures
...straight into the fucking ground. STRAIGHT INTO IT.
Why? Because these businesses are not intended to succeed as that term is allegedly measured. They are intended to fail, and transfer wealth to Trump in the process.
Trump is a con man. It's that simple. He is perhaps the most successful simple con man in American history. He is the poster child for reinstating a massive estate tax.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water [nytimes.com]. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.
and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.
False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family,
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has a long track record of ruining hundreds of business ventures.
FTFY.
Clinton never stole money from joe sixpack. Trump's MLM schemes have. And the reason he doesn't want to divest is because his debt would have to be reconciled too, and all the places where he's double-dipping into his asset values would be exposed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You mean all the Goldman Sachs executives he is putting in charge?
Please list "all of the" Goldman Sachs people that are going to be "in charge" of the country. Do you even understand how the government is structured?
They'll be getting paid to do what they want.
Do you understand that we're talking about the executive branch, here, and not somehow running the legislature? And if "getting paid" was what it was about, they'd never take a relatively low paying federal paycheck when they could make tens of times more simply being in the securities banking business in the first place. Anyway, back to your list of "all o
Re: heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.
Why? That wouldn't have been a surprise. The majority of Wall Street campaign donors were 100% backing Clinton. She WAS going to be beholden to her, rather than some flavor of the other way around. So that would not have been news or unexpected, just more Clinton Machine business as usual. Regardless, it would depend on WHO the person was, not the fact they happened to work at GS per se.
Re: heck of a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is more or less:
Clinton is beholden to big business, so let's skip the middle man and simply put big business right in the presidency.
I mean sure yes, she has close ties (find a credible politician who doesn't) but Trumps are closer. She likes big business. He IS big business. See this is the thing that doesn't ring true when Trump voters give reasons for not voting for Hillary: most of the things they complain about are actually worse in Trump's case. I think there are underlying reasons for their choice and most of what you hear is rationalization.
Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump didn't even make the list.
http://www.opensecrets.org/org... [opensecrets.org]
Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $316,977
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $218,975
Bush, Jeb (R) Pres $203,550
Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $87,600
Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH) Senate $74,400
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $72,800
Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $64,400
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $58,240
He may be appointing them, but there's nothing showing he's beholden to them. Certainly not anymore than Sec. Clinton might have been.
Re:Clinton was #1 recipient of GS money this year (Score:4, Insightful)
He may be appointing them, but there's nothing showing he's beholden to them.
The fact that he's appointing them for the Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the United States National Economic Council, members of the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee and having his campaign's chief executive officer from that same shop - kinda proves it all on its own.
If it walks like a puppet, gesticulates like a puppet, talks like a puppet...
Or you could just look at your own words. The "he's appointing them" part.
Unless you're coming from a world where it is a custom to fill your team with your "enemies"?
You know... After months of histrionic public resentment towards them - Br'er Rabbit style.
Face it buster, USA (followed with the rest of the world) is about to be scammed and skinned for all it's worth.
Trump-a-dump-dump... straight into the swamp.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crooked Hillary!!!
Trump chooses people from Goldman Sachs for his cabinet
They're trustworthy now since they're no longer at Goldman Sachs
Re: (Score:2)
Good job ignoring the second half, showing the hypocrisy, and the entire point of the post.
I didn't ignore the second half. It was a statement of fact. It was the first part that needed a response, because it was the part that appeared to have been meant sarcastically.
Re: (Score:2)
You SURE about that?
The electoral college could do the right thing by voting in Clinton as a president. But that's a historical longshot. If it did happen, many Republicans will rejoice that they still have the Clintons to beat up on for another eight years.
"Just call me, we have no chain of command" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is the 'status quo' of the executive office. There's been a lot signs so far that it's going to be quite a bit different organizationally for the next 4 years at least.
I don't know if that's good or bad, but it is going to be different than what we've seen, from press briefings to who sends what memo.
Re: (Score:2)
The boiler maker environment that Trump is setting up is useful when you have time to play favorites and have people publicly curry favor. The person in the center gets lots of attention and feels important because everyone is coming to you. It doesn't get a lot of work done though because everyone is busy scurrying around trying to curry favor instead of - actually getting the work done.
The whitehouse archives occasionally releases past
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is the 'status quo' of the executive office.
Yes, and the status quo has evolved to be that way for very good reasons.
The presidency is a position where you literally do not get to choose what you wear each day. Not because you are incapable of it, but because it's a waste of brain power. The human brain is only capable of making so many decisions a day before it gets decision overload. When you are the president, you need to save your decision-making powers for the important stuff, like whether or not to push the red button. Running the most powerful
Re: (Score:3)
There is no evidence Russia had anything to do with the hacking of the e-mails, Wikileaks revealed them but they were most likely an internal leak (William Binney, an NSA whistleblower has posited as much publicly).
Digital attacks on state election boards were done by federal intelligence agencies: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08... [cnbc.com]
And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for
Re:"Just call me, we have no chain of command" (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump is going to find out people are not going to "just call the president" because all of those calls get blocked by the switchboard. Trump is going to find out that casual phone calls do not happen as president, his schedule is locked down to the minute. This boiler maker atmosphere that trump seems to enjoy is going to be counter productive in an environment where decisions need to be made and then acted on and revisiting choices wastes time that needs to be used on other decisions coming in the door.
It'll work out because it won't be him in this position, it'll be Pence. Trump's presidency will largely rise and fall by how much Pence is willing to do for him, and how much Pence covers him - if Pence gets fed up, I have a suspicion Trump won't be able to cope, and he's used to simply walking away when it gets tough and waiting for a better time. Not an option as president - however, if Pence deals with all of this, as I suspect he will because he wants his own chance in 2020, then all Trump has to do is sit in the office and spend his weekends at his Florida resort, and sign the odd paper here and there. Trump could pull off the latter very successfully, he's good at taking credit (and I don't mean that exclusively in a derogatory sense; one of Obama's biggest issues was that for many of his successes, people simply took them for granted after the fact.)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not in agreement that Trump will be able to shovel it all off on Pence. There are to many factors that would conflict with that: All the big calls have to be made by the president. The army only takes orders from the president. If Trump wants something from Congress he better be the one in the meetings pressuring congress members. And if (when) the press picks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he could get around all that red tape of people not being able to communicate with him directly by say, running a private e-mail server or something?
Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump has a history of setting up boiler-maker environments where people have to vie for his favor. It makes for an environment where everyone is attempting to curry favor with him. Trump enjoys it because everyone has to come to him and he can play favorites and pit people against each other. Think of a King, his courtiers and the court. Listen to the stories of the infighting already occurring in his transition team -that is people attempting to vie for favor with Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
I highly doubt they are going to call the White House public phone numbers. Do you really think the Obama's school teachers have to schedule calls 6m ahead? They still have private numbers and a select group of people has access to them, among them are the rich and famous that a president needs/wants, lobbyists that have donated(bribed) previous offices and campaigns of the party or president.
I also don't think Trump is going to follow protocol (for good or for bad). The president has at least for the last
Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" (Score:4, Informative)
that was clear when 9/11 happened and Bush was in a classroom, he had no clue what to do next because nobody prodded him
Utter fucking bullshit. Bush did EXACTLY what he should have as a leader. He was told of major catastrophe and responded by asking for more information and by reassuring everyone through stoically continuing his current schedule, which meant finishing reading to the children.
There was nothing he could do that would have been more presidential! Without more information there was not sane response, other than to let the qualified people under him mind the tactical situations until the information needed to make a strategic move emerged. Ship captains used to dawn a red shirt before boarding because if they got shot or stabbed it would be less obvious to the crew, Bush finished the story (same thing). Once there was information about who was resonsible and what other threats existed he began to act.
Re: "Just call me, we have no chain of command" (Score:5, Funny)
The Whitehouse switch board is notorious for blocking everyone who isn't scheduled. I don't see Trump ever getting an unscheduled phone call.
That's OK, you can always tweet him...
Re: (Score:2)
The president's time so important enough that anything that does not involve the president making a decision, getting briefed on making a decision or having a meeting related to legislation is handled by someone else. There is a line out the door of people who want/need to see the p
Trump's Lumbergh Impression (Score:3)
Trump said. "If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."
http://media.coindesk.com/uplo... [coindesk.com]
So jealous (Score:4, Funny)
Man I'm so jealous at you Americans. Ever since Trump will most probably be president you live in a fairy-tale paradise! Everything will be better! It's amazing! He's the best president in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
He is. (Score:2)
Pres. Obama said his election would save the world (Score:2)
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that
It's just bluster (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds good. Makes him seem like an every man...
Oh yeah, a billionaire sitting around a table talking to other billionaires while hiring billionaires.
I feel soooo much more relatable now. I mean hell, he even uses Twitter...
So I guess H-1B reform is out... (Score:3)
All I can say is it'll be very interesting to see what happens over the next 4 years. He's basically signaling to every single corporation out there that favors are available for the right price (see Carrier, Ford, etc.) The first thing tech executives are going to ask for is the removal of limits on the H-1B program. This way they can import the workers themselves and not have to go through the body shops to reduce IT and developer salaries. (I think the program is fine and sometimes necessary, but using it to replace a mid- to late-career $100K DBA or sysadmin with a new, mediocre $50K one who won't complain about mandatory unpaid weekend work is not keeping with the spirit of the law.)
No matter how much of an egomaniac I became, I would never want this job. Imagine having to keep hundreds of millions of exceedingly diverse people protected, somewhat happy and balance the diplomatic demands from other countries against your own interests. Seeing Trump's picks for advisors, I wonder how this is going to work out. Yes, Clinton "lost" and I accept that, but I am a little upset that we're getting a real estate huckster, surrounding himself with pro-business buddies, who all seem ready to fire-sale the country to the highest bidder. Hopefully the balance of power will keep some of this in check, but with majorities in both houses he's going to have a very long time with little opposition, and a lot can happen.
The other interesting thing is that he has a lot of very different groups of people who voted him in to satisfy. The religious nuts are going to want abortion bans and fully privatized education, the libertarian/tea party crowd is going to want the government dismantled piece by piece starting with the healthcare law, and all the factory workers are going to want their jobs back. How do you satisfy all of these?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't, because the factory workers were useful rubes. He's a businessman: once someone is used up, you cast them aside.The way most politicians go back on their campaign "promises."
Timeo the Government et dona ferentes (Score:2)
My Latin is rusty, but the sentiment should be clear — the government should stay away from the industry and the markets. Its only legitimate role is to enforce laws and contracts.
Trying to boost certain industries, while a welcome contrast to the previous Administrations' attempts to sabotage [cfact.org] some, is just as suspicious and ultimately unfair.
Maybe it is Ok for the State department to champion American companies abroad. Hopefully, Trump is not planning to go beyond the above listed activities and w
Good advice (Score:2)
"We want you to keep going with the incredible innovation," Trump said.
Yeah, I'm sure the the CEOs of Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and Tesla needed to be told to "keep doing what they're doing."
Return the 1920's (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence, but we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it...But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, probably always will be, some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others.
--Calvin Coolidge
Dell (Score:4, Funny)
His OTHER responsibility. (Score:3)
"...we have no formal chain of command around here."
...says the Commander in Chief.
It's times like this that we should consider military experience as a mandatory prerequisite to holding this position.
Trump has done absolutely nothing to recognize the fact that he will be responsible for wielding a military sword to go along with that corporate pen of his.
Perhaps if he pulled his head out of his biznass long enough, he would realize that.
Trade (Score:4, Insightful)
"They're going to make it easier for you to trade across borders, because there are a lot of restrictions, a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great."
I thought he was against free trade. It was one of the defining features of his campaign, that he was going to back out of every trade deal going.
This is what I find so alarming.It's the sheer unpredictability of the guy. He's so scatterbrained that he can't even remember what was said a few minutes ago, to say nothing of months ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the problems tesla faces is not being able to open dealerships across the country. Would it be a good thing is Trump helped that out?
I an a Democrat and voted for Hillary, but to answer your question:
Yes it would be a good thing because, the way laws are governing dealerships , the car manufacturers distribution channel has a built in middleman that in short artificially inflates the cost of automobiles in general. It is not a monopoly by any measure, because you can always drive down the road to another dealership, but if I wanted to start up a new Chevy dealership, I cannot do it by law because each dealership has it's territory that I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?
Legislatively we are already there. The question is whether Sessions is going to tell the federal law enforcement troops to start an enforcement campaign in those states.
Re:Posit (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be a bad thing because this sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws. What next? Would Trump then start revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?
I am come down on the state rights side of issues. Tesla selling cars anywhere but their home state pretty clearly falls under Interstate Commerce though- it's not a corner case of interstate commerce it's right in the center of the sort of thing the Federal Govt was given the power to make rules regarding. The Feds are definately allowed to stomp on attempts by states to restrict interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Ack, that should be "I am usually one to come down on the states rights side of issues."
Re: (Score:2)
"....sets the precedent of the Feds dictating what rights states have to make their own laws..."
Unfortunately, that "precedent" has already been solidly established and reaffirmed time and time again. Look up the SCOTUS case of "Wickard v. Filburn"(a farmer can't grow wheat on his own property for his own use without fed interference because it affects the market price of wheat). Or check out "Raich v. Gonzales" (Under the commerce clause, the feds can criminalize marijuana even if it is produced, sold
Just a reminder (Score:2)
Consequences of laws once meant to help the "little guy". Regulatory capture. Rent seeking. Corporate welfare.
Those dealership protection laws were put in place to protect the "little guy" from the "big evil corporations". And specifically, to protect dealers with franchise contracts from being put out of business by corporate stores. Even Ford, which is always pulled out as an example of "fairness" whenever "living wage" laws are discussed, was forcing dealers to accept inventory they could not move and ot
Re:Posit (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't selling a car in Texas that is built in California considered interstate commerce?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems tesla faces is not being able to open dealerships across the country. Would it be a good thing is Trump helped that out?
It would, but it's hard to see how he would do that without forcing states to discard their laws requiring dealerships, which really would cost a lot of jobs. Mind you, they're a lot of parasitic, inefficiency-based jobs that most of us would not miss, but they are numerous and would have a significant impact on employment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet here you are.
I strongly doubt half of the posters here are pro Trump, one of the shocks has been some prominent usually conservative RWNJ posters lack support for him.
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.
The choice of quote is meant to reflect negatively on Trump. Had Clinton said any of that, a different quote (or none at all) would have been used.
If you paid attention to CNN over the last year you'll notice that every time they had a picture of Donald Trump it was a raw photo of him - usually taken candidly - that made him look angry or even like he was yelling. Pictures of Clinton were normally either posed or taken when she was relaxed and smiling, and they were heavily photoshopped to make her look l
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep up the good work!
As someone whose been around as a lurker from almost the beginning, i would recommend people who don't like the way the site has become take a trip down the way-back machine. Everything old is new again. The articles have always followed the same general format and subjects. The conversations have generally followed the same format and digressions. The only thing that seems to change around here are the grumpies who want to complain about how much it's changed. Sure, a few of the conversations are a little more hostile. Sometimes, but this discourse has been here from the beginning on anything that might be remotely interpreted as political. //rant: But, at the end of the day, we are all sharing our opinions in an effort to find the truth. A little open mindedness goes a long way to productive and meaningful discourse. Everybody is not always right. Calling it fake news because or a contextual error is disingenuous. You're basically take the nuclear route on your own discussion. To call out a grammatical error is acceptable.
I'll just end the rant there before I get carried away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot is killing itself (Score:5, Insightful)
No no. Wait people, give this post a chance. It's actually quite insightful.
Climate change is science. But it's science that "the Left" cares about, and "the Right" does not. And talking about it therefore makes Slashdot a partisan hack and pisses off a subset of Slashdot.
This guy wants his news bubble enforced. A news site he goes to is talking about a topic he wants to ignore. And he is upset.
Re: (Score:2)
"That played well before the election. Now? We don't care."
Besides, he has to ensure the H-2B program is running smoothly as well, so he can staff Mar-A-Lago [thehill.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Who you calling "friends of Putin"? (Score:3)
The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.
Here is, what real friendship looks like
Re: (Score:2)
The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.
You must be smoking crack. According to CNN, The Friends of Putin are winning throughout Europe — and the U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/europe-handing-putin-a-win/index.html [cnn.com]