That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
Yeah. You are right. Sorry, that was just in response to your second line saying Ivanka isn't Trump.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
In all fairness, over the last couple of presidencies we are in a new era of how the president is able to publicly shoot his mouth off and cause trouble.
That sort of thing wasn't really an issue in the 1800's...
Well they weren't counting on social media and the Internet and such back then. As for publically shooting their mouth off and causing trouble, would you believe Truman threatened bodily harm on a critic because he gave a bad review to Truman's daughter's performance?
And when Preston Brooks infamously beat Charles Sumner with a cane right on the Senate floor in 1856...wow can you imagine seeing that on C-SPAN and how many YouTube views that'd get?
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
I think either Dubya or Obumble has pretty much snagged that title. Whichever one didn't get it has a lock on second place.
Well they weren't counting on social media and the Internet and such back then. As for publically shooting their mouth off and causing trouble, would you believe Truman threatened bodily harm on a critic because he gave a bad review to Truman's daughter's performance?
And when Preston Brooks infamously beat Charles Sumner with a cane right on the Senate floor in 1856...wow can you imagine seeing that on C-SPAN and how many YouTube views that'd get?
Yes, starting out only 21 year old white male property owners could vote...but at the time even extending suffrage that far was pretty revolutionary. And you want a truly bad President, check this guy out:
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
I think either Dubya or Obumble has pretty much snagged that title. Whichever one didn't get it has a lock on second place.
I didn't really care for either of them. Although Obamacare saved my ass when i got disabled. If i wasn't on my mothers insurance i honestly don't know what i would have done because i had became disabled and couldn't work. I have easily had a couple hudred grand at this point in surgeries, procedures, and tests.......But i can definitely understand obamacare sucks for a lot of others and didn't work for everyone.
As for Trump, he still has 4 years. He could either make the country great again like he keeps saying, or become the worst president we have ever seen. There is still plenty of time for him to take the title
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
The guy writes and speaks at a 6th grade level. My expectations for the kind of discourse he engages in are pretty low.
I wonder if they thought the same about FDR using the new tech at the time (radio) for his fireside chats.
Well, no, you can listen to FDR today and still hear his public speaking skills, which were well developed for sustained speech.
You can listen to Trump today and no matter what medium, he still speaks/writes in small sound bites.
Added that most presidents made preparations with their staff for most of their speeches. When Trump takes to Twitter, I'm pretty sure it's just him spontaneously tweeting with no thought for the consequences. It's going to bite him in the ass at some point.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
Twitter is good for getting a tiny amount of information to a vast number of people instantly.
"Click here now to see the latest interview with such and such!" "Big fireworks factory explosion on the south side. Stay away!"
Blogs are good and all, but Twitter makes it easy to follow people, retweet, reply, etc. More of a conversation than a speech.
But I don't want any president, Democrat or Republican or whatever, tweeting random thoughts at 3am.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
I think it is equally fair to say that almost NOTHING said by the president of the united states should be that brief or spontaneous.
It is not an appropriate platform for the way he has been using it, given the office he holds.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
Twitter is good for getting a tiny amount of information to a vast number of people instantly.
"Click here now to see the latest interview with such and such!" "Big fireworks factory explosion on the south side. Stay away!"
Blogs are good and all, but Twitter makes it easy to follow people, retweet, reply, etc. More of a conversation than a speech.
But I don't want any president, Democrat or Republican or whatever, tweeting random thoughts at 3am.
Exactly. Tweets are meant for small bites of info and IMO non important info at that. Like when Kylie Jenners new lip gloss is out.
Not a platform for which the president uses to take tantrums.
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Sorry, I do not agree with your sentiment that automation eliminates jobs. Automation requires highly skilled machinists and technicians to operate and maintain said equipment. People go to school to learn this stuff. I have an Associate's degree in Industrial Technology, and nearly completed a Bachellor's in Electrical Engineering Technology, and am unemployed. There is manufacturing in my area, but job openings are rare. So if more manufacturing jobs come back to the United States, specifically northwestern Louisiana, guys like me would be going to work and getting a fat paycheck, instead of sitting around online arguing about politics.
Automation DOES NOT eliminate jobs, rather it increases production, making products cheaper and more affordable, and creates jobs for highly skilled workforce. It's sitting in a sweatshop working for peanuts versus going to school and running heavy machinery and earning a fat paycheck.
You think I want handouts from the government? Hell no. I wanna go work, but curretly I have a better chance winning the roulette wheel at the casino then getting a job in my field with this POS political climate. I can't compete for entry level work when there's stil literally 1000s of layoffs from the GM plant without jobs and a metric ton more experience than I have. Noone in my area will hire without two years minimum manufacturing experience. I can't even get interviews. My degree is toilet paper basically.
So yeah, if Trump can bring jobs back home, I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is. Every president, democrat or republican, has promised to bring jobs back to america, and all have failed.
What makes anybody believe electing a billionare will benefit anyone but the top .1%? rops mic:
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Sorry, I do not agree with your sentiment that automation eliminates jobs. Automation requires highly skilled machinists and technicians to operate and maintain said equipment. People go to school to learn this stuff. I have an Associate's degree in Industrial Technology, and nearly completed a Bachellor's in Electrical Engineering Technology, and am unemployed. There is manufacturing in my area, but job openings are rare. So if more manufacturing jobs come back to the United States, specifically northwestern Louisiana, guys like me would be going to work and getting a fat paycheck, instead of sitting around online arguing about politics.
Automation DOES NOT eliminate jobs, rather it increases production, making products cheaper and more affordable, and creates jobs for highly skilled workforce. It's sitting in a sweatshop working for peanuts versus going to school and running heavy machinery and earning a fat paycheck.
You are misunderstanding what is being said.
Automation completely eliminates and displaces low skilled repetitive jobs, that are readily automated.
(there are low skill jobs that are hard to automate because of the manual dexterity required, though)
Automation also eliminates and displaces certain types of moderate-skill and high-skill jobs.
(think about what a CNC mill can do, and at what rate, around the clock, versus what a machinist can do)
And while automation ADDS certain high-education jobs, they generally don't encompass the same people.
The issue is the broad swath of low-to-moderate skill employees that lack the education or skill to do something else and are left behind.
It is simply reality that not everybody is capable learning a higher skill job than what they did before.
Even moreso, it is reality that many people who had those jobs are too old to be desireable hires in new careers even if they did retrain.
Further, just like you're seeing locally, people "stuck" in dead factory towns aren't going to magically have new prospects come into town when the manufacturing centers have already moved elsewhere.
Basically, what I'm driving at, is that Trump has duped desperate former blue-collar workers that think he is going to do some kind of Presidential Magic that undoes the last 40 years of capitalism and brings their jobs back home.
That isn't going to happen.
In terms of your personal development and employment, there are lots of engineering and manufacturing jobs out there, in the places that do that kind of work.
If you want to actually put your degree to work, you probably have to move to the places that actually have the jobs.
I know some people get really tied to an area, but an unwillingness to move for your career pretty much makes most careers dead-on-arrival, IMO.
Well now don't be so sure about that. Reagan was just the right President at just the right time...and so too will Trump be this time around. To be completely honest, I did for the longest time wasn't sure if he was truly "for real" (there were about a dozen R contenders and he just seemed like this weird/oddball guy of the bunch that I wasn't sure would "go the distance") but now I'm convinced that if anyone can MAGA, he can. I honestly don't see who else could...the old fashioned establishment politician sorts of guys (Bush/Obama/McCain/Romney) just wasn't going to do. And it is refreshing to finally see a R candidate (unlike McCain/Romney) who has the balls to truly honest to goodness fight and take on the left (Bernard Goldberg once did a book about how the Left lost its mind and the Right lost its nerve...well the Left has lost their mind now more than ever and finally we have someone who has the nerve/balls this country so desperately needs...just like we did in 1980). McCain/Romney tried much to hard to be "reasonable" sorts of guys...like Rush Limbaugh often says, you can't be "nice" to the liberal D's, they must be defeated, politically.
And I'm quite impressed too with how Trump is wasting absoultely no time on the job...I don't think any President since FDR (you know the guy who made the whole first 100 days thing famous?) has bent this far backwards to try to do as much as he can. Which I suppose is not surprising, after all you only get four (or eight if you're lucky) years and sure Trump is fit as a fiddle now but he is the oldest President ever (70) so I guess he knows actually living to serve all eight years (especially considering the stress/toll the job takes) is not exactly guaranteed.
And no claiming I'm rooting against him. I have (soon to be) 3 kids, a 401K, a mortgage, a career, a brother in the army, and all that jazz. I'd love for things to go swimmingly for many, many reasons.
Comments
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
Yeah. You are right. Sorry, that was just in response to your second line saying Ivanka isn't Trump.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
In all fairness, over the last couple of presidencies we are in a new era of how the president is able to publicly shoot his mouth off and cause trouble.
That sort of thing wasn't really an issue in the 1800's...
And when Preston Brooks infamously beat Charles Sumner with a cane right on the Senate floor in 1856...wow can you imagine seeing that on C-SPAN and how many YouTube views that'd get?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner
Believe me, what we got going on today is nothing compared to what our country has been through before.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
I think either Dubya or Obumble has pretty much snagged that title. Whichever one didn't get it has a lock on second place.
Well they weren't counting on social media and the Internet and such back then. As for publically shooting their mouth off and causing trouble, would you believe Truman threatened bodily harm on a critic because he gave a bad review to Truman's daughter's performance?
And when Preston Brooks infamously beat Charles Sumner with a cane right on the Senate floor in 1856...wow can you imagine seeing that on C-SPAN and how many YouTube views that'd get?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can...
Believe me, what we got going on today is nothing compared to what our country has been through before.
Just because politicians were being shitheads back in the day doesn't mean we excuse the politicians of being shitheads today.
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
Well they weren't counting on social media and the Internet and such back then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Poor_whites_and_free_African_Americans
Well, they weren't counting on poor whites being able to vote, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
You want a truly bad President, check this guy out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam...
I think Warren G. Harding still holds the worst president category.
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
The guy writes and speaks at a 6th grade level. My expectations for the kind of discourse he engages in are pretty low.
We've heard that "the President is gonna ruin the country" song and dance since John Adam's supporters claimed as such about Thomas Jefferson in 1800...and we're still here after well over 200 years right?
I dont think you ever had a president this bad before, though, hahaha.
I think either Dubya or Obumble has pretty much snagged that title. Whichever one didn't get it has a lock on second place.
I didn't really care for either of them. Although Obamacare saved my ass when i got disabled. If i wasn't on my mothers insurance i honestly don't know what i would have done because i had became disabled and couldn't work. I have easily had a couple hudred grand at this point in surgeries, procedures, and tests.......But i can definitely understand obamacare sucks for a lot of others and didn't work for everyone.
As for Trump, he still has 4 years. He could either make the country great again like he keeps saying, or become the worst president we have ever seen. There is still plenty of time for him to take the title
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
The guy writes and speaks at a 6th grade level. My expectations for the kind of discourse he engages in are pretty low.
I wonder if they thought the same about FDR using the new tech at the time (radio) for his fireside chats.
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
The guy writes and speaks at a 6th grade level. My expectations for the kind of discourse he engages in are pretty low.
I wonder if they thought the same about FDR using the new tech at the time (radio) for his fireside chats.
1) as far as I'm aware, FDR wasn't using those "fireside chats" to be intentionally inflammatory in his remarks.
2) FDR definitely spoke and wrote at a higher level of sophistication...
You want a truly bad President, check this guy out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
I think Warren G. Harding still holds the worst president category.
We'd know for sure one way or the other if his wife Florence didn't go out of her way to do the following to his papers after he died:
I mean, Jesus Christ, when the president engages in the same tweeting tactics that a pre-teen does, something has gone horribly wrong.
The guy writes and speaks at a 6th grade level. My expectations for the kind of discourse he engages in are pretty low.
I wonder if they thought the same about FDR using the new tech at the time (radio) for his fireside chats.
Well, no, you can listen to FDR today and still hear his public speaking skills, which were well developed for sustained speech.
You can listen to Trump today and no matter what medium, he still speaks/writes in small sound bites.
Added that most presidents made preparations with their staff for most of their speeches. When Trump takes to Twitter, I'm pretty sure it's just him spontaneously tweeting with no thought for the consequences. It's going to bite him in the ass at some point.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
Twitter is good for getting a tiny amount of information to a vast number of people instantly.
"Click here now to see the latest interview with such and such!" "Big fireworks factory explosion on the south side. Stay away!"
Blogs are good and all, but Twitter makes it easy to follow people, retweet, reply, etc. More of a conversation than a speech.
But I don't want any president, Democrat or Republican or whatever, tweeting random thoughts at 3am.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
I think it is equally fair to say that almost NOTHING said by the president of the united states should be that brief or spontaneous.
It is not an appropriate platform for the way he has been using it, given the office he holds.
Well to be fair you only get <140 characters per tweet. In fact I always considered Twitter to be the online equivalent of bottled water. Just like how people thought selling bottled water would never work because you can get water from your faucet/tap for next to nothing, I don't see how Twitter go so successful with its <140 character limit when you can do the same thing with a blog and use as many characters/words as you want!
Twitter is good for getting a tiny amount of information to a vast number of people instantly.
"Click here now to see the latest interview with such and such!" "Big fireworks factory explosion on the south side. Stay away!"
Blogs are good and all, but Twitter makes it easy to follow people, retweet, reply, etc. More of a conversation than a speech.
But I don't want any president, Democrat or Republican or whatever, tweeting random thoughts at 3am.
Exactly. Tweets are meant for small bites of info and IMO non important info at that. Like when Kylie Jenners new lip gloss is out.
Not a platform for which the president uses to take tantrums.
Talk about a lack of cyber security. :S
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Sorry, I do not agree with your sentiment that automation eliminates jobs. Automation requires highly skilled machinists and technicians to operate and maintain said equipment. People go to school to learn this stuff. I have an Associate's degree in Industrial Technology, and nearly completed a Bachellor's in Electrical Engineering Technology, and am unemployed. There is manufacturing in my area, but job openings are rare. So if more manufacturing jobs come back to the United States, specifically northwestern Louisiana, guys like me would be going to work and getting a fat paycheck, instead of sitting around online arguing about politics.
Automation DOES NOT eliminate jobs, rather it increases production, making products cheaper and more affordable, and creates jobs for highly skilled workforce. It's sitting in a sweatshop working for peanuts versus going to school and running heavy machinery and earning a fat paycheck.
You think I want handouts from the government? Hell no. I wanna go work, but curretly I have a better chance winning the roulette wheel at the casino then getting a job in my field with this POS political climate. I can't compete for entry level work when there's stil literally 1000s of layoffs from the GM plant without jobs and a metric ton more experience than I have. Noone in my area will hire without two years minimum manufacturing experience. I can't even get interviews. My degree is toilet paper basically.
So yeah, if Trump can bring jobs back home, I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is. Every president, democrat or republican, has promised to bring jobs back to america, and all have failed.
What makes anybody believe electing a billionare will benefit anyone but the top .1%? rops mic:
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Sorry, I do not agree with your sentiment that automation eliminates jobs. Automation requires highly skilled machinists and technicians to operate and maintain said equipment. People go to school to learn this stuff. I have an Associate's degree in Industrial Technology, and nearly completed a Bachellor's in Electrical Engineering Technology, and am unemployed. There is manufacturing in my area, but job openings are rare. So if more manufacturing jobs come back to the United States, specifically northwestern Louisiana, guys like me would be going to work and getting a fat paycheck, instead of sitting around online arguing about politics.
Automation DOES NOT eliminate jobs, rather it increases production, making products cheaper and more affordable, and creates jobs for highly skilled workforce. It's sitting in a sweatshop working for peanuts versus going to school and running heavy machinery and earning a fat paycheck.
You are misunderstanding what is being said.
Automation completely eliminates and displaces low skilled repetitive jobs, that are readily automated.
(there are low skill jobs that are hard to automate because of the manual dexterity required, though)
Automation also eliminates and displaces certain types of moderate-skill and high-skill jobs.
(think about what a CNC mill can do, and at what rate, around the clock, versus what a machinist can do)
And while automation ADDS certain high-education jobs, they generally don't encompass the same people.
The issue is the broad swath of low-to-moderate skill employees that lack the education or skill to do something else and are left behind.
It is simply reality that not everybody is capable learning a higher skill job than what they did before.
Even moreso, it is reality that many people who had those jobs are too old to be desireable hires in new careers even if they did retrain.
Further, just like you're seeing locally, people "stuck" in dead factory towns aren't going to magically have new prospects come into town when the manufacturing centers have already moved elsewhere.
Basically, what I'm driving at, is that Trump has duped desperate former blue-collar workers that think he is going to do some kind of Presidential Magic that undoes the last 40 years of capitalism and brings their jobs back home.
That isn't going to happen.
In terms of your personal development and employment, there are lots of engineering and manufacturing jobs out there, in the places that do that kind of work.
If you want to actually put your degree to work, you probably have to move to the places that actually have the jobs.
I know some people get really tied to an area, but an unwillingness to move for your career pretty much makes most careers dead-on-arrival, IMO.
Sound familiar?
Ronald Reagan was such a badass! I wish he could come back to life and be president again.
And I'm quite impressed too with how Trump is wasting absoultely no time on the job...I don't think any President since FDR (you know the guy who made the whole first 100 days thing famous?) has bent this far backwards to try to do as much as he can. Which I suppose is not surprising, after all you only get four (or eight if you're lucky) years and sure Trump is fit as a fiddle now but he is the oldest President ever (70) so I guess he knows actually living to serve all eight years (especially considering the stress/toll the job takes) is not exactly guaranteed.