Donald Trump is still bitching about the NFL, urges fans to boycott

nac386 said:
I missed this. What the hell? Lol.
Click to expand...

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/sarah-p...ennsylvania-school-hints-at-presidential-run/

Kids usually aren’t supposed to take treats from strangers. Sarah Palin, however, wasn’t trying to lure the children she gave cookies to, but rather their parents. “Who should be deciding what I eat?” Palin asked at a fundraising event at a Bucks County, PA, Christian school, a clear shot at First Lady Michelle Obama‘s nutrition guidelines. “Should it be government or should it be parents? It should be the parents.” And then, as we’ve come to expect, she teased the audience by hinting at her possible presidential run.
Click to expand...
 
sub_thug said:
Then honestly, it sounds like you shouldn't vote for a businessman, haha. Politics is just as dirty in my mind, so needless to say, my view of anyone who holds elected office is pretty bleak. I don't know if anyone who seeks power is capable of wielding it responsibly.
Click to expand...
I've been saying that for a long time in response to those who want a businessman for president. That's not to say businessmen are automatically dirty, that is certainly not true. But being in business doesn't make you qualified for office. But that all said I though Romney was a good, moral person as far as I could tell and I would trade him for Trump without a second thought.

helltoupee said:
I don't think Trump is racist, democrat, republican, patriotic, unpatriotic, whatever ... ... ... Trump is all about Trump, end of story.
Click to expand...

Yup, and he's willing to do just about anything to advance himself and his family.
 
kpt018 said:
I've been saying that for a long time in response to those who want a businessman for president. That's not to say businessmen are automatically dirty, that is certainly not true. But being in business doesn't make you qualified for office. But that all said I though Romney was a good, moral person as far as I could tell and I would trade him for Trump without a second thought.
Click to expand...
I'm okay with the idea of a businessman, but this POTUS is less of a businessman and more of an entertainer. I think there are plenty of executives that would probably do a lot better job in the same role. I'm one of those people who actually believes in less government all-around, wants to reduce the federal budget, and wants to get deficit spending under control. I think much of that could be achieved by creating efficiency in government. Certain departments are so fraught with waste that it's disgusting. As sad as it is, DOD is one of the more efficient agencies, and I think their budget could be reduced by about 10% without having ANY impact on national security. But it would mean cutting down costs, reducing helicopter flights and access to them for generals (generals in command positions get several military vehicles and often a helicopter so that they can go out and check on things, which basically amounts to them going out and the unit creating a dog and pony show for the general), reducing discretionary spending by units, cutting down on certain programs (so in the military, we joke about something called SHARP (Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention) training, which is basically just a briefing that we pay contractors a lot of money to give to small groups every 6 months that could be summarized as follows, "Don't rape anyone, and if you want to report one, call this number: XXX-XXX-XXXX."), and other spending that doesn't directly increase operational readiness. Ideally, a true businessman would come in with the thought process, "If it doesn't create a better customer experience or reduce costs, it needs to go." I think THAT would be great, but a guy getting up there and creating a spectacle of the office isn't what a good businessman should be doing.
 
sub_thug said:
I'm okay with the idea of a businessman, but this POTUS is less of a businessman and more of an entertainer. I think there are plenty of executives that would probably do a lot better job in the same role. I'm one of those people who actually believes in less government all-around, wants to reduce the federal budget, and wants to get deficit spending under control. I think much of that could be achieved by creating efficiency in government. Certain departments are so fraught with waste that it's disgusting. As sad as it is, DOD is one of the more efficient agencies, and I think their budget could be reduced by about 10% without having ANY impact on national security. But it would mean cutting down costs, reducing helicopter flights and access to them for generals (generals in command positions get several military vehicles and often a helicopter so that they can go out and check on things, which basically amounts to them going out and the unit creating a dog and pony show for the general), reducing discretionary spending by units, cutting down on certain programs (so in the military, we joke about something called SHARP (Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention) training, which is basically just a briefing that we pay contractors a lot of money to give to small groups every 6 months that could be summarized as follows, "Don't rape anyone, and if you want to report one, call this number: XXX-XXX-XXXX."), and other spending that doesn't directly increase operational readiness. Ideally, a true businessman would come in with the thought process, "If it doesn't create a better customer experience or reduce costs, it needs to go." I think THAT would be great, but a guy getting up there and creating a spectacle of the office isn't what a good businessman should be doing.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to cut spending in a significant way there are only two areas really that will make a dent and that is military spending and social security/medicare. If you're not going to ax spending there it won't matter.

The president will make important appointments to his cabinet and SC and is the defacto leader of their own party, but the idea that they will just come in and fix things is not true. It's not within their power. Running the government is nothing like running a business. They don't even have the same goals. It's not to say that a business person can't make a great president but it doesn't give you any qualifications given what the president is actually responsible for.

Also, many presidents are actually risk takers (not a good quality for a president) and are not nearly as efficient as you think. I have a million stories about huge, successful companies (some publicly traded) that are a shit show behind the scenes. They're just good at delivering their core product. Business people don't have magical powers. Fuck ups happen all the time.

It sounds like you want an accountant as president, but a typical one would make terrible president.
 
kpt018 said:
If your goal is to cut spending in a significant way there are only two areas really that will make a dent and that is military spending and social security/medicare. If you're not going to ax spending there it won't matter.

The president will make important appointments to his cabinet and SC and is the defacto leader of their own party, but the idea that they will just come in and fix things is not true. It's not within their power. Running the government is nothing like running a business. They don't even have the same goals. It's not to say that a business person can't make a great president but it doesn't give you any qualifications given what the president is actually responsible for.

Also, many presidents are actually risk takers (not a good quality for a president) and are not nearly as efficient as you think. I have a million stories about huge, successful companies (some publicly traded) that are a shit show behind the scenes. They're just good at delivering their core product. Business people don't have magical powers. Fuck ups happen all the time.

It sounds like you want an accountant as president, but a typical one would make terrible president.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a bit reductionist.

The primary thing that a President does every year is create their budget. I understand that the Congress still has a large say, but it's pretty common knowledge that the President's budget is what drives the federal spending. And I think that what we need is someone who is committed to spending less in all departments, including in DOD and in SS/Medicare/Medicaid.

I understand that things are often messy behind the scenes. That's true of literally any organization in the world. But the federal government is unique, due in part to its hiring and firing procedures. The layers of bureaucracy are ridiculous, and it needs to be controlled. That's what I am looking for to happen. Incremental changes to reduce spending.
 
sub_thug said:
Well, this is a bit reductionist.

The primary thing that a President does every year is create their budget. I understand that the Congress still has a large say, but it's pretty common knowledge that the President's budget is what drives the federal spending.
Click to expand...

This is false all around. For one thing, in the U.S., most federal spending is set by law with no annual input from the president (that's SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt interest, and a few other small items). The other stuff starts with budget requests from the agencies, which are then modified by the president and sent to Congress (usually in a kind of statement of principles that isn't expected to actually determine anything), then analyzed by the CBO, etc. Presidents actually have very little to do with federal spending levels and it's not even close to one of the most important parts of the job because there's so little impact. It might be commonly believed that the president's budget drives federal spending, but it's certainly not true.
 
kpt018 said:
I've been saying that for a long time in response to those who want a businessman for president. That's not to say businessmen are automatically dirty, that is certainly not true. But being in business doesn't make you qualified for office. But that all said I though Romney was a good, moral person as far as I could tell and I would trade him for Trump without a second thought.
Click to expand...

While I can certainly understand that there are attributes of business that would apply to running the government, the thing that I think escapes most people is that not everything of social value is profitable.
 
Peloquin said:
21765215_702555459940705_4464760223680939330_n.jpg
Click to expand...

What a terrible fucking analogy.

Rosa Parks encountered and protested an inequality that was directly related to public transportation. Are these NFL players, on NFL time, protesting an inequality they face directly related to football?

One faced a direct inequality while the other is nothing more than a platform.....a platform that happens to be at the expense of the anthem which millions find offensive.
 
Jack V Savage said:
This is false all around. For one thing, in the U.S., most federal spending is set by law with no annual input from the president (that's SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt interest, and a few other small items). The other stuff starts with budget requests from the agencies, which are then modified by the president and sent to Congress (usually in a kind of statement of principles that isn't expected to actually determine anything), then analyzed by the CBO, etc. Presidents actually have very little to do with federal spending levels and it's not even close to one of the most important parts of the job because there's so little impact. It might be commonly believed that the president's budget drives federal spending, but it's certainly not true.
Click to expand...
I get how POM cycles work. But after agencies make budget requests and submit them, what happens? The POTUS sets priorities and proposes a budget. And the government’s ability to influence change is largely a product of how it decides to allocate funding.
 
Hi said we all band together and support the NFL players' right to free speech as long as Donald Trump doesn't get his or anyone who disagrees with them
 
sub_thug said:
Well, this is a bit reductionist.

The primary thing that a President does every year is create their budget. I understand that the Congress still has a large say, but it's pretty common knowledge that the President's budget is what drives the federal spending. And I think that what we need is someone who is committed to spending less in all departments, including in DOD and in SS/Medicare/Medicaid.
Click to expand...

Congress writes the budget and the general proposal is created by the speaker. And in Trump's case just about any fucking thing will get signed. And if the president wants changes he'll have to convince the House to agree.

I understand that things are often messy behind the scenes. That's true of literally any organization in the world. But the federal government is unique, due in part to its hiring and firing procedures. The layers of bureaucracy are ridiculous, and it needs to be controlled. That's what I am looking for to happen. Incremental changes to reduce spending.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to defend the government, I know there's waste. My only point is people automatically assume a businessman will bring instant efficiency and it's just not true.
 
kpt018 said:
Congress writes the budget and the general proposal is created by the speaker. And in Trump's case just about any fucking thing will get signed. And if the president wants changes he'll have to convince the House to agree.

I'm not going to defend the government, I know there's waste. My only point is people automatically assume a businessman will bring instant efficiency and it's just not true.
Click to expand...
The president proposes a budget, and that largely drives the train on that issue. The Congress ends up formally approving it and submitting it to the President for signature. So this will be a largely GOP-friendly budget.

No, it’s not directly causal. It would require a larger culture change to make efficiency happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,999
Messages
55,460,266
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top