BREAKING: Trump fires Comey....YOU'RE FIRED!

[PredFan]

It's no longer tin foil

Trump is showing the pressure is getting to him

Do you actually believe Trump fired Comey because of what he did to Hillary?

No, Trump fired Comey because he is incompetent.

I'll give way to your supreme knowledge of tin foil hats.

Where were you when Schumer was calling for Comey to be fired? For once and for all, would you people make up your fukin' minds and decide if you love or hate Comey?

I have no feelings at all about Comey.

Trump says he will Resign by the end of August 2017!

While you are making a joke, it might be closer to reality than you think. If something kicks up and there is enough stuff there to bring up charges, I think Trump will take a Nixon way out and simply resign.

There isn't anything there, there never was and never will be. If there was, it would have come out by now. The left just wants to keep it going until the next election.

 

[PredFan]

So, after 48 pages of noise, let's be clear:

1). No one in Congress or the FBI can name one Russian who actually colluded with President Trump!

2). While that flaming buttwipe Schummer calls for an Independent Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump for firing an errant director that everyone in both parties for the past 6 months had been saying was way out of line and not doing his job, now pursuing another half-baked investigation forced by the democrats to pursue an issue with zero evidence to back it up:

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Hillary for multiple violations of the Espionage Act?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Obama for the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Trump transition team members?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Israeli Ambassador, the Israeli Prime Minister, members of Congress, and Jewish leaders and groups?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the seedy Iran deal, secret payments, and the release of numerous terrorists not revealed to the public until much later?

If the answer is no to the above (and you know it is), then all the rest about Trump is total bullshit.

If real evidence that Trump colluded had been released, he would be facing impeachment. There is certainly circumstantial evidence which is why there is an investigation. Trump opponents will of course claim Trump and his campaign are guilty just as supporters will claim the opposite. That's just politics as usual.

Before Trump fired Comey, the end of the investigation would have settled the issue in the minds of most Americans. Now, it will be an issue for years to come thanks to Trump's incompetence. All he had to do is sit tight till the investigation concluded then fire Comey but we all know, patience is not a Trump virtue.

You are quite naive if you think there would be any end to the investigation at all. The left NO MATTER WHAT is going to keep this going until the 2018 elections. That is their plan and likely Comey was in on it.

With two investigations in the House and pressure from the president, it will certainly end before the next election.

I hope you are correct. It's a worthless wild goose chase, but I don't think you are.

 

[RASTAMEN]

So, after 48 pages of noise, let's be clear:

1). No one in Congress or the FBI can name one Russian who actually colluded with President Trump!

2). While that flaming buttwipe Schummer calls for an Independent Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump for firing an errant director that everyone in both parties for the past 6 months had been saying was way out of line and not doing his job, now pursuing another half-baked investigation forced by the democrats to pursue an issue with zero evidence to back it up:

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Hillary for multiple violations of the Espionage Act?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Obama for the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Trump transition team members?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Israeli Ambassador, the Israeli Prime Minister, members of Congress, and Jewish leaders and groups?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the seedy Iran deal, secret payments, and the release of numerous terrorists not revealed to the public until much later?

If the answer is no to the above (and you know it is), then all the rest about Trump is total bullshit.

If real evidence that Trump colluded had been released, he would be facing impeachment. There is certainly circumstantial evidence which is why there is an investigation. Trump opponents will of course claim Trump and his campaign are guilty just as supporters will claim the opposite. That's just politics as usual.

Before Trump fired Comey, the end of the investigation would have settled the issue in the minds of most Americans. Now, it will be an issue for years to come thanks to Trump's incompetence. All he had to do is sit tight till the investigation concluded then fire Comey but we all know, patience is not a Trump virtue.

You are quite naive if you think there would be any end to the investigation at all. The left NO MATTER WHAT is going to keep this going until the 2018 elections. That is their plan and likely Comey was in on it.

With two investigations in the House and pressure from the president, it will certainly end before the next election.

I hope you are correct. It's a worthless wild goose chase, but I don't think you are.

Nope! The 2018 mid-terms will just the beginning! Trump's involvement with the Russians will haunt his Admin. well into 2020. You, Trump and the entire GOP need to realize these investigations will be ongoing.

 

[RASTAMEN]

Well, that'll slow down the Trump/Russia collusion investigation.

HUH?


Trump/Russia collusion investigation?

Are you still pushing that scam?

.

 

[PredFan]

So, after 48 pages of noise, let's be clear:

1). No one in Congress or the FBI can name one Russian who actually colluded with President Trump!

2). While that flaming buttwipe Schummer calls for an Independent Special Prosecutor to investigate Trump for firing an errant director that everyone in both parties for the past 6 months had been saying was way out of line and not doing his job, now pursuing another half-baked investigation forced by the democrats to pursue an issue with zero evidence to back it up:

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Hillary for multiple violations of the Espionage Act?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor against Obama for the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Trump transition team members?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the illegal surveillance and unmasking of the Israeli Ambassador, the Israeli Prime Minister, members of Congress, and Jewish leaders and groups?

Will Chuck Schummer support an independent special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the seedy Iran deal, secret payments, and the release of numerous terrorists not revealed to the public until much later?

If the answer is no to the above (and you know it is), then all the rest about Trump is total bullshit.

If real evidence that Trump colluded had been released, he would be facing impeachment. There is certainly circumstantial evidence which is why there is an investigation. Trump opponents will of course claim Trump and his campaign are guilty just as supporters will claim the opposite. That's just politics as usual.

Before Trump fired Comey, the end of the investigation would have settled the issue in the minds of most Americans. Now, it will be an issue for years to come thanks to Trump's incompetence. All he had to do is sit tight till the investigation concluded then fire Comey but we all know, patience is not a Trump virtue.

You are quite naive if you think there would be any end to the investigation at all. The left NO MATTER WHAT is going to keep this going until the 2018 elections. That is their plan and likely Comey was in on it.

With two investigations in the House and pressure from the president, it will certainly end before the next election.

I hope you are correct. It's a worthless wild goose chase, but I don't think you are.

Nope! The 2018 mid-terms will just the beginning! Trump's involvement with the Russians will haunt his Admin. well into 2020. You, Trump and the entire GOP need to realize these investigations will be ongoing.

See Flopper? I don't think that this lunatic is the exception.

 

[RASTAMEN]

No, Trump fired Comey because he is incompetent.

I'll give way to your supreme knowledge of tin foil hats.

Where were you when Schumer was calling for Comey to be fired? For once and for all, would you people make up your fukin' minds and decide if you love or hate Comey?

I have no feelings at all about Comey.

While you are making a joke, it might be closer to reality than you think. If something kicks up and there is enough stuff there to bring up charges, I think Trump will take a Nixon way out and simply resign.

Trump won't be re-elected!


Really?


My sources tell me that he will promptly resign at noon on January 20th, 2025.


.

Trump says he will Resign by the end of August 2017!

 

[WEATHER53]

The libs can't do anything other than buzz around like flies
Thats really all their ambitions are, to buzz around and get attention and be swatted at. They want to be a ongoing distraction, like they promised
The entire nebulous, non specific Russian business is just a fly buzzing swarm

 

[RASTAMEN]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He let her skate. Almost anyone else would have likely served jail time. He should have been fired. The country is better off. I fully support Trump on this.

Not even close. Look at Petraeus. He took classified information (black books) with details of his time as top commander in Afghanistan which he kept in his attic, and gave the information to a reporter..

Yet he didn't serve a day in jail.

Neither did Sandy Berger...

 

[Flopper]

However, the fact remains, he lacks knowledge of how Washington works, has no world view, and does not understand that unpredictability and off the cuff, often contradictory comments erodes trust. His propensity for exaggerations and incorrect statements may make him seem more human to his supporters but among world leaders and politicians, it makes him seem dishonest and inconsistent.

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

 

[toobfreak]

However, the fact remains, he lacks knowledge of how Washington works, has no world view, and does not understand that unpredictability and off the cuff, often contradictory comments erodes trust. His propensity for exaggerations and incorrect statements may make him seem more human to his supporters but among world leaders and politicians, it makes him seem dishonest and inconsistent.

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

 

[charwin95]

Sheriff Clarke can be the finest replacement.

Clarke is just another Trump LAP DOG.

Don't hate on African Americans, brother. That would be the real hope and change to get Sheriff Clarke in.

I don't hate African American------ Sherriff Clarke would be a just a Trump lap dog. We do not need that kind of bias person running the FBI.

 

[Flopper]

However, the fact remains, he lacks knowledge of how Washington works, has no world view, and does not understand that unpredictability and off the cuff, often contradictory comments erodes trust. His propensity for exaggerations and incorrect statements may make him seem more human to his supporters but among world leaders and politicians, it makes him seem dishonest and inconsistent.

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

 

[toobfreak]

However, the fact remains, he lacks knowledge of how Washington works, has no world view, and does not understand that unpredictability and off the cuff, often contradictory comments erodes trust. His propensity for exaggerations and incorrect statements may make him seem more human to his supporters but among world leaders and politicians, it makes him seem dishonest and inconsistent.

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

 

[Flopper]

However, the fact remains, he lacks knowledge of how Washington works, has no world view, and does not understand that unpredictability and off the cuff, often contradictory comments erodes trust. His propensity for exaggerations and incorrect statements may make him seem more human to his supporters but among world leaders and politicians, it makes him seem dishonest and inconsistent.

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa. Here is the problem I see with that argument. Unlike the early years of the republic, government has become extremely complex and as you say disorganized and wasteful. To get things done in government, you need professionals who understand the organization, the rules, the laws, and constraints it operates under. Most importantly, you need to build the trust and respect of the players you need to accomplish your goals.

A person may be a dynamic real estate developer who knows real estate values, and markets as no else does but when that person wins political office, he becomes a neophyte in government because government does not operate in anyway like a business. Where businesses seek to operate in a profitable environment, government almost always works in an unprofitable environment. Where businesses manage their affairs in private, government manages in the full light of public disclosure. Where businesses can hire, fire, and reorganize relatively easily, it can take a constitutional amendment in government. Where business answers only to owners, government answers to the voters, taxpayers, and the media.

Just because professionals in government have not lived up to your expectations that does not mean amateurs are going to do a better job. In fact, common sense should tells us the opposite is true.

 

[toobfreak]

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa.

Bingo! That is a pretty good way of putting it. If government is broke (and I don't think many would disagree that it is) then the solution is not to do MORE of the same thing! You have to approach it from the outside with fresh ideas from people who have a track record of really getting things done. And you will never get someone to make the radical changes needed to fix a system who is part of the very system needing fixed.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump's involvement with the Russians will haunt his Admin. well into 2020.

Probably In a few years, No one will Have Ever remembered A single Demented post you've made.

 

[RASTAMEN]

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa. Here is the problem I see with that argument. Unlike the early years of the republic, government has become extremely complex and as you say disorganized and wasteful. To get things done in government, you need professionals who understand the organization, the rules, the laws, and constraints it operates under. Most importantly, you need to build the trust and respect of the players you need to accomplish your goals.

A person may be a dynamic real estate developer who knows real estate values, and markets as no else does but when that person wins political office, he becomes a neophyte in government because government does not operate in anyway like a business. Where businesses seek to operate in a profitable environment, government almost always works in an unprofitable environment. Where businesses manage their affairs in private, government manages in the full light of public disclosure. Where businesses can hire, fire, and reorganize relatively easily, it can take a constitutional amendment in government. Where business answers only to owners, government answers to the voters, taxpayers, and the media.

Just because professionals in government have not lived up to your expectations that does not mean amateurs are going to do a better job. In fact, common sense should tells us the opposite is true.

Meanwhile, since 1980 with the election from Reagan to Trump! Here is the end results for the middle class and working poor:

 

[RASTAMEN]

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa. Here is the problem I see with that argument. Unlike the early years of the republic, government has become extremely complex and as you say disorganized and wasteful. To get things done in government, you need professionals who understand the organization, the rules, the laws, and constraints it operates under. Most importantly, you need to build the trust and respect of the players you need to accomplish your goals.

A person may be a dynamic real estate developer who knows real estate values, and markets as no else does but when that person wins political office, he becomes a neophyte in government because government does not operate in anyway like a business. Where businesses seek to operate in a profitable environment, government almost always works in an unprofitable environment. Where businesses manage their affairs in private, government manages in the full light of public disclosure. Where businesses can hire, fire, and reorganize relatively easily, it can take a constitutional amendment in government. Where business answers only to owners, government answers to the voters, taxpayers, and the media.

Just because professionals in government have not lived up to your expectations that does not mean amateurs are going to do a better job. In fact, common sense should tells us the opposite is true.

Meanwhile, since 1980 with the election from Reagan to Trump! Here is the end results for the middle class and working poor:

 

[RASTAMEN]

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa. Here is the problem I see with that argument. Unlike the early years of the republic, government has become extremely complex and as you say disorganized and wasteful. To get things done in government, you need professionals who understand the organization, the rules, the laws, and constraints it operates under. Most importantly, you need to build the trust and respect of the players you need to accomplish your goals.

A person may be a dynamic real estate developer who knows real estate values, and markets as no else does but when that person wins political office, he becomes a neophyte in government because government does not operate in anyway like a business. Where businesses seek to operate in a profitable environment, government almost always works in an unprofitable environment. Where businesses manage their affairs in private, government manages in the full light of public disclosure. Where businesses can hire, fire, and reorganize relatively easily, it can take a constitutional amendment in government. Where business answers only to owners, government answers to the voters, taxpayers, and the media.

Just because professionals in government have not lived up to your expectations that does not mean amateurs are going to do a better job. In fact, common sense should tells us the opposite is true.

Meanwhile, since 1980 with the election from Reagan to Trump! Here is the end results for the middle class and working poor:

 

[RASTAMEN]

Yep, he is learning every day as he goes, just as he did in business as the situation changes by the hour. But he is a very sagacious man who can not only handle it, but feeds off of the challenge. I disagree that he has no world view, he has been dealing with leaders and countries on the international level for a long time, but does he know everything? No, he is learning. But then, did Obama know everything? Did GW? Hillary was farther along in that regard and what did it do for her other than make it easier for her to be a better crook.

I have no trouble understanding the man, and most of his "exaggerations and incorrect or conflicting statements" are part style and part misinterpretation by others for what he means and how he says it. This is a man used to speaking before a BOD and competitors rather than the media. As to his trust and consistency, on certain levels he is very consistent, just not in a way that many are used to, especially on the international level, and really, that is his strength! That is what makes him an effective leader and negotiator---- their inability to see his "hand" in what cards he holds, what cards he will play and when. That gives us much greater leverage. Art of the deal.

The presidency is not the place to learn how government functions, political strategies that work and don't work, how to manipulate the media, and the driving forces behind actions of world leaders. In fact, there is little time for a president do much more than react to situations utilizing his experience and knowledge to manage them. As president, you need exactly the talents that Trump does not have, trust, diplomacy, respect, patience, and tolerance. Unfortunately, you don't acquire those talents on the job.

Trump has to get rid of the idea that he's the boss, he's in charge. Unlike his business, the rules he operates under are fixed as is the structure of the organization. He is not free to hire anyone he chooses and firing people can have serious political consequences. His staff answers to him but they also answer to congress and the courts. The president is the head of state but not the head of government.

I disagree. I think it is EXACTLY the place to learn these things, especially if you learn fast and get good with good people around to guide you. I would much rather have an honest and well-intended man running the country who is learning the ropes who goes into public service to SERVE THE NATION than a career politician who knows the system inside out, has lots of "friends," and knows just how to milk it to make himself rich. You see, if you look back, the original intention of this nation WAS to have people from the private sector (just like Trump) come in, serve for a few years as a sacrifice to his nation, then go back to his daytime job, NOT be a career politician getting rich at it and crooked. Trump is not an aberration, he is the way the Founders really intended, and as such, inexperience comes with the job.

Having an inexperienced person steering the ship of state makes about as much sense as have having a weekend sailor at the helm of a supertanker. Experience in governing has never been more important than it is today. Anyone that steps into the presidency is stepping into a mine field. The idea that Trump doesn't really need knowledge and experience in government and politics is about as silly as thinking he could have built his multi-billion dollar property development business without the years of experience and education in business and real estate.

What I find puzzling is why voters think we don't need experts in congress or the White House when they know quite well that the federal government is probably the most complex organization on earth. Do they believe that the solutions to the nation's problems are so simple that all we need is elected officials that are honesty, have common sense, and a record of success in other fields?

READ CAREFULLY:

Non sequitur. You put more value on someone having experience in running political campaigns, etc., than someone having real leadership in running multi-billion dollar enterprises the world over with multiple nations where he creates tens of thousands of jobs, creates wealth and gambles with his own money. Career politicians do none of these things. The problem with Obama's administration is that it had the lowest or one of the lowest percentages of people in it with real private sector experience out in the real world. Very few of them had ever met a budget or deadline or payroll and had lived most all of their entire lives paid by taxpayer money. I think the Trump's administration just might be the very opposite with most of its people having a maximum amount of experience working out in the real world. I find it very disturbing that anyone would argue for PROFESSIONAL politicians like there was a class on it, especially in light of the fact that it flies in the faces of the intentions of the Founders.

The Founders realized that the way to keep government fresh with new ideas and energy, efficient and cooperative and working, and keep corruption down was to have a constant influx and turnover of new minds. Not have people in there in their '80's who had been in there since their 40's. It is when you have the same old crusty and tired people in there year upon year that hard divisions, and obstinances develop, exactly our problem today.

I would only add that the Fed is the most inept, incompetent, disorganized and wasteful organization probably in the world and 99.99% of the people working in it are all highly EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS. So obviously, experience has been proven to not only not be the solution, but might in fact be the problem.

What you seem to be saying is that it's better to have someone with experience outside of government and no government experience running the government than vice versa. Here is the problem I see with that argument. Unlike the early years of the republic, government has become extremely complex and as you say disorganized and wasteful. To get things done in government, you need professionals who understand the organization, the rules, the laws, and constraints it operates under. Most importantly, you need to build the trust and respect of the players you need to accomplish your goals.

A person may be a dynamic real estate developer who knows real estate values, and markets as no else does but when that person wins political office, he becomes a neophyte in government because government does not operate in anyway like a business. Where businesses seek to operate in a profitable environment, government almost always works in an unprofitable environment. Where businesses manage their affairs in private, government manages in the full light of public disclosure. Where businesses can hire, fire, and reorganize relatively easily, it can take a constitutional amendment in government. Where business answers only to owners, government answers to the voters, taxpayers, and the media.

Just because professionals in government have not lived up to your expectations that does not mean amateurs are going to do a better job. In fact, common sense should tells us the opposite is true.

Meanwhile, since 1980 with the election from Reagan to Trump! Here is the end results for the middle class and working poor: