First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Political Hypocrisy
mxdan 
11126 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
So if you guys haven't heard Trump just appointed the Exxon CEO as Secretary of State. Amid this revelation and the one that came out recently that he is putting the Goldman Sachs President in charge of the National Economic Council we have truly perplexing situation on our hands. About the only thing that Democracts and Republicans could agree on in the last 10 years is that money in politics is a real issue in our country at the moment. It causes legislation that benefits a few majority of people. So what do we do? Elect someone who is systematically giving them more power. Amazing how many have been spouting for years that CEO's needed to answer for the crimes they committed during our recession. Now it would seem republicans are perfectly fine with us doing the complete opposite.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican is one thing. But turning our Democracy into a Plutocracy will not save your jobs and give you higher wages. It is a sign that Globalism policy WILL become a bigger deal in the next couple of years. The irony is your national savior you thought would return to localism is showing signs that he has no intention of doing that at all.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-chooses-exxon-mobil-chief-rex-tillerson-as-secretary-of-state-1481600036
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-names-goldman-president-gary-cohn-as-director-of-national-economic-council-1481573082
41 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pyongyang, North...
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
sometimes, maybe. most of them that even talk about it still benefit from it so it's not worth much.

trump is just making the plutocracy more blatant through his cabinet picks by cutting out the political establishment in favor of the economic establishment. it's effectively just cutting out the middle man. to be fair every president puts wall street ceo's in their cabinet, but still this taking it further, maybe the most corrupt cabinet ever.

5153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
YES


Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
Drill, baby. Drill.
735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
I had a feeling that he would do something like this. Now I can turn to everyone who thought that Trump would "make America great again" and say "Ha! I told you so! I knew he'd make us a plutocracy! I warned ya'll but you wouldn't listen to reason."
6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/15/16
I don't care about the type of government, all I care about is that it accomplishes its goals.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
Well. One of Washington's biggest problems has been that Washington insiders have been inside for way too long... So..... You got to get your Washington outsiders from somewhere...

We wanted to get the insiders out.... So, let's see what this approach will get us.
Humms 
11933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
I need an adult, I need an adult!!
4030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
WSJ? wallstreet journal?

honestly I'm a little skeptical with a lot of greedy businessmen gathering in one place...

but let see how it is..

this is also a good opportunity to see how greedy they can get.. given they are now in the spotlight and all eyes are on them...

since after 8 years of Obama.. people are crying for change.. and if they think this is a good opportunity to get rich.. depending on how things will turn out.. we might have a "witch hunt" after a few more years
8965 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16


Oh... Their speculating on Twitter, too. Eh? That is concerning.
mxdan 
11126 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
19069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16

DeadlyOats wrote:

Well. One of Washington's biggest problems has been that Washington insiders have been inside for way too long... So..... You got to get your Washington outsiders from somewhere...

We wanted to get the insiders out.... So, let's see what this approach will get us.


It'll get us the same result Hillary Clinton getting Wall Street bankers to fix Wall Street would have.

347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Gladstone, Queens...
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16
Regardless, Trump was still a better choice than the absolute disaster that Hillary Clinton would have been. She had been pushing for a no fly zone over Syria since 2013, and she seemed absolutely determined to make it happen no matter what. Putin on the other hand has an Alliance with Syria and is obligated to defend his allies, which included opposing the no fly zone. I don't think neither Putin or Hillary would have backed down. Russia even sent one of their fleet and good anti air weapons to Syria to make a no fly zone impossible. This would have meant to enforce a no fly zone, would have required ground troops to take out their anti air, which both Syria and Russia would have fought to oppose. This really would have meant WW3. I predict that Trump is going to look like a Bush presidency, except "possibly" with no wars, too early to say yet. I'm not American or anything, but you Americans were foolish to vote either of these 2 people to be your candidates for the general. Imho, having Rand Paul vs Bernie Sander would have been the best result. These guys are absolutely polar opposites of the political spectrum. I also think we would have gotten real arguments about the capitalism vs socialism, and which one was truly the better system, and whether or not big government or small government was better. I am personally of the capitalism and small government is better camp. I oppose government intervention unless it's absolutely necessary for a functional government and society. If you collect tax money, you've got to consider whether or not it's worth killing someone to pay for whatever you want those taxes to pay for. The use of government power requires force. You need to use force to collect taxes, because what if someone refuses to pay taxes, and refuses to let anyone basically kidnap him and throw him behind bars? well, you shoot and kill him of course. And this is exactly what the government does. So if you think of any law or policy you want enforced, you've got to consider: is this worth killing someone over?

Anyway, the gist of my comment is that I supported Rand Paul, a libertarian running as republican, and I consider Trump to be better than Hillary, even though it was foolish to elect either to be your general election candidates.
runec 
36047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/13/16 , edited 12/13/16

Jecht67 wrote:
Regardless, Trump was still a better choice than the absolute disaster that Hillary Clinton would have been.


How in the world do you figure that at this juncture?



Jecht67 wrote:She had been pushing for a no fly zone over Syria since 2013, and she seemed absolutely determined to make it happen no matter what. Putin on the other hand has an Alliance with Syria and is obligated to defend his allies, which included opposing the no fly zone.


The "alliance" with Syria is a left over from the Soviet Union that could have been terminated at any time. Putin is under no obligation to support Syria. Nevermind to support a mass murdering war criminal so it can continue selling weapons to Syria. While using its UN vote to oppose any attempt to sanction or even condemn Assad for that whole mass murdering civilians thing he likes so much.

Putin's interest in Syria is purely strategic. He gives no fucks whatsoever about Syria itself or its people. Syria gives him military and intelligence launching points outside the former Soviet Union. Including his only naval base in the Mediterranean. Nevermind the arms sales and what not. This is not about loyalty or good will and it is certainly not about protecting the people of Syria who have been murdered and raped ad nasuem under the rule of a war criminal Russia fully supports.

Hence I do not understand this whole "Oh Hillary would have triggered WW3" bullshit. Russia is willingly supporting and assisting the murder and torture of innocent people. Why is that okay with you? Do you even know how this started? Protests. That's all it started with. Syrians were simply protesting. They weren't rising up to topple the government or anything. They took to the streets in protest during the Arab Spring.

Assad had them slaughtered. *That's* when it started to turn into an armed rebellion. Oh, and he also had any soldier that refused to to open fire on civilians executed. So there's that too. There is absolutely no moral reason or basis for Russia to intervene on Assad's behalf. Nor any noble purpose to their continued support. Assad triggered the very thing he is now fighting to suppress and he did it in the most horrifying way possible.

And you're worried about tip toeing on egg shells around this inhuman sociopath with a no fly zone?

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.