ChrisWeigant.com

Dealing With Loss

[ Posted Monday, November 14th, 2016 – 17:07 UTC ]

In the past week, Democrats lost the presidential election while America suffered the ultimate loss of two unique public voices: Leonard Cohen and Gwen Ifill. Ifill was co-anchor of the nightly news show PBS NewsHour (which some still refer to by its original name, the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, showing how influential this show's anchors have been in the past). Ifill will be greatly missed, as she was not only a voice of reason with great intelligence behind it, but also a voice for people not normally heard from in broadcast news. Ifill once remarked that she made more money in a week than her father made in a year, and she never forgot her humble beginnings in her reporting, as she consistently pressured politicians on what their policy positions actually meant for people on the lower economic rungs of the ladder. She was, in a word, authentic -- something even rarer in national journalism than it is in the world of politics. I join millions of Americans now mourning the loss of one of the most relatable journalists on the national scene. Ifill will be greatly missed, that much is certain.

So will Leonard Cohen, for different reasons. Cohen's music spoke to millions, and provided the most moving tribute to both his work and the campaign of Hillary Clinton this weekend, when Saturday Night Live opened with Kate McKinnon (dressed as Hillary Clinton) playing the piano and singing Cohen's best-known work, "Hallelujah."

I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool ya
And even though it all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

To me, at least, this was one of the most poignant "cold open" scenes ever, in the long and storied history of SNL -- right up there with Rudy Giuliani and Lorne Michaels addressing the nation after 9/11. In one heartfelt moment, McKinnon summed up the loss millions were feeling not only because of Cohen's death, but also because of the outcome of the election.

Now, losing elections is a part of the political process. Nobody wins all the time -- and shouldn't. It's what keeps parties from getting out of touch, to be blunt. But I was reminded today of not just Hillary Clinton's loss for the Democrats, but of the inevitable loss for our country of the presidency of Barack Obama. I say this because I just finished watching Obama's press conference, and couldn't help but wonder what Donald Trump press conferences will be like in the near future.

The end of Obama's presidency has been completely overshadowed by the presidential race, for over a year now. But a remarkable thing has happened during that time period. Obama's job approval has skyrocketed. On New Year's Day, Obama's average daily job approval at RealClearPolitics.com stood at 43.6 percent. Over half of America -- 52.0 percent -- disapproved of the job he was doing. Since that time, Obama has won back a large portion of the public and completely flipped those numbers. His daily job approval rating today is 52.6 percent, to only 44.0 percent disapproval. The Gallup daily tracking poll actually has Obama at 57 percent approval today -- a whopping 17 points higher than his disapproval rating. That is an astounding turnaround, and it shows that while everyone was obsessing over the race for his successor, more and more people decided that they're going to miss Obama when he's gone.

This was on my mind while I watched Obama field questions from the press today. All presidents have their own style when talking to the press, of course. Some are better in some ways, others excel in different ways. Almost all presidents come into office promising much more press accessibility, but then soon discover it's easier not to answer questions in a live press conference. Obama was no different in this regard, as he entered office promising all sorts of high standards for accessibility (such as holding live town hall meetings on a monthly basis, in different parts of the country). Most of these ideas soon fell by the wayside. There were indeed very long periods during Obama's term in office where no press conferences were held at all (much to the annoyance of the White House press corps).

But when he did hold pressers, Obama's style was to give extremely long answers to each question, and (for the most part) to do so in as sober and calm a manner as possible. "No-Drama Obama" was the one who showed up to talk to the press, to put this another way. We saw this today, as Obama fielded questions about the transition to the Trump presidency.

Obama was obviously feeling the rejection of the election personally. I'd have to check the transcript, but I don't believe Obama even managed to say the name "Donald Trump" at any point, using "the president-elect" or "the next president" instead. That's pretty revealing, when you can't even utter the guy's name. But at the same time, it was subtle. In no way did Obama otherwise express his disappointment with the country's choice of Trump -- in fact, Obama refused to rise to multiple baited questions on this subject today. After all, while other Democrats are free to speak their minds on Donald Trump, Obama has to actually work with the guy for the next few months. And Obama knows that the outgoing transition to power is as much a part of his legacy as what came before it.

What will President Trump be like in press conferences? How will they be different than Obama press conferences? Well, if history is any guide, Trump will do more press conferences at the very start than he will later on. In the early days of his campaign, Trump used to love jousting with the press, and would answer all their questions without limit. Later on, not so much. As president, he'll probably be able to tell those who would stifle his voice that the people deserved to hear from their president, so he'll be doing press conferences once again.

The biggest question I have about Trump speaking to the press as president is who is going to be in that audience? Will Trump himself pick and choose which journalists get press credentials for the White House press pool? Such a question would be almost unthinkable for anyone else entering the job, but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to see Trump banning journalists he didn't personally approve of. So will the room be filled only with Fox News reporters (with a few Breitbart "reporters" for flavor, perhaps)? Or will the media continue to be able to pick who represents them in the White House? As far as I can see, that is still a very open question.

Trump is likely to get more questions per press conference than Obama, unless he cuts the press conferences off a lot shorter. Obama, as mentioned, likes to "filibuster" questions by providing long and detailed answers, complete with many pauses and reflection. The upshot of this is that fewer questions fit into a one-hour period. I somehow can't see Trump doing the same thing. Trump's pressers will be a lot closer to George W. Bush's press conferences in this particular regard, with lots of short and snappy answers to specific questions. Again, I say this with a fair amount of confidence due to the style Trump displayed during the campaign. Press conference answers, by their very nature, cannot be scripted. No TelePrompTer help is available. Meaning Trump will answer as Trump, and not as his speechwriters. And Trump-as-Trump is a lot more succinct and to the point.

At some point, Trump is going to stumble badly during an answer. This too is inevitable, and would be no matter who was taking the job. Obama stumbled badly on a few answers early on in his term, and he paid a political price for doing so (see: "beer summit," for an example). Trump will likely do the same, although it is impossible to predict on what issue he'll stumble. But Trump is the master of blustering through faux pas moments, and also of directly attacking the press corps itself when uncomfortable questions arise. His supporters see both of these as strengths, and will likely continue to do so when he's president. Trump's freewheeling style has gotten him to where he is, and he'll be relying on it when he does his first White House press conferences as well.

This all brings me back to where I began, because watching Obama today filled me with a sense of loss. We're not going to get detailed and multifaceted answers to questions anymore from our president -- at least, not for the next four years. Trump may be closer to "all-drama" than Obama's "no-drama" style. This will, doubtlessly, prove to be more entertaining, but also less instructive.

Even if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, we'd still be on the brink of the end of Obama's time in office. Clinton's style is different from Obama's as well, so either way we'd be missing Obama next year (although, for Democrats, much less acutely). Presidential job approval ratings usually jump upwards during their lame-duck period (this was even true for George W. Bush, whose dismal ratings actually moved up a bit, once the 2008 election was over). It is even now possible that Obama could leave office with job approval ratings close to where he entered office -- with over six in ten Americans approving of him. When I attended the Democratic National Convention this year and heard President Obama speak, there were a few "impossible dream" chants from the crowd, of: "Four more years!" Due to term limits, this is simply not possible, but it certainly gave rise to the thought of how Obama would have done against Trump in the campaign.

President Obama will be missed when he's gone from office. The loss of the Obama presidency would have happened no matter who had won last week, but few in the media have been focusing on it. But while the campaign consumed all available media attention, something interesting was happening with the public. Their approval for President Obama grew significantly, and now stands at the highest point Obama has seen during his entire second term. The loss of Obama running the country was inevitable, but now more and more people are going to come to the same conclusion. We're going to miss President Barack Obama when he's gone.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

111 Comments on “Dealing With Loss”

  1. [1] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Well, to break a taboo in as nice a manner as I can muster, I have to point out that Ifill was an authentic establishment journalist.

    "I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool ya".
    Er, um, sure.
    Cough, cough, Wikileaks, cough.

    "And Trump-as-Trump is a lot more succinct and to the point"
    Succinct... ok.
    To the point... that depends on the subject.
    Sometimes yes, often never.

    It certainly seems like it will be an uphill climb to remind Dems of Obama's many failures, mistakes and betrayals.
    You remember the good and forget the bad when they're gone, but I'll be here to remind you.

    A

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    As promised, here are the opening paragraphs of-

    In the Trump Era, Leaking and Whistleblowing Are More Urgent, and More Noble, Than Ever
    Glenn Greenwald

    November 14 2016, 12:08 p.m.

    "For the past 15 years, the U.S. government under both parties has invented whole new methods for hiding what it does behind an increasingly impenetrable wall of secrecy. From radical new legal doctrines designed to shield its behavior from judicial review to prosecuting sources at record rates, more and more government action has been deliberately hidden from the public.

    One of the very few remaining avenues for learning what the U.S. government is doing — beyond the propaganda that it wants Americans to ingest and thus deliberately disseminates through media outlets — is leaking and whistleblowing. Among the leading U.S. heroes in the war on terror have been the men and women inside various agencies of the U.S. government who discovered serious wrongdoing being carried out in secret, and then risked their own personal welfare to ensure that the public learned of what never should have been hidden in the first place.

    Many of the important, consequential revelations from the last two administrations were possible only because of courageous sources who came forward in this way. It’s how we learned about the abuses of Abu Ghraib, the existence of torture-fueled CIA “black sites,” the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, the wanton slaughter carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recklessness and deceit at the heart of the U.S. drone program, the NSA’s secret construction of the largest system of suspicionless, mass surveillance ever created, and so many other scandals, frauds, and war crimes that otherwise would have remained hidden. All of that reporting was possible only because people of conscience decided to disregard the U.S. government’s corrupt decree that this information should remain secret, on the ground that concealing it was designed to protect not national security but rather the reputations and interests of political officials."

    --
    --

    A nice summary of one area of policy where Obama deserves plenty of criticism.

    I've covered many others... the failure to prosecute the Bushco torturers and Wall Street criminals, illegal wars, loss of Congress, betrayal of progressive promises, opening the arctic and the East Coast to drilling and national forests to fracking, a trillion on nukes and revival of nuclear power... and on and on.

    Ah, the memories.

    A

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    Who is your closest to ideal politician?

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    China ready to whip "naive" Trump's ass if he tries to impose tariffs:

    “A batch of Boeing orders will be replaced by Airbus. US auto and iPhone sales in China will suffer a setback, and US soybean and maize imports will be halted. China can also limit the number of Chinese students studying in the US.”

    Who voted for this clown?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Who voted for this clown?

    I think that's the wrong question.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    The sad thing for anybody who has spent any time studying the RMB is that Trump is completely wrong. The Chinese have been trying to prop up their currency by closing down channels for movement of currency out of the country. China is teetering on the brink of a downturn with poor financial controls and an odious loan portfolio coupled with local politicians ignoring the corrective measures Beijing is trying to impose to build stability. We are more likely to have to bail China out than fight them in a trade war.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it's still the wrong question. :)

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who voted for this clown?

    I think that's the wrong question.

    I don't.

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I've been looking tonight at some maps done by Mark Newman a professor from the U. of Michigan. found here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/

    Sorta puts the election map into perspective. Turns out, the country isn't nearly as red as it appears on the electoral map when you account for population density.

    In an odd corollary, it appears that Trump was strongest in areas with the highest gun ownership and highest traffic fatalities per capita.

    Looking at even more maps, I note a distinct relationship between areas that voted heavily for Trump and agriculture - a large percentage of Trumps votes came from areas with heavy agriculture. Now look at this chart. Farm income, which wasn't affected very much by the Great Recession, and actually hit a high in 2012, has seen a steep decline in the last two years, apparently the result of El Nino. When Trump talked about economic calamity, most of the country went "WTF?", but the agricultural belt was primed for it. It's THEIR economy, stupid, in other words.

    With that in mind, AG has great expectations for the Trump administration:

    https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/farm-life/article/2016/11/14/farmer-co-op-chief-rural-america-see

    However, farm incomes aren't likely to improve in the near future, because El Nino is likely to be followed by a La Nina event:

    https://www.myfcsfinancial.com/2016/03/el-nino-and-la-nina-mean-for-crop-production/

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The sad thing for anybody who has spent any time studying the RMB is that Trump is completely wrong. The Chinese have been trying to prop up their currency by closing down channels for movement of currency out of the country. China is teetering on the brink of a downturn with poor financial controls and an odious loan portfolio coupled with local politicians ignoring the corrective measures Beijing is trying to impose to build stability. We are more likely to have to bail China out than fight them in a trade war.

    Hmmmm Let's see.. On the one hand, we have a guy who is a successful businessman, richer than god...

    And on the other hand, we have a guy who refuses to accept ANY facts or reality that doesn't match his ideology..

    Hmmmmmmmm.. Whom should be listened to.... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama will be missed when he's gone from office.

    Well, at least ONE of us thinks so.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fall-of-the-house-of-obama-is-coming-and-its-his-own-fault/2016/11/14/d0151cac-aa7d-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

    Obama's rule by fiat will be his undoing...

    When one lives by the Executive Order one will see their agenda die by the Executive Order...

    No one can say they weren't warned...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's rule by fiat will be his undoing...

    When one lives by the Executive Order one will see their agenda die by the Executive Order...

    No one can say they weren't warned...

    Si monumentum, requiris circumspece

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who voted for this clown?

    An over-flowing basket of deplorables called THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

    Maybe you've heard of them...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We cannot be timid about this: the country has voted for change, and we must deliver.”
    -Speaker Of The House Paul Ryan

    Damn frakin' skippy!!!

    We threw the last bums out.. We have NO PROBLEM doing the exact same thing to ya'all...

    Just remember... Ya'all serve at the pleasure of the American people...

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Who voted for this clown?
    An over-flowing basket of deplorables called THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

    Not quite overflowing: a little less than half of the voting electorate, actually. Folks are saying that Trump's margin was the skinheadnaziracistnationalist vote, but now that one of them will be just steps from the oval office, I suppose that's all academic.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    ONE WEEK BEFORE ELECTION:
    "We HAVE to elect Hillary Clinton!!! If we don't, Donald Trump will totally decimate our agenda and completely gut programs we totally and completely believe in!!!"
    -Barack Obama

    ONE WEEK AFTER ELECTION:
    "President Trump will find it impossible to discard or rescind my programs. There is just too much support for these programs.."
    -Barack Obama

    Miss President Obama??

    Hardly.... :^/

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Folks are saying that Trump's margin was the skinheadnaziracistnationalist vote,

    So, anyone who voted for Trump is a skinheadnaziracistnationalist..??

    Apparently, you didn't learn ANYTHING from this election.. :^/

    https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not quite overflowing: a little less than half of the voting electorate, actually.

    "Thank god we have the Electoral College to put a collar on crazy"
    -ListenWhenYouHear

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Populism Takes Over the World
    America is just the latest country to see a resurgence of this volatile political movement.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/populism-takes-over-the-world-ivjisbhu

    Who would have thunked that the Populist movement would have been championed, however reluctantly, by the Republican Party!!??

    Not even *I* could have come up with that kind of crazy!!! :D

    "You know what humanity’s greatest creation has been? Music. That and nacho cheese. Even I couldn’t have dreamt up that deliciousness."
    -God, AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not quite overflowing: a little less than half of the voting electorate, actually. Folks are saying that Trump's margin was the skinheadetc

    About 1/4 of the eligible voters. Less than Hillary got. Mandate my ass.

    The legendary Gil Scott Heron was right

    https://youtu.be/UlVgtckqSaY

  23. [23] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    3

    It would be a tie between Robin Williams and George Carlin.

    A

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    About 1/4 of the eligible voters. Less than Hillary got. Mandate my ass.

    If one takes into account ALL the facts and not just the cherry picked facts that suit yer agenda.... not your strong point, I know..... Trump has got the biggest mandate ANY President-Elect has since since Reagan in '84...

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Teresa May came back from India with nothing. Well, not quite nothing, the Indians had a chance to humiliate the leader of their old colonial power. Turns out those Brexit voters got lied to. Tune in rural white America, there is a lesson to be learned here, those jobs ain't coming back. There are no short cuts back to the old days.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    A [22]

    Now that would be somebody I could vote for! ????

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Turns out emojis don't work ???? = :)

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Turns out those Brexit voters got lied to.

    Yea, that's always been yer claim...

    As yet, COMPLETELY unsupported by any facts whatsoever...

    It's funny... For a few Weigantians, they always accuse me of what they themselves actually do...

    In this case, spout a bunch of BS with absolutely NO SUPPORTING FACTS whatsoever...

    Of course, this is ONLY a few Weigantians....

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Message to Trump voters: ask a Brexit voter what happened to the 350M pounds per week that were promised to the NHS - better still look up the backtracking by Boris et al. yourselves.

    Here is a shortcut:

    MPs urge chancellor to honour leave campaign's £350m NHS promise

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/24/mps-letter-urges-chancellor-honour-vote-leave-campaign-350m-pound-nhs-promise

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Top three lies promises Trump won't keep, but we will keep reminding him of

    1. The Big Beautiful Wall along the whole border and paid for by Mexico

    2. 45% Tarriffs on China and 35% on Mexico to bring back heavy industry to Pennsylvania, etc.

    3. Fully repeal "disasterous" Obamacare on day 1.

    Since he already admitted he lied about #1 and #3 and we are only 8 days in, I'm rooting for the outcome of #2, but not the methods. I expect Trump will turn out to be just another lying politician though, and BS more.

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    1. The Big Beautiful Wall along the whole border and paid for by Mexico

    Semantics.. Some places a wall simply cannot be put it... Yes, Trump should have said "BARRIER" instead of "WALL"...

    Big woop.... All you have is semantics..

    Since he already admitted he lied about #1 and #3 and we are only 8 days in, I'm rooting for the outcome of #2, but not the methods. I expect Trump will turn out to be just another lying politician though, and BS more.

    Like I said.. 2008-redux with Neil playing the role of the entire GOP... :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    A few of you are becoming EXACTLY what ya accused the Republicans of being..

    Being obstructionist SOLELY for the sake of obstructing...

    Exactly as I predicted...

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    While Trump is busy kissing up to Putin, Paul Ryan is moving to end Medicare in 2017.

    "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!"

    -sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    If this train wreck continues, the Electoral College might vote Bernie in. LMFAO - all the crap about Hillary and it turns out these guys can't even put a transition team together.

    Rudi Guiliani & Ben Carson - first rats off the sinking ship.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    LA & Denver Police Chiefs refuse to participate in deportations. Trump threatens to cut Federal funding for their cities.

    Worst President-elect ever.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Putin Sent President-Elect Trump A Large Wooden Horse

    COLBERT: "Have you thought about looking inside the horse to see if there is anything in it before you open the gates and bring it into America?"

    TRUMP: "No."

    http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/BJ4msRxzN1eLUdY4pKPaRxEJZh0nsyOI/putin-sent-president-elect-trump-a-large-wooden-horse/

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Worst President-elect ever.

    Says the person who voted for the worst run campaign ever.. :D

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    I knew sour grapes syndrome was going to be bad..

    I just didn't realize it would be THIS bad.. :D

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don [35]

    You are right, and in fact many Bernie and Trump supporters were expressing this anger, however you can see how quickly the swamp has covered Trump. Bernie might have been a bit more successful, but it still would have been one group in one part of the system fighting against the House, the Senate and SCOTUS.

    It might take a Watergate like scandal just at the right time (i.e. within a year of an election) to get the public to start asking real questions of their politicians.

    Even then it would be difficult. We had a state level race locally that was more expensive than most Presidential races a couple of decades ago (adjusting for inflation). The sunk costs of any candidate are too high for the bag men not to get their payoff.

    Half of the American people can't even be bothered to vote, and most of those that do believe everything on Facebook, Twitter, HuffPo and Brietbart.

    Trying to build a grassroots campaign finance reform movement is an uphill task. We don't have any champions in power any longer - the last one was the ex-John McCain, and sadly the new-model John McCain went native as soon as his chance of being voted out came along, so we know where his priorities are now.

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    LA & Denver Police Chiefs refuse to participate in deportations. Trump threatens to cut Federal funding for their cities.

    That's fine... I propose the KEIFER solution..

    Once President Trump is sworn in, he invites said Police Chiefs to DC for a sit down..

    Once their plane lands, have Federal Marshals arrest them...

    I have not problem with that scenario... :D

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Google, Facebook To Fight Fake “News” Sites By Blocking Them From Ad Money

    Damn. I guess I need to replace my "Kayne West 2020" yard signs now.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    How clueless is Team Trump? According to the Wall Street Journal [link below], they had no idea the entire West Wing would evacuate on inauguration day next year: that they would have to appoint every single member of staff, except for the permanent help tending to the building and grounds.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading-contender-for-donald-trump-s-chief-of-staff-is-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    "a few of you" is what I call a step in the right direction! :)

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    I am somewhat surprised that more attention is not being paid to the abysmal deal with Iran known as the JCPOA AKA, Iran Won The Lottery and the fact that it will be thrown on the trash-heap where it belongs.....

    Is this because it has readily apparent to all that it IS an abysmal deal and universally accepted that it SHOULD be thrown on the trash-heap??

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Hmmmm Let's see.. On the one hand, we have a guy who is a successful businessman, richer than god..."

    EXCEPT, he is NOT a successful businessman, not by a long shot! He is a successful self promoter and at getting a great deal of media attention, but that it NOT the same thing. Also, his true net worth is HIGHLY questionable, since he owes over 300 million dollars to Deutsche Bank alone, and won't release his tax returns.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale,

    "a few of you" is what I call a step in the right direction! :)

    "He can be taught!!!!"
    -Robin Williams, ALADDIN

    :D

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Once president-elect Trump takes office, and even before, he will receive many calls from the leaders of the P5+1 urging him to support the JCPOA.

    In fact, I would be very surprised if Putin hasn't already set him straight on that file ...

  48. [48] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Once President Trump is sworn in, he invites said Police Chiefs to DC for a sit down..

    Once their plane lands, have Federal Marshals arrest them...

    I have not problem with that scenario... :D"

    So you are arguing for the end of Federalism then??? Am I hearing you correctly? Arrest, in many cases, locally elected officials that the Federal government disagrees with???

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    In fact, I would be very surprised if Putin hasn't already set him straight on that file ...

    But, but, but everybody in Washington is a loser and only Trump can negotiate good deals.

    Har har.

    The Iran deal is fine. The Republican Senate passed it. Trump is just mouthing off as usual - he would only make it worse, or be forced to activate the bombers if he touched it. Russia and China are not going to agree to a new round of sanctions - they could barely be kept on board while the deal we have was done.

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    EXCEPT, he is NOT a successful businessman, not by a long shot!

    The facts clearly say differently...

    Reference the Michael Jordan quote if you are still confused...

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    So you are arguing for the end of Federalism then??? Am I hearing you correctly? Arrest, in many cases, locally elected officials that the Federal government disagrees with???

    Simple plans from simple minds. Just like Trump's plans for repealing "disastrous" Obamacare and the Wall Mexico are going to pay for.

    Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants but now he has a real job in the real world anybody who isn't wearing extremely orange-tinted glasses can see he is full of it.

    Mexico are not going to pay for the Wall.

    A trade war with China and/or Mexico would trigger a long overdue recession and Trump would be squarely to blame.

    Sadly, Trump lied to the poor people whose communities have been devastated by Republican fiscal policies since Reagan's time - something that the Democrats did not do enough to reverse.

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    So you are arguing for the end of Federalism then??? Am I hearing you correctly? Arrest, in many cases, locally elected officials that the Federal government disagrees with???

    Police Chiefs are not elected, they are appointed...

    And it's not a simple case of disagreement, but rather a case of appointed officials violating Federal Law...

    Do you watch DESIGNATED SURVIVOR?? :D

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Mexico are not going to pay for the Wall.

    Says the guy who has been WRONG about everything to date.. :D

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Once president-elect Trump takes office, and even before, he will receive many calls from the leaders of the P5+1 urging him to support the JCPOA.

    And I am sure that President Trump will have absolutely NO PROBLEM telling those leaders to go pound sand.. :D

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:
  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Well, we'll see who he nominates to be Secretary of State and then we'll revisit the JCPOA.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope Donald Trump is having the time of his life.

    Because, he deserves it.

    :-)

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Israel in the Trump era ...

    Do you have anything to say about that, Michale?

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And I am sure that President Trump will have absolutely NO PROBLEM telling those leaders to go pound sand.. :D

    I wonder if he'd tell the former head of the KGB to do that ...

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LOL

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, we'll see who he nominates to be Secretary of State and then we'll revisit the JCPOA.

    Fair enough.. I was just surprised it wasn't being mentioned more and musing as to why... :D

    Do you have anything to say about that, Michale?

    I do....

    Remember when I said that Florida is Trump and Trump is Florida...

    Same applies to Israel... :D

    I wonder if he'd tell the former head of the KGB to do that ...

    I have no doubt that, if there is a reason to do so, Trump will have absolutely NO PROBLEM doing it.....

    Wasn't it Obama who said Putin and Russia are simply competitors and not enemies??? :D

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Illegal immigrants are preparing to ask President Obama to pardon some 750,000 illegal immigrant Dreamers, saying it’s their last, best hope to stave off what they fear will be a wave of deportations once Donald Trump takes office.
    Community leaders have planned a rally in New York on Wednesday to make the request.
    “Millions of law abiding {ILLEGAL} immigrants are fearful of what will happen when the new Administration takes control in January,” the group said in a statement announcing the rally. “However, President Obama has the power of pardons that he can use to protect all DACA enrollees.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/15/illegals-demand-obama-issue-mass-pardons-last-ditc/

    If there is a more moronic, ignorant and stoopid statement in the history of language, I have yet to hear it.... :^/

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, we'll see who he nominates to be Secretary of State and then we'll revisit the JCPOA.

    Word is Rudy Guiliana is going to be the new SecState....

    I think that's a pretty good indication where the JCPOA is heading....

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not if the rest of the world has anything to say about it ... and they do.

  65. [65] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "EXCEPT, he is NOT a successful businessman, not by a long shot!

    The facts clearly say differently...

    Reference the Michael Jordan quote if you are still confused..."

    You are quite CORRECT, the FACTS do state otherwise, because at least Michael Jordan WAS successful MOST of the time.

    ALL of Trump's have been failures so far to date. OTHER than his reality show, please name one long term successful business of his... can you???

  66. [66] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Police Chiefs are not elected, they are appointed...

    And it's not a simple case of disagreement, but rather a case of appointed officials violating Federal Law..."

    USUALLY, but NOT ALWAYS. Many police chiefs in Louisiana are elected, as is the police chief of Santa Clara, for example. And they are technically not violating Federal Law, they are simply saying that they will not be the agents enforcing Federal Law. That Federal agents will have to do that themselves, and not rely on local officials to do it for them.

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    ALL of Trump's have been failures so far to date.

    Uh....

    PRESIDENT-ELECT Trump.... :D

    USUALLY, but NOT ALWAYS. Many police chiefs in Louisiana are elected, as is the police chief of Santa Clara, for example.

    If they are elected, they are Sheriffs.. Not Police Chiefs..

    And they are technically not violating Federal Law, they are simply saying that they will not be the agents enforcing Federal Law. That Federal agents will have to do that themselves, and not rely on local officials to do it for them.

    That's fine.. Then they locals won't get FEDERAL funds that are paid so that locals WILL assist Federal officials when required..

    In other words, they don't want to do the job then they don't get PAID for the job..

    I realize that's anathema to the Democrat way of thinking, but there it is...

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Not if the rest of the world has anything to say about it ... and they do.

    If the rest of the world chooses to defy the United States when it comes to world security??

    Then they will have to accept the consequences...

    It's like the local Police Chiefs and federal funds I mentioned to JM...

    If the rest of the world chooses to deal with Iran in their own way...... Then the rest of the world can't come running to the US for protection when Iran shows their true colors...

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    In spite of the missteps and mistakes of the last 8 years...

    There is a reason why the US is the only remaining Superpower.....

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    ALL of Trump's have been failures so far to date. OTHER than his reality show, please name one long term successful business of his... can you???

    Trick question - there aren't any.

    If he'd taken daddy's money in 1976 and put it in a passive index tracking portfolio he'd be half as wealthy as he lies he is, and probably 4-5 times as wealthy as he really is.

    The man is a con artist.

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    USUALLY, but NOT ALWAYS. Many police chiefs in Louisiana are elected, as is the police chief of Santa Clara, for example.

    Regardless, the examples given ARE appointed positions, not elected..

    And if they choose to actively impede Federal Law, then they will be guilty of obstruction and WILL be subject to arrest...

    You just can't seem to get it...

    "Elections have consequences"
    -Barack Obama

    Ya'all lost...

    Deal with it..

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    The man is a con artist.

    AND he is President-Elect of the United States..

    You lost...

    Deal with it...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Dealing With Loss
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/14/dealing-with-loss/#comment-88415

    Apparently, a few Weigantians aren't dealing with the loss very well.....

    I'll help where I can... :D

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    I can't wait to see Trump explain to his marks why he can't withdraw from NAFTA. The process is pretty simple - he has the authority to initiate a six month withdrawal process - or "terminate it", as he likes to claim.

    But he won't. He lied to everybody again. Anybody with a brain knew that.

    Firstly the government would be sued by just about every major business in the U.S. (I'm not even going to start on how Canada and Mexico are going to react).

    Prices would shoot up as Mexico and Canada would revert to standard tariffs for everything. Prices for U.S. exports that relied on Mexico or Canada as part of their supply chain would shoot up as well.

    Massive job losses on either side of the borders would cause massive unrest - all blamed on Trump.

    So, obviously even he isn't stupid enough to keep his promise. He also claimed (he says many contradictory things) that he will renegotiate it. That should be interesting. Mexico knows that all they need to do is stand firm and not blink and Trump is going to have to apologize and back down. The chaos in the interim will force Trump into a corner.

    Is there no end to this man's stupidity?

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    I can't wait to see Trump explain to his marks why he can't withdraw from NAFTA.

    The leaders of Mexico and Canada are already on record as saying they are willing to modify NAFTA to Trumps liking...

    Is there no end to this man's stupidity?

    You are really REALLY trying too hard, my friend...

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    More fun with Trump's stupidity: "Banning Muslims from entering the United States"

    This is one where Trump has contradicted himself frequently. From "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" he went wobbly almost immediately.

    Firstly most passports don't state a person's religion. When this was pointed out to Trump (I wonder who gets the job of telling Trump he is an idiot), he amended it to restricting people from "active terrorist countries". Of course he didn't say what that means. Is France considered an active terrorist country? Why not? (That one is easy - they look like Trump, even if they speak funny and are a bit too familiar with cheese).

    So another "policy" that Trump announced with great fanfare that will go nowhere, or if it does will cause mayhem and backfire.

    Har har.

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    I get it!!!! It just hit me!!!

    Neil has become me!!!!

    Oh my gods, the irony is just so delicious to the taste!!! :D

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    You finally figured it out Michale. Congrats. I switched off the blocker for the day until you understood.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    So let's go thru some of your replies now.

    Firstly, point me to the quotes from the Canadian and Mexican leaders where they say they will give Trump what he wants on NAFTA. Since he hasn't stated what he wants, this might be a bit difficult, but we all know how you always back up everything with verifiable facts, quotes, etc.

    Both Canada and Mexico - as well as the U.S. have wanted to tweak NAFTA for years - it didn't include energy, free movement of labor (that should go down well with the Trumpkins), etc. So there are still ways to improve it. This is something Canada and Mexico are very interested in.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. The Big Beautiful Wall along the whole border and paid for by Mexico

    Semantics.. Some places a wall simply cannot be put it... Yes, Trump should have said "BARRIER" instead of "WALL"...

    Big woop.... All you have is semantics..

    Even if you suddenly decide that Trump isn't a straight talker (if he meant barrier, why didn't he say barrier?) you forgot the bit about Mexico paying for it?

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    You finally figured it out Michale. Congrats. I switched off the blocker for the day until you understood.

    I get there eventually.. :D

    Firstly, point me to the quotes from the Canadian and Mexican leaders where they say they will give Trump what he wants on NAFTA.

    OTTAWA/MEXICO CITY/TIJUANA, MEXICO – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday he is willing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has said he wants to change or scrap.

    Mexico is also willing to discuss NAFTA with Trump but may seek to circumvent the United States on a broader trans-Pacific deal if necessary, a top official said on Thursday.
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/11/business/canada-mexico-willing-discuss-nafta-trump-sidestep-u-s-tpp/#.WCuQ0PkoSuU

    While it may not amount to "giving Trump everything he wants" it ALSO shows that Mexico and Canada are not as instringent as you claim them to be..

    Even if you suddenly decide that Trump isn't a straight talker (if he meant barrier, why didn't he say barrier?) you forgot the bit about Mexico paying for it?

    Wall, barrier.. Tomayto Potayto...

    I have already shown how easy it is to force Mexico to pay for the wall..

    The US gives Mexico billions and billions of dollars every year in various forms...

    It would be quite simple to arrange it so that the US gives Mexico billions and billions of dollars every year in various forms MINUS the cost of the wall/barrier/whatever...

    Regardless of that, I personally don't care WHO pays for the wall... The IMPORTANT part is that the wall is put in place and our southern border is secure...

    I like this... I hope we can continue it...

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have already shown how easy it is to force Mexico to pay for the wall..

    The claims I've seen amount to:

    1. We will steal remittances
    2. We will not pay for goods we receive

    Both of these are against just about every law going. But just ignoring that:

    1. Remittances will dry up instantly and other methods to move money will be found. This is so obvious I can't be bothered to explain it further. (cough Paypal cough).

    2. What would your next step be if you sent goods to a customer who didn't pay? I know that this is SOP for Trump with small businesses, but who exactly are we paying in Mexico for the cross border goods? (Hint: often subsidiaries of American companies). And countries are not like small business people with little assets who can be bullied by expensive legal threats - Mexico would have a field day in the WTO and U.S. legal systems, and obviously win, probably with interest and damages.

    Any other suggestions?

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    While it may not amount to "giving Trump everything he wants" it ALSO shows that Mexico and Canada are not as instringent as you claim them to be..

    If you had been paying attention you'd already know that everybody wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include more goods and services - it is working like a charm for just about everybody - so improving on it will make life better for everybody.

    If we didn't have NAFTA our deficit with South East Asia and China would simply be higher. NAFTA has allowed us to enrich our neighbor to help alleviate problems that would otherwise spill over into our country in the form of more, and more desperate, illegal immigrants. Building a strong manufacturing base in Mexico instead of Shenzhen is a national security priority.

    The Chinese would have a National Holiday called Trump Day if he put Mexico on the standard WTO tariff program. Mexico know this as well as most educated people who have spend any time reading the economic history of North America over the last 20 years.

    Explain to me again what the Mexican and Canadian leaders said? Give Trump what he wants even though he hasn't asked for anything yet? C'mon Michale you can't be this uninformed.

  84. [84] 
    neilm wrote:

    Regardless of that, I personally don't care WHO pays for the wall... The IMPORTANT part is that the wall is put in place and our southern border is secure...

    What about the 50% of illegal people who fly over the border (including the "Barrier") and overstay their visas? Most of my Irish friends at one point were here on expired visas taking good bartending jobs from hard working Americans ;)

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    1. We will steal remittances
    2. We will not pay for goods we receive

    Are you kidding??

    Do you think we actually give Mexico BILLIONS of dollars in aid and receive SOMETHING in return?? :D

    1. Remittances will dry up instantly and other methods to move money will be found. This is so obvious I can't be bothered to explain it further. (cough Paypal cough).

    American company taxes money laundering investigations

    Any other suggestions?

    Yea... You accepting the reality that we give Mexico billions of dollars in aid for which we get absolutely NOTHING in return...

    Put it another way.. Replace Mexico with Israel..

    Do you think it would be difficult to get Israel to pay for a wall?? :D

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    In 2013, the United States gave Mexico $51.5 million in foreign aid. Of that amount, $24.8 million, the largest segment, was designated for democracy, human rights and governance. The next largest amount, $10.9 million, was designated for the environment, and $8.4 million was designated for economic development.

    How much does would the Trump Wall cost? $10B - so 200 years of foreign aid.

  87. [87] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you think that Mexico might stop an equal amount of money flowing from Mexico to the U.S. if we started putting our hands in the till?

    Also, do you have any idea how disruptive arbitrarily interfering with international money transfers would be? Trade wold grind to a halt in an instant as nobody would do anything until Trump figured out he had broken both economies and that there was nothing he could do about it because the trade was between private firms.

    The whole idea is the childish ranting of an ignorant man who needs to be told "No Donald" more often.

    Well his life is going to get a lot worse - humiliation and compromise are the currency of leaders in a democracy. I'll bet that was another thing he didn't know - he probably thought it was about flying about in Air Force One and being important.

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    American company taxes money laundering investigations

    Here I assume you are talking about AML restraints. The problem is that the law needs to be specific about how to identify the KYC rules. Also the systems and laws apply to larger, repeated, transactions. Sending a few hundred dollars on a monthly basis is way under the triggers (I used to sell AML software to Wall St and the City).

    Also, do you know how long it would take, and how expensive it would be to divert $10B from legitimate transactions under $1,000?

    An AML investigation takes weeks and costs many thousands of dollars. The U.S. banks would get together and give Trump the $10B themselves not to have to do this. Of course, word might get round pretty quickly that the money being sent wasn't arriving at its destination. What do you think would happen then?

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    The next time somebody says "remittances" to you, quote from this article so they can learn:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/mobile-phones-are-revolutionizing-personal-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. Remittances won't work (other ways to move small amounts of money).

    2. Dipping into the transfer window till won't work (trade collapses, Trump would fail bigly and the real leaders of the country would whip his ass up and down Wall St. and K Street a few times as a warning to others)

    3. Foreign aid is only $50M/year

    Any other ideas?

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    we all suffer losses. the question is whether we cope with them rationally or live in denial. donald won the election, hillary lost it. scapegoating racists or nationalists or the head of the FBI or the electoral college or the sixty million individuals who voted for donald is completely missing the point. there's a reason i refused to bet on this election, and it's because i saw hillary's pattern of being overcautious and donald's ability to motivate his supporters. she was factually accurate but emotionally forced. he was factually inaccurate but emotionally engaged. i knew it would be a close shave, and it was. donald won, and hillary has nobody to blame but her own overcautious nature.

    JL

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If the rest of the world chooses to defy the United States when it comes to world security??

    No. In the case of the JCPOA, if the rest of the world chooses to defy the US because the Trump administration is clueless when it comes to security as related to the JCPOA.

    There, I fixed it for ya.

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I really appreciate that we can talk about this...

    But what it all boils down to is one thing..

    Mexico and Canada et al need the US a LOT more than the US needs Mexico and Canada....

    Those countries will march to our tune because the alternative is too scary and horrifying to contemplate...

    Now that I have addressed the general, let me address your specifics.

    Give me time...

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    No. In the case of the JCPOA, if the rest of the world chooses to defy the US because the Trump administration is clueless when it comes to security as related to the JCPOA.

    That remains to be seen...

    But, between the US and Israel, I am sure that we will be able to come up with a good plan that will punish Iran as they deserve and all but eliminate their push for a nuclear arsenal...

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    Well his life is going to get a lot worse - humiliation and compromise are the currency of leaders in a democracy.

    Yea, and we have seen much of that in the last 8 years.. Which is EXACTLY why Donald Trump won the election..

    Because Americans are tired of it.

    If Donald Trump reverts to Obama form, then you will hear from me and the rest who voted for Trump loud and clear...

    But I don't think Trump will revert to Obama form.. You don't get to be such a successful businessman AND elected president of the United States by being wimp and a whipping post..

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    What about the 50% of illegal people who fly over the border (including the "Barrier") and overstay their visas? Most of my Irish friends at one point were here on expired visas taking good bartending jobs from hard working Americans ;)

    They should be deported as well..

    But the priority, for deportations anyways, SHOULD be the criminal element. The gangs and the thugs... Deport them.. Take them down to the everglades and feed them to the gators... I don't care... Just get them out of here..

    THEN we can maybe talk about compassion..

    That's why Democrats lost the immigration debate.. Because they refused to differentiate between the thugs and gang bangers and murderers and those that weren't...

    ALL illegal immigrants were pure as the driven snow and just families looking for a better life, according to the Democratic Party...

    I have no problem with prioritizing deportations... I just think that the FIRST consideration should be the safety of the American people...

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    <I.we all suffer losses. the question is whether we cope with them rationally or live in denial. donald won the election, hillary lost it. scapegoating racists or nationalists or the head of the FBI or the electoral college or the sixty million individuals who voted for donald is completely missing the point. there's a reason i refused to bet on this election, and it's because i saw hillary's pattern of being overcautious and donald's ability to motivate his supporters. she was factually accurate but emotionally forced. he was factually inaccurate but emotionally engaged. i knew it would be a close shave, and it was. donald won, and hillary has nobody to blame but her own overcautious nature.

    Did you hear the new culprit in Hillary's loss???

    Clinton camp blames white female ‘internalized misogyny’ for loss

    I shit you not, THAT is who Camp Hillary is blaming..

    What the frak is an "internalized misogynist white female" anyways!????

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Glad ta see yer still around.. :D

    I have been thinking lately of those Weigantians who are MIA..

    Glad ta see ya back among us.. :D

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    3. Foreign aid is only $50M/year

    I am not sure which dimension you are referring to..

    In THIS reality, US Aid to Mexico is almost 210 BILLION dollars...

    The aid was broken down in the following manner:
    Economic
    Child Survival and Health: $-12,200
    Department of Defense Security Assistance: $39,854
    Development Assistance: $17,948,047
    Economic Support Fund/Security Support Assistance: $40,810,450
    Global Health and Child Survival: $3,894,197
    Narcotics Control: $27,565,779
    Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related: $7,074,531
    Other Active Grant Programs: $15,381,152
    Other State Assistance: $2,700,596
    Other USAID Assistance: $2,764
    Other USDA Assistance: $372,914
    Peace Corps: $2,000,836

    Military
    Military Assistance, Total: $91,654,000

    http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/q/112/1590/How-much-money-does-the-U-S-give-to-Mexico

    Even if you double the price tag of the wall to $20 Billion, Mexico can have this paid off in less than a month...

    But, as I said... I don't really care WHO pays for the wall.. It's poetic justice to make Mexico pay for it, but that is mere sauce for the goose...

    The important point is that the wall, the barrier, the minefield IS built...

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    1. Remittances won't work (other ways to move small amounts of money).

    Yes there are.. Western Union, PayPal, etc etc..

    But those COST fees.... And once there is a wholesale move by illegal immigrants to these other methods, those fees will rise..

    Do you think that Mexico might stop an equal amount of money flowing from Mexico to the U.S. if we started putting our hands in the till?

    What money flows from Mexico to the US??

    Mexico can't threaten a flow that doesn't exist??

  101. [101] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Because Americans are tired of it.

    If Donald Trump reverts to Obama form, then you will hear from me and the rest who voted for Trump loud and clear..."

    So why aren't I hearing from you yet???? Since Donald Trump is already filling positions in his administration with LOBBYISTS, the VERY people he said he was running AGAINST!

  102. [102] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "I have no problem with prioritizing deportations... I just think that the FIRST consideration should be the safety of the American people..."

    OH REALLY??? Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama has been doing the past few years! He was deporting criminals, and allowing children like Dreamers to stay....

  103. [103] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "ALL of Trump's have been failures so far to date.

    Uh....

    PRESIDENT-ELECT Trump.... :D"

    President-elect is NOT a business success. I notice you STILL can't name ONE. So STOP calling him a successful business man when he is so patently obviously NOT, When not even YOU can name one successful business of his!

  104. [104] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    thanks for the kind thoughts. I'm dealing with some professional turmoil right now. apparently moving to new york turned me into a bad teacher. live and learn i guess.

    JL

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    . apparently moving to new york turned me into a bad teacher.

    I find that very hard... nay.. IMPOSSIBLE to believe....

    Good luck...

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    President-elect is NOT a business success.

    It's a success...

    President-elect is NOT a business success. I notice you STILL can't name ONE.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

    The mere fact that Trump is President is due to his success as a businessman...

    So STOP calling him a successful business man when he is so patently obviously NOT,

    How long has Trump been in business?? 30 years?? 40 years???

    You don't STAY in business that long if you are NOT successful...

    It's that simple...

    By every OBJECTIVE measurement, Trump is a successful businessman.. The Trump brand is a successful brand...

    No Hillary supporter can name a success that Hillary has accomplished... Does that mean she is NOT a success???

    .......

    OK bad example.....

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    President-elect is NOT a business success. I notice you STILL can't name ONE.

    I can't name any business success of Richard Branson. But there is no doubt he is a success...

    I can't name any business success of Warren Buffett, but there is no doubt he is a successful business man..

    I can't name any business success of Mark Cuban, but there is no doubt.....

    You see where I am going with this??

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    OH REALLY??? Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama has been doing the past few years! He was deporting criminals, and allowing children like Dreamers to stay....

    Many of the "dreamers" ARE criminals...

    And we can ask the parents of Kathleen Steinle if Obama is deporting criminals...

    I have a feeling they might disagree...

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    No matter how much lipstick you use, Obama's kow-towing to the illegal immigrant community was a complete and unequivocal disaster for this country and for the Democratic Party, as it DIRECTLY lead the Dem Party decimation in 2014 and 2016...

    There is simply no getting around this...

  110. [110] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "How long has Trump been in business?? 30 years?? 40 years???

    You don't STAY in business that long if you are NOT successful..."

    You DO , if you have a rich father who keeps bailing you out at a crucial moment.

    "The Trump brand is a successful brand..."

    REALLY??? Then why does EVERYTHING branded with his name, no loner exist??? The vodka, the steaks, the airline, the board game, even his Macy's clothing line and on and on etc. ALL GONE.

    Richard Branson - Virgin Galactic, Virgin Airlines.

    Warren Buffett - Burlington Northern R.R., Fruit of the Loom, GEICO

    Mark Cuban - The Dallas Mavericks and Landmark Theatres.

    Donald Trump - ZERO

    And that's mostly off of the top of my head, without even trying hard.

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Tower[edit]

    Trump Tower in New York City
    Trump Towers Istanbul, Turkey – first Trump building in Europe
    Trump Tower (New York City)
    Trump Towers (Sunny Isles Beach), Sunny Isles Beach, Florida
    Trump Tower (White Plains), White Plains, New York
    Trump Towers Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina
    Trump International Hotel and Tower[edit]
    Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
    Trump International Hotel and Tower (Honolulu)
    Trump International Hotel and Tower (New York City)
    Trump International Hotel and Tower (Toronto)
    Trump International Hotel and Tower (Vancouver)
    Trump International Hotel (Washington, D.C.), also known as Old Post Office Pavilion

    You were saying???

Comments for this article are closed.