On 2/1/2017 8:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/17 7:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2017 5:40 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 5:31 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:05:14 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:21:57 -0500, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

If media reports are accurate, nobody in his sparse cabinet nor any
members of Congressional leadership were notified or even asked for
their input. If that's not true, then I would gladly retract my
complaint about how this was done. I still say he's acting like
the CEO
of a privately held company rather than the POTUS. I am starting to
wonder if he knows the difference.

If media reports were accurate there wouldn't have been all these
'protests' about his immigration
policy. The media have been hyping the public as much as possible
with bull**** stories.

===

The issue that Luddite is pointing out relates to his management and
leadership style. As he pointed out, a management style that may work
in a small, privately owned business will probably not lead to success
in a large, sprawling government organization where everything is
constantly under the microscope and subject to second guessing. If he
alienates congressional Republicans by not keeping them in the loop,
it will become very difficult for Trump to get things done.

I understand that his management style is more suited to big business.
But I still feel that about
90% of the hysteria out there is purposely induced by the media,
especially the Washington Post.


No one should be upset with Trump because his idiotic dictum resulted in
a five year old boy being handcuffed for hours at Dulles airport because
he posed a "security risk."

The boy was reported to be a U.S. citizen with an Iranian mother.

This country's president is an ignorant hate-filled flaming ass, and he
is going to get us killed.


I think that's a bit overblown Harry. He hasn't grown into the job yet.
I am willing to bet that Monday's screw-ups are lessons he and his staff
will not forget and will act differently in the future.

Now it's time to see how committed *your* party is to the best interests
of the country. Are they going to allow the current President to have a
cabinet? Are they going to stonewall his choice for the Supreme Court?
Or are they going to ignore what's in the best interests of the country
and focus on what's in *their* best interests?


The interests of the country will be best served by throwing as many
roadblocks as possible in front of Trump and his neo-Nazi principal
advisor. I agree with McConnell - the Supreme Court vacancy should be
filled by the *next* person elected POTUS.

Nice but aren't you a bit late and a dollar short? Trump *is* the
*next* person elected POTUS he referred to when he made that statement.

On 2/1/2017 8:59 AM, justan wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 1/31/2017 5:31 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:05:14 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:21:57 -0500, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

If media reports are accurate, nobody in his sparse cabinet nor any
members of Congressional leadership were notified or even asked for
their input. If that's not true, then I would gladly retract my
complaint about how this was done. I still say he's acting like the CEO
of a privately held company rather than the POTUS. I am starting to
wonder if he knows the difference.

If media reports were accurate there wouldn't have been all these 'protests' about his immigration
policy. The media have been hyping the public as much as possible with bull**** stories.

===

The issue that Luddite is pointing out relates to his management and
leadership style. As he pointed out, a management style that may work
in a small, privately owned business will probably not lead to success
in a large, sprawling government organization where everything is
constantly under the microscope and subject to second guessing. If he
alienates congressional Republicans by not keeping them in the loop,
it will become very difficult for Trump to get things done.

I understand that his management style is more suited to big business. But I still feel that about
90% of the hysteria out there is purposely induced by the media, especially the Washington Post.



Not even "big business". Trump's style is more like the owner of a
privately held business ... which is where he came from. A publicly
held and traded "big business" CEO has legal obligations that are more
in line with that of being POTUS. Doesn't mean he can't learn the ropes
but he needs to grow out of his past.


Is it OK if he is not politically correct and thinks out of the box?
By "ropes", you mean
same old ****, correct. Do we really want to
be strangled by good old boy ropes?
We as a country need to grow out of our recent past and teach
congress who they really work for.


I am not saying he has to change his objectives. I am saying that in
order to achieve them he is going to have to adapt somewhat to how
government works (or doesn't). Being CEO of the Federal Government
isn't the same as being CEO of Trump Industries.

On 2/1/17 11:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2017 8:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/17 7:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2017 5:40 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 5:31 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:05:14 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:21:57 -0500, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

If media reports are accurate, nobody in his sparse cabinet nor any
members of Congressional leadership were notified or even asked for
their input. If that's not true, then I would gladly retract my
complaint about how this was done. I still say he's acting like
the CEO
of a privately held company rather than the POTUS. I am
starting to
wonder if he knows the difference.

If media reports were accurate there wouldn't have been all these
'protests' about his immigration
policy. The media have been hyping the public as much as possible
with bull**** stories.

===

The issue that Luddite is pointing out relates to his management and
leadership style. As he pointed out, a management style that may
work
in a small, privately owned business will probably not lead to
success
in a large, sprawling government organization where everything is
constantly under the microscope and subject to second guessing.
If he
alienates congressional Republicans by not keeping them in the loop,
it will become very difficult for Trump to get things done.

I understand that his management style is more suited to big business.
But I still feel that about
90% of the hysteria out there is purposely induced by the media,
especially the Washington Post.


No one should be upset with Trump because his idiotic dictum
resulted in
a five year old boy being handcuffed for hours at Dulles airport
because
he posed a "security risk."

The boy was reported to be a U.S. citizen with an Iranian mother.

This country's president is an ignorant hate-filled flaming ass, and he
is going to get us killed.


I think that's a bit overblown Harry. He hasn't grown into the job yet.
I am willing to bet that Monday's screw-ups are lessons he and his staff
will not forget and will act differently in the future.

Now it's time to see how committed *your* party is to the best interests
of the country. Are they going to allow the current President to have a
cabinet? Are they going to stonewall his choice for the Supreme Court?
Or are they going to ignore what's in the best interests of the country
and focus on what's in *their* best interests?


The interests of the country will be best served by throwing as many
roadblocks as possible in front of Trump and his neo-Nazi principal
advisor. I agree with McConnell - the Supreme Court vacancy should be
filled by the *next* person elected POTUS.

Nice but aren't you a bit late and a dollar short? Trump *is* the
*next* person elected POTUS he referred to when he made that statement.

I'm referring to *the next* person. The one after trumpikins.

"gets worse. "

Harry, for you and your sorry band of little snowflakes, I'm sure it does.

You need a hot chocolate re-fill?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:19:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Trump's biggest problem may be that he does not have a clue how the
government actually works and he is not going to change US civil
service much. That is the immovable object in DC. Technically they all
work for him but he can't make them do anything they don't want to do
and he can't fire them as long as they show up every day.



I was blown away when I learned that well over 100,000 people are civil
servants working for the Justice Department. What do all those people do?

If it is like most government agencies 20% are dedicated and work very
hard, 60% meet minimum requirements and the remaining 20% just show
up every day, not doing much of anything.
Justice is still a fairly small agency. You should walk around HHS or
USDA and look at that operation. When I was in DC we were in, what IBM
called at the time, the "GEM region". (Government, Education and
Medical). I spent 14 years in the belly of that fat beast. It made me
very skeptical of the government being the best solution for anything.

On 2/1/2017 11:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/17 11:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2017 8:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/17 7:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2017 5:40 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/17 5:31 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:05:14 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:21:57 -0500, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

If media reports are accurate, nobody in his sparse cabinet nor
any
members of Congressional leadership were notified or even asked
for
their input. If that's not true, then I would gladly retract my
complaint about how this was done. I still say he's acting like
the CEO
of a privately held company rather than the POTUS. I am
starting to
wonder if he knows the difference.

If media reports were accurate there wouldn't have been all these
'protests' about his immigration
policy. The media have been hyping the public as much as possible
with bull**** stories.

===

The issue that Luddite is pointing out relates to his management and
leadership style. As he pointed out, a management style that may
work
in a small, privately owned business will probably not lead to
success
in a large, sprawling government organization where everything is
constantly under the microscope and subject to second guessing.
If he
alienates congressional Republicans by not keeping them in the loop,
it will become very difficult for Trump to get things done.

I understand that his management style is more suited to big
business.
But I still feel that about
90% of the hysteria out there is purposely induced by the media,
especially the Washington Post.


No one should be upset with Trump because his idiotic dictum
resulted in
a five year old boy being handcuffed for hours at Dulles airport
because
he posed a "security risk."

The boy was reported to be a U.S. citizen with an Iranian mother.

This country's president is an ignorant hate-filled flaming ass,
and he
is going to get us killed.


I think that's a bit overblown Harry. He hasn't grown into the job
yet.
I am willing to bet that Monday's screw-ups are lessons he and his
staff
will not forget and will act differently in the future.

Now it's time to see how committed *your* party is to the best
interests
of the country. Are they going to allow the current President to
have a
cabinet? Are they going to stonewall his choice for the Supreme Court?
Or are they going to ignore what's in the best interests of the country
and focus on what's in *their* best interests?


The interests of the country will be best served by throwing as many
roadblocks as possible in front of Trump and his neo-Nazi principal
advisor. I agree with McConnell - the Supreme Court vacancy should be
filled by the *next* person elected POTUS.

Nice but aren't you a bit late and a dollar short? Trump *is* the
*next* person elected POTUS he referred to when he made that statement.

I'm referring to *the next* person. The one after trumpikins.


It's funny that some of the Dems including Chuck Schumer have suggested
that the country can get along just fine with only eight Justices. They
obviously are thinking the same thing.

To be completely honest, the person who takes the #9 spot was a very
important factor to me. I think the country is much better off with a
court that has a slightly conservative complexion. It doesn't hurt
anyone except possibly hard core *progressive* liberals who want the
court to change it's complexion in accordance with the political wind.
I think that's as dangerous as having it go too far to the right.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:54:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


It's funny that some of the Dems including Chuck Schumer have suggested
that the country can get along just fine with only eight Justices. They
obviously are thinking the same thing.

To be completely honest, the person who takes the #9 spot was a very
important factor to me. I think the country is much better off with a
court that has a slightly conservative complexion. It doesn't hurt
anyone except possibly hard core *progressive* liberals who want the
court to change it's complexion in accordance with the political wind.
I think that's as dangerous as having it go too far to the right.

The thing that is amazing is how much the same people have changed on
the 8 member court. 6 months ago they said it was a crisis.
I do agree we need a conservative court that does not think the
constitution was written on an etch a sketch and want to shake it
every time the trends change

Tim wrote:
"gets worse."

Harry, for you and your sorry band of little snowflakes, I'm sure it does.

You need a hot chocolate re-fill?

His basement isn't a safe place anymore?