The Trump Presidency

[joepistole]

Among other times: during the invasion of Grenada, which Reagan described as "America's finest hour", no reporters were allowed with the American soldiers. That was the first time in the history of the country that no journalists had covered a regular US military action.

And your evidence is where? There are a number of military actions where the press isn't taken along, e.g. Obama's attack on Bin Laden. It's not the norm for the press to be embedded in every military action. It's the exception. Even if what you allege were true, that's hardly a "crack down" on the press.

I think you are confusing Ronald Reagan with a congressman, "Representative William S. Broomfield of Michigan, the ranking Republican, said medical students returning from Grenada had been ''very elated'' at the intervention of American forces and, as a result, the action could prove to be ''one of the United States' finest hours.'" http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/28/w...n-reported-to-fall-battle-goes-on-261580.html

 

[iceaura]

And your evidence is where?

Anywhere you want to Google - it was a controversy at the time. Post 161 in this thread links a book page written by a famously accurate reporter that mentions it. Here's another: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/On_Bended_Knee.html

There are a number of military actions where the press isn't taken along, e.g. Obama's attack on Bin Laden.

Hence the term "regular military action" - you know, invasions of foreign countries involving every branch of the military, the regular army coming in by the thousands for campaign and battle.

I think you are confusing Ronald Reagan with a congressman, "Representative William S. Broomfield of Michigan, the ranking Republican, said medical students returning from Grenada had been ''very elated'' at the intervention of American forces and, as a result, the action could prove to be ''one of the United States' finest hours.

I'm not - maybe the reporters and transcribers and memoirists I was reading were. Or maybe that's where Reagan's writer got his usage - "finest hour" seems to have been in the air, used by a lot of people at the time.

The quote is not always "America's" finest hour, but (as with the more reliable Ivins, and I should have taken the hint) "our finest hour" .

A side effect of this Trump business has been sending me back through Reagan times reminders; I had actually forgotten how much facepalm bizarrity came out of the White House when that man was in it, how simultaneously corrupt and clownish the Republican Party had become under his leadership even that long ago.

 

[joepistole]

Anywhere you want to Google - it was a controversy at the time. Post 161 in this thread links a book page written by a famously accurate reporter that mentions it. Here's another: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/On_Bended_Knee.html
Hence the term "regular military action" - you know, invasions of foreign countries involving every branch of the military, the regular army coming in by the thousands for campaign and battle.

I'm not - maybe the reporters and transcribers and memoirists I was reading were. Or maybe that's where Reagan's writer got his usage - "finest hour" seems to have been in the air, used by a lot of people at the time.

The quote is not always "America's" finest hour, but (as with the more reliable Ivins, and I should have taken the hint) "our finest hour" .

A side effect of this Trump business has been sending me back through Reagan times reminders; I had actually forgotten how much facepalm bizarrity came out of the White House when that man was in it, how simultaneously corrupt and clownish the Republican Party had become under his leadership even that long ago.

That dog don't hunt, try again. Where is your the evidence to support your assertion Ronald Reagan referred to Grenada as America's finest hour as you asserted? Where is your evidence Reagan cracked down on the press? You haven't proven he forbade or did anything untoward with respect to the press as you have alleged.

 

[timojin]

When did Reagan "clamp down" on the press?

I did not mean Regan I ment Nixon see # 215 . Are you that old that you in rage and you don't see what are you accusing

 

[joepistole]

I did not mean Regan I ment Nixon see # 215 . Are you that old that you in rage and you don't see what are you accusing

Are you so young as to not need or understand facts? Do you not know that Granada occurred well after Nixon left office? Do you not understand what is being discussed? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I responded you Iceaura; not you...oops. Nixon left office nearly a decade before the invasion of Granada. That's another oops.

 

[Oystein]

Trump is your typical Republican chickenhawk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

"a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age."

 

[joepistole]

Below is a good spoof on The Donald by the Dutch; you will have to wait a few seconds before the spoof begins and it's in English:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...his-new-welcome-video/?utm_term=.43c5f2cccf40

 

[Syne]

Yeah, most people don't have a lot of resources, and when they become unemployed, that introduces a lot of uncertainty into their lives whether you want to admit that or not.

Where did I refute that?

I don't know where you are, and frankly, don't care to know where you are. You might be in Florida or Alaska. You might be in a library using a public computer. I have no idea. Once again for your edification: if you want to be a bum, that's your business. If you want to take off a year and be bum, that's your business, and it doesn't take a lot of money to be a bum. You might be living off of your family. I don't know and I don't care.

Yes, I get that you'd much rather pretend something contrary to what I've already told you. I suppose it makes you feel superior or something. Not that you care (or will even have the intellectual honesty to forgo your appeal to incredulity), but I do save enough while working about three years on a job to live about a year exactly same as I did while working (minus commute expenses). If you live hand to mouth, I'm sure you can't even imagine that, mush less entertain it as a reality.

Higher employee turnover doesn't mean more job opportunities nor does it mean easier job hunting. Most firms, and all good firms, don't like employee turnover, because it's expensive. That's why employers like to keep their employees whenever possible. Employers have to find, hire, and train new employees. That's a significant diversion of resources and expense.

High employee turnover doesn't turn one job into two or three jobs. It's still a single job. It doesn't change the fact that for every opportunity there are several candidates for that job. It's perplexing why you think there is something magical about employee turnover. Every time a job turns over, the employment process begins anew. It doesn't change the fact job applicants have to do all the things I have previously elucidated, e.g. create or update resumes, cover letters, search for jobs, prepare for interviews, attend for interviews. It doesn't change any of that. And if you want to be employed, you do as much of that as possible as fast as possible until you have a job.

I didn't claim employee turnover did any of things your straw man does.

Well if there is a simple relationship, then you should be able to elucidate it, but you haven't. Because that "simple" relationship doesn't exist.

Since you haven't been job hunting in decades, I'm sure you're completely unaware of the common necessity nowadays to change jobs to further upward mobility. That often means that the lower tier job has opened up...where once upon a time people would keep the same position (with maybe only raises) for most their lives.

I did, and I explained why that is relevant, and I explained why your attack was a non sequitur. You are obfuscating again buddy.

Where? I must have either missed it, or your demonstrably fertile imagination is at work again.

You have provided some links, but you haven't proven your case. Let's look at your case for employee turnover. You cited document which showed the average tenure had declined from 4.7 to 4.3 years. That has nothing to do with employee turnover. That's a whole other animal.

What that number says is there has been a lot of hiring over the course of the last few years, and that would make sense. Because the unemployment rate has fallen significantly: going from 10% to 4.7%. Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession. That statistic indicates those jobs have come back. That statistic indicates there has been a lot of hiring. It doesn't indicate there is a high rate of turnover....oops. A falling unemployment rate indicates there is a lot of hiring, and that fact is validated by the job tenure statistic you referenced. So if you are going to cite a statistic, you should understand that statistic, and clearly you don't understand your statistic and your reference. Unfortunately for you buddy, facts matter.

LOL! So people are changing jobs more BECAUSE there's more people in the workforce? More people in the workforce means more competition for jobs, making them relatively more valuable to the worker, while making employees less valuable to the employer. Unfortunately for you, buddy, you're decades old experience is obsolete.

Thank god you're not looking for a job.

 

[joepistole]

Where did I refute that?

Who said you did?

I didn't claim employee turnover did any of things your straw man does. Yes you did. You aren't being honest buddy, and I quoted your words verbatim. You argued there was an efficiency associated with job turnover, that high turnover made the process more efficient and therefore required less time, and it doesn't for all the previously stated reasons.

Since you haven't been job hunting in decades, I'm sure you're completely unaware of the common necessity nowadays to change jobs to further upward mobility. That often means that the lower tier job has opened up...where once upon a time people would keep the same position (with maybe only raises) for most their lives.

I'm aware of the fad, and the excuses people use. Yes, if someone wants to advance their career, they will need to ad skills to their resume. and that means changing jobs. But that doesn't mean they have to change employers to obtain those skills. During the 90's and early 2000's that was something employers told their former employees as they were escorting them to the door. It was a rationalization used to mitigate the pain of a layoff.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the fact that if you are unemployed, for most folks, their number one priority is obtaining a new job and for all the often repeated reasons.

Where? I must have either missed it, or your demonstrably fertile imagination is at work again.

Are you seriously that obtuse? Go back and read.

LOL! So people are changing jobs more BECAUSE there's more people in the workforce? More people in the workforce means more competition for jobs, making them relatively more valuable to the worker, while making employees less valuable to the employer. Unfortunately for you, buddy, you're decades old experience is obsolete.

Uh...no. I guess you are that dense. As I told you in my last post, the metric you cited job tenure. It had nothing to do with "changing jobs". Apparently, you have a great deal of difficulty understanding the difference between job tenure and employee turnover. Perhaps you should google the terms on mediate on it for a few months. The two are not the same as I previously explained to you. For your edification I have included a link to my previous post. I suggest you read it again buddy.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-11#post-3432129

You used the wrong metric. Your "link" and your "data" doesn't say what you assert it says...oops. And you are apparently too dense to be able to figure that out, even when it's explained to you. So not only are you wrong on your "data" and were wrong on your programs referring to SSI as Social Security, your basic premise is off as been repeatedly explained to you. High employee employee turnover doesn't improve efficiency of either the job hunter or the employer. It still takes time to find a new job. You still have to do the same old things. Increased job turnover doesn't make applying for jobs any more efficient. You don't seem to understand your premise is deeply flawed.

Thank god you're not looking for a job.

Yeah, I hire people now. It's much better than being on the other side of the fence.

 

[Oystein]

If the Trump presidency doesn't outright destroy the USA, it will take years to rebuild our reputation with the rest of the world, tarnished as it already was. Other nations alternate between laughing at us and being afraid for the future of the world.

 

[iceaura]

Where is your the evidence to support your assertion Ronald Reagan referred to Grenada as America's finest hour as you asserted? Where is your evidence Reagan cracked down on the press? You haven't proven he forbade or did anything untoward with respect to the press as you have alleged

Two links so far with both, three with the evidence - which I want to emphasize you seem to disbelieve, for some reason - that Reagan forbade press coverage of a newly launched invasion of a foreign country by the combined forces of the US military. That was the first time any President had done anything like that.

I recommend the Molly Ivins book excerpt to you, in particular - it's a good reminder of what the Reagan presidency was like, and she was reporting from the field at the time (politics was her beat).

 

[Tiassa]

​

So ... er ... ah ... Jennifer Rubin↱, ladies and gentlemen:

Cruz's essential point―Trump cannot tell what is real and what is not―surely looks right on point less than a week into the presidency. In the campaign, he became convinced, for example, that Arab Americans in New Jersey celebrated after 9/11. Now he becomes convinced of other, equally ludicrous assertions. Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer and others know what he is saying is nonsense ("Alternative facts"? Puh-leez.) They do not have the nerve to tell him that what he believes cannot be true. and therefore cannot be uttered by the president of the United States without raising questions about his mental/emotional stability. They are lying if they repeat his claim, but maybe he is sincere.

Schumer calls that a political problem. He gently offered, "In general you cannot run a country unless you know the facts. If you're going to believe your own facts, whether it's about what Putin is doing in the world or what jobs or companies are doing here, you aren't going to be able to govern, so I worry about it." The shorter version: If he cannot accept reality, he is not fit to carry out the duties of the president.

We are not calling―yet―for invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment ....​

____________________

Notes:

Rubin, Jennifer. "Maybe Trump isn't 'lying'". The Washington Post. 25 January 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 25 January 2017. http://wapo.st/2js9yVs

 

[origin]

I worry that the baby faced psycho in North Korea will start with his apocalyptic rhetoric with the pumpkin headed psycho in the US and instead of ignoring him the pumpkin will also join in to the nuclear fire rhetoric and end up scaring the baby face into a first strike.

 

[Oystein]

I worry that the baby faced psycho in North Korea will start with his apocalyptic rhetoric with the pumpkin headed psycho in the US and instead of ignoring him the pumpkin will also join in to the nuclear fire rhetoric and end up scaring the baby face into a first strike.

Yes. It will be "interesting" when these two weirdos start a "discussion/rant". As you said, both are psychotic or downright insane.

 

[joepistole]

If the Trump presidency doesn't outright destroy the USA, it will take years to rebuild our reputation with the rest of the world, tarnished as it already was. Other nations alternate between laughing at us and being afraid for the future of the world.

It took us more than a decade to recover from the Baby Bush administration. God knows how long it will take to recover from The Donald or if we recover.

 

[Syne]

Who said you did?

Well, "whether you want to admit that or not" certainly seemed to be attempting a backhanded straw man.

I'm aware of the fad, and the excuses people use. Yes, if someone wants to advance their career, they will need to ad skills to their resume. and that means changing jobs. But that doesn't mean they have to change employers to obtain those skills. During the 90's and early 2000's that was something employers told their former employees as they were escorting them to the door. It was a rationalization used to mitigate the pain of a layoff.

Yet the statistics say that the average term of employment is about 4 years.

Copeland’s analysis of the data goes back to 1983, when workers 25 or older had a median tenure of 5.0 years with the same company. He noted that tenure figures sway with the economy, falling during boom years when companies are hiring and rising during tight years when workers have fewer job options. - http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...-says-job-longevity-has-decreased-during-las/​

So it's a "fad" and "excuse" that also happens to be a statistical trend positively correlated with the economy.

Are you seriously that obtuse? Go back and read.

So nothing. Got it.

Uh...no. I guess you are that dense. As I told you in my last post, the metric you cited job tenure. It had nothing to do with "changing jobs". Apparently, you have a great deal of difficulty understanding the difference between job tenure and employee turnover. Perhaps you should google the terms on mediate on it for a few months. The two are not the same as I previously explained to you.

If you don't think the two are related, you're woefully ignorant. Higher turnover is correlated to shorter tenure...unless the company is downsizing, in which case the tenure is not due to attrition.

The job market is picking up, and workers are increasingly jumping ship. A new Payscale report published on Thursday ranked Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company as having the highest turnover rate out of all of the Fortune 500 companies. Average employee tenure was a little over nine months. Other companies with high turnover include Amazon, AFLAC, and Google with employees sticking around for an average of one year. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ny_how_amazon_google_and_others_stack_up.html

If an employer is said to have a high turnover rate relative to its competitors, it means that employees of that company have a shorter average tenure than those of other companies in the same industry. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_(employment)​

You used the wrong metric. Your "link" and your "data" doesn't say what you assert it says...oops. And you are apparently too dense to be able to figure that out, even when it's explained to you. So not only are you wrong on your "data" and were wrong on your programs referring to SSI as Social Security, your basic premise is off as been repeatedly explained to you. High employee employee turnover doesn't improve efficiency of either the job hunter or the employer. It still takes time to find a new job. You still have to do the same old things. Increased job turnover doesn't make applying for jobs any more efficient. You don't seem to understand your premise is deeply flawed.

Ad hominem, poisoning the well (with a mistake I was intellectually honest enough to admit...unlike you), a straw man about turnover somehow "improv[ing] efficiency", and a straw man that I've somehow claimed job hunting doesn't take any time or require any prep. That's a whopping 4 fallacies in the same paragraph, with nothing but your bare assertion (5th fallacy) as argument.

Yeah, I hire people now. It's much better than being on the other side of the fence.

Good for you. I'm glad that seems to make you so happy. Too bad it's also left you out of touch. But what do you care, right?

 

[joepistole]

Well, "whether you want to admit that or not" certainly seemed to be attempting a backhanded straw man.

Apparently you don't know what a straw man is, much less a backhanded one.

Yet the statistics say that the average term of employment is about 4 years.

Copeland’s analysis of the data goes back to 1983, when workers 25 or older had a median tenure of 5.0 years with the same company. He noted that tenure figures sway with the economy, falling during boom years when companies are hiring and rising during tight years when workers have fewer job options. - http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...-says-job-longevity-has-decreased-during-las/​

So it's a "fad" and "excuse" that also happens to be a statistical trend positively correlated with the economy.

If you don't think the two are related, you're woefully ignorant. Higher turnover is correlated to shorter tenure...unless the company is downsizing, in which case the tenure is not due to attrition.

The job market is picking up, and workers are increasingly jumping ship. A new Payscale report published on Thursday ranked Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company as having the highest turnover rate out of all of the Fortune 500 companies. Average employee tenure was a little over nine months. Other companies with high turnover include Amazon, AFLAC, and Google with employees sticking around for an average of one year. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...ny_how_amazon_google_and_others_stack_up.html

If an employer is said to have a high turnover rate relative to its competitors, it means that employees of that company have a shorter average tenure than those of other companies in the same industry. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_(employment)​

As has been repeatedly explained to you, you don't understand the numbers you have repeatedly cited.

Once again for your edification below is the correct turnover metric from the BLS (notice the word "turnover" in the metric, it's a hint:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

As I have repeatedly explained to you job tenure isn't a measure of job turnover. You have repeatedly conflated two very different things.​

Ad hominem, poisoning the well (with a mistake I was intellectually honest enough to admit...unlike you), a straw man about turnover somehow "improv[ing] efficiency", and a straw man that I've somehow claimed job hunting doesn't take any time or require any prep. That's a whopping 4 fallacies in the same paragraph, with nothing but your bare assertion (5th fallacy) as argument.

It's not straw man. It's what you have repeatedly done whether you realize it or not. Isn't that your whole argument? Higher job turnover equates to spending less time looking for work? There is a word for that, it's called efficiency. That's your whole argument - remember? There's no other reason for your line of argument. Contrary to your assertion, when you are unemployed, seeking employment is a full-time job. And if you are not looking for employment, by definition, you are not unemployed, and you are not counted as unemployed. Just because you are not working it doesn't follow that you are unemployed. Nursing homes and schools are filled with people who aren't working, but they aren't unemployed.

For your edification:
"There is only one official definition of unemployment—people who are jobless, actively seeking work, and available to take a job, as discussed above. The official unemployment rate for the nation is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force (the sum of the employed and unemployed)".Oct 8, 2015 - BLS

Either you aren't being honest or you are exceedingly dense. That's not ad hominem, that's fact. You have set up a straw man. No one has represented you said job hunting doesn't take time. What you have said is job hunting doesn't take much time, that it wasn't a full time job for unemployed people - remember? The only fallacies here buddy are the ones between your ears.

Now since you are so good at admitting your mistakes are you going to admit you got your metrics wrong? I gave you a link to the correct BLS data. You have had great difficulty understand the difference between job tenure and job turnover. The two are not the same as you have repeatedly asserted. That's why the BLS reports them separately.

Good for you. I'm glad that seems to make you so happy. Too bad it's also left you out of touch. But what do you care, right?

LOL....that's funny coming from you mate.

 

[Syne]

As I have repeatedly explained to you job tenure isn't a measure of job turnover. You have repeatedly conflated two very different things.

Straw man. Where did I ever say one was the measure of the other? I've already told you that high turnover isn't the only factor in short tenure. Namely, economic upturn and downsizing.

It's not straw man. It's what you have repeatedly done whether you realize it or not. Isn't that your whole argument? Higher job turnover equates to spending less time looking for work? There is a word for that, it's called efficiency. That's your whole argument - remember? There's no other reason for your line of argument. Contrary to your assertion, when you are unemployed, seeking employment is a full-time job. And if you are not looking for employment, by definition, you are not unemployed, and you are not counted as unemployed. Just because you are not working it doesn't follow that you are unemployed. Nursing homes and schools are filled with people who aren't working, but they aren't unemployed.

For your edification:
"There is only one official definition of unemployment—people who are jobless, actively seeking work, and available to take a job, as discussed above. The official unemployment rate for the nation is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force (the sum of the employed and unemployed)".Oct 8, 2015 - BLS

You seem to be laboring under the third-cause fallacy, where you think two correlated things must share a causal relationship, when in actuality they share a common cause. You can argue semantics and equivocate the common and "official" definitions all you like. If you were intellectually honest, you'd ask to which I referred, instead of trying to score hollow victories.

Wow, so as long as I'm not actively "looking for employment" (even when I plan to), I'm magically not unemployed.

unemployed - (of a person) without a paid job but available to work.
​

So if unemployed can't possibly just mean "not working", what term do you use for people-without-jobs-who-are-not-looking-but-may?

Either you aren't being honest or you are exceedingly dense. That's not ad hominem, that's fact. You have set up a straw man. No one has represented you said job hunting doesn't take time. What you have said is job hunting doesn't take much time, that it wasn't a full time job for unemployed people - remember? The only fallacies here buddy are the ones between your ears.

Now since you are so good at admitting your mistakes are you going to admit you got your metrics wrong? I gave you a link to the correct BLS data. You have had great difficulty understand the difference between job tenure and job turnover. The two are not the same as you have repeatedly asserted. That's why the BLS reports them separately.

Ah, false dilemma including an ad hom to justify an ad hom. Again, there's quite a difference between "doesn't take much time" and "full time job". It is a false dilemma that these are the only options, unless you concede that "doesn't take much time" is anything just shy of "full time job". But you can't possibly do that, because that would entail you admitted you were wrong about your "full time job" claim in the first place. And we all know you'd never admit to being wrong about anything.

LOL....that's funny coming from you mate.

Yet I have experience unemployed and job seeking within the last 40 years.

 

[joepistole]

Straw man. Where did I ever say one was the measure of the other? I've already told you that high turnover isn't the only factor in short tenure. Namely, economic upturn and downsizing.



You seem to be laboring under the third-cause fallacy, where you think two correlated things must share a causal relationship, when in actuality they share a common cause. You can argue semantics and equivocate the common and "official" definitions all you like. If you were intellectually honest, you'd ask to which I referred, instead of trying to score hollow victories.

Wow, so as long as I'm not actively "looking for employment" (even when I plan to), I'm magically not unemployed.

unemployed - (of a person) without a paid job but available to work.
​

So if unemployed can't possibly just mean "not working", what term do you use for people-without-jobs-who-are-not-looking-but-may?



Ah, false dilemma including an ad hom to justify an ad hom. Again, there's quite a difference between "doesn't take much time" and "full time job". It is a false dilemma that these are the only options, unless you concede that "doesn't take much time" is anything just shy of "full time job". But you can't possibly do that, because that would entail you admitted you were wrong about your "full time job" claim in the first place. And we all know you'd never admit to being wrong about anything.



Yet I have experience unemployed and job seeking within the last 40 years.

LOL...

Unfortunately for you mate words have meanings. And the fact is you have been consistently dishonest.

You have clearly demonstrated your lack of subject matter knowledge. You have falsely conflated differing metrics to draw unfounded conclusions. You have repeatedly conflated job tenure with job turnover, and before that you conflated SSI with Social Security. I gave you the correct references. I would have thought the BLS metric I referenced would have been sufficient to prove my case. Job tenure isn't job turnover as you have repeatedly asserted. That's why the BLS has a separate metric for job turnover.

And on top of that I have explained your whole line of argument is bullshit. And if you knew anything about logic you would know that. But you don't.

You have compounded your problems with ad hominem and in so doing further demonstrated your general lack of knowledge mate - good job.

 

[Oystein]

My hope is

(1) Over the next four years Trump proves to be the awful president that we know he is capable of
(2) The old guard Dems (Clintons, Pelosi, etc..) just . . . disappear
(3) A new Democratic shining star rises, someone like Amy Klobuchar, who is squeaky clean, someone I can be proud to vote for.