world

Trump names Bush-era veteran and policy newcomer to posts

24 Comments
By VIVIAN SALAMA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Trump has just about finished reconstituting the establishment Republican swamp that presided over the greatest financial collapse of our lifetimes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A former Bush hawk? Oh, nooo! Look to the future for highly orchestrated mayhem rusulting in more rights and freedoms sacrificed in the name of security and the police state.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump's a baby boomer. No doubt he watched lots of TV in the 1960's. Maybe he's incorporated some of the characters he watched on the tube into his own personality. Judging by the yuuuge swamp he's building he might be seeing himself as a 21st century swampfox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBwVJQi6_Y Shirley (sic) all but his most loyal cult members can see Leslie Nielsen (RIP) was much more believable. But then so would have been Pinocchio.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the news of my home country he was reportef as saying that the UN is a childrens playground

Doubt he will clear the US outstanding Dues to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump tweeted '100% of the money goes to wonderful charities.'

That is a damn lie and indefensible by even his most ardent supporters (but I do hope to be entertained by their frantic attempts).

6 ( +7 / -1 )

That's why he doesn't like the media. Too much fact checking.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

That's why he doesn't like the media. Too much fact checking.

They do??? That's a first!

Trump has just about finished reconstituting the establishment Republican swamp that presided over the greatest financial collapse of our lifetimes.

Lol, yeah right and now he'll be the incoming president over the bigges financial deficit of all time

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Lol, yeah right and now he'll be the incoming president over the bigges financial deficit of all time

It's funny how you apply this logic when it suits your own ideology; but you won't use the same reasoning in retrospect of an incoming Obama. Yes Obama has presided over the biggest debt dollar wise. But actually he only increased the budget 68%. And he did most of that by cutting taxes extending unemployment benefits--in other words, projects to help the people. Bush, on the other hand, coming in after Clinton, increased the national debt a whopping 101%. Now was that because he was working for the people? No, he was busy invading other countries--still no WMD's to this day, but how much was spent trying to shove that crap down everyone's throat; he was busy bailing out the wall street elite who quickly turned afterwards and awarded themselves six-figure bonuses; he increased military spending to unheard of levels only to satisfy his own thirst for, in his own words, " the guy that tried to kill my dad." Let's not forget how his Vice President profited very well from Bush's military endeavors, which drove the national debt through the roof; and none of it to help the people. But if it makes you feel better, I think Bush shaved a little off his spending spree when he decided to shortchange the rescue efforts in Louisiana in '05.

And now you have an idiot in the highest position of the country, who hasn't even taken office yet and is already determined to increase the debt even further: more nuclear weapons stock piling, increased military spending, building a wall, deporting masses of people, and most likely future military conflicts. None of his spending is designed to help the people or "make America great again". And as someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who has managed to escape any responsibilities for his actions; as someone who lost almost a billion dollars, I wonder if this guy even understands the value of a penny as it is understood by working class America.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"Re-fill the swamp!!"

I love how people who decried Hillary's practices, Trump included, suddenly defending trump for doing the same and worse.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Mr. Noidall: he only increased the budget 68%

"he only increased the budget 68%"

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Trump asserted on Twitter late Monday that his foundation was run efficiently.

Efficiently, maybe. Legally? No.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Who's this guy Trump you all be talin' about? I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft. Oh. Same guy. Can you dig it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love how people who decried Hillary's practices, Trump included, suddenly defending trump for doing the same and worse.

Really? How? The Dow is about to explode, there is no way that would've happened under Hillary. So far, I think Trump has done a decent job with his cabinet, at least the ball will be rolling when it starts. No lazies here.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No lazies here.

Not even ultra-laconic retiree Ben Carson, who kept saying he didn't want a cabinet position but somehow ended up atop HUD?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Dow is about to explode, there is no way that would've happened under Hillary.

It's happening under Obama. Hillary was going to carry on Obama's policies. So there's a good chance it would have happened under Hillary.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Really? How? The Dow is about to explode, there is no way that would've happened under Hillary."

I'd take anything you say about the markets with a pinch of salt. You ignored them for 8 years under Obama believing that they hadn't improved.

I take it you don't write articles for the financial section of the Washington Post.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yeah I'm not sure the stock market is where you want to go....heh. Compare the beginning and ending closing prices for Bush and then Obama. If Republicans are successful in making gains, it will contradict recent precedent. But I wish them luck. I've already redefined by definition of success as "the GOP not destroying the eceonomy again."

Seems like a fair place to start given their track record.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yeah I'm not sure the stock market is where you want to go....heh. Compare the beginning and ending closing prices for Bush and then Obama.

After 4 years (point of comparison that includes Bush sr, the change in stock market was:

Clinton: 105.8%

Obama: 73.2%

Bush Sr: 41.3%

Regan: 35.8%

Bush Jr: -3.7%

After 8 years:

Clinton: 225.9%

Obama: 149.0%

Regan: 128.9%

Bush Jr: -26.5%

There seems to be a clear winner along party lines as to which presidents have been better for the stock market. And there is a clear loser in particular.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The GOP works almost exclusively off of stereotypes, and this stereotype is that they are better for business so the stock market should be healthier when they are in power. Any data you put in front of them showing the contrary just won't register in their brains.

You see the same thing with Russia. Republicans believe they are the tougher and stronger party for dealing with our enemies and that's that. Put the picture of Putin and Tillerson smiling and getting awards together, Putin's and Trump's kind of words for each other, etc., and their brains won't process it. Republicans are tougher so Russia must be afraid and that's that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'd take anything you say about the markets with a pinch of salt. You ignored them for 8 years under Obama believing that they hadn't improved.

Because they really haven't overall, lowest participation in the labor force, 46 million on food stamps, Black on Black crime rate out of control, highest deficit of any president, the worst when it comes to foreign policy, hasn't done anything for our crumbling infrastructure, corporate tax rate, capital gains tax, investments overall down, racial division and more, all declined under this (thankfully) soon out of a job president.

California has one of the highest poverty rates as well as Chicago and NY, don't just focus on the good, try, just try to focus on reality and take heed that there is a lot more poverty than you want to acknowledge and by the way, why are you so worried, you are not an American anyway, so it shouldn't bother you.

You guys crack me up, we had one of the worst and sluggish economies for years, Trump gets elected and the minute he talks about deregulation and lowering the corporate tax down to 28% and for small business to 15% and you want to give Obama credit, if that wouldn't be so insanely absurd, I would laugh myself silly, but I am astounded at the deepness of the liberal mental Unicornverse realm. Fascinating!

I take it you don't write articles for the financial section of the Washington Post.

I actually have in the past, that's the reason. LOL

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SuperLib: You see the same thing with Russia. Republicans believe they are the tougher and stronger party for dealing with our enemies and that's that. Put the picture of Putin and Tillerson smiling and getting awards together, Putin's and Trump's kind of words for each other, etc., and their brains won't process it. Republicans are tougher so Russia must be afraid and that's that.

Sounds like sour Democratic grapes after the failure of Obama's highly-touted 'Russian Reset' and the opening of 'Cold War II' on his watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_II

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"I'd take anything you say about the markets with a pinch of salt. You ignored them for 8 years under Obama believing that they hadn't improved."

"Because they really haven't overall, lowest participation in the labor force, 46 million on food stamps, Black on Black crime rate out of control, highest deficit of any president, the worst when it comes to foreign policy, hasn't done anything for our crumbling infrastructure, corporate tax rate, capital gains tax, investments overall down, racial division and more, all declined under this (thankfully) soon out of a job president."

What has that got to do with your ridiculous and stunningly ignorant claim that the stock market only recovered after news of Trump's election victory? What kind of journalist writes financial articles for a very highly respected newspaper with this level of ignorance about the markets?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nah, just stuff I see and hear from Trump. Praising Putin, retweting Putin's insults directed at Americans, choosing Russian friendly cabinet picks, defending Russia over the CIA/FBI, etc. But ask any Republican and they will insist that Russia is quaking in their boots and my guess is the only evidence they have is the stereotype that Republican presidents are tough. Or are you seeing something else?

I saw you posted some links there but they don't really appear to address the point I'm making so I'm going to skip over them. No offense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites