world

With Tillerson, Trump keeps betting big on business leaders

75 Comments
By JULIE PACE

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

Jeez. Trump makes Nixon look like a choirboy and Bush look like a rocket scientist.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

First Flynn as National Security Adviser and now Tillerson as Secretary of State?

Americans may not realize it but they elected the Putin-Trump ticket to the White House.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Give these choices a chance. Trump promised to remove lifetime politicians from key posts and this is a step in that direction. It might be nice to have a person who understands a bottom-line rather than a person who just kisses bottoms. Of course, Trump will be crucified for whatever he does by some people.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Lifetime politicians - scum for the most part.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Remove lifetime politicians, like Iowa Gov. Branstad, the longest serving governor in US history at 20 plus years? The same one appointed US consul to China? Thanks for the laugh guys.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Jeez, CrazyJoe, I hate to hear what you'd say if Trump picked that clown Mitt Romney, lol.

Oh my...

Ingraham: Tillerson pick is frankly pretty genius: ( of course CrazyJoe knows WAY more about all this stuff than Laura Ingraham, lol )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4NAGkmF90

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Yeah give CEOs who put profit above people, the environment and even the law just to make a few bucks for the investors meeting in positions of power.. Put evangalistic religious people in positions over education... Then continue the opinion as fact, post-truth path you are on, hopefully it doesn't bring the entire world to its knees.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

The United States imposed sanctions on Russia after its annexation of Crimea. These sanctions squashed a multibillion-dollar deal Exxon was going to make with a Russian oil company. Tillerson has vocally criticized the sanctions, saying it cost Exxon $1 billion and that his main responsibility is to Exxon's shareholders. I.e. to hell with moral principle.

That should make one wonder about this man's view of foreign policy, especially now that we are about to have a very pro-Russian president.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Tillerson is a great selection. Trump followed that up with Gov. Perry for Energy. Pure genius. I've got the popcorn popping now so I can sit back and watch the heads explode on the far Left. Trump is a buffoon but his opponents on the nutty Left are nearly losing their collective minds. The next four years are going to be amazingly entertaining.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

his main responsibility is to Exxon's shareholders.

Multinationals are guided by a pagan ethos, which as Kaplan says guides international relations. They care nothing for non-shareholders, i.e. the 99%.

I don't know if there's a term that fits the system Trump appears to be involved in setting up, but it looks like a variation of an interlocking directorate that includes heads of big resource extractors (Exxon, Gazprom, etc.), big banking (Goldman Sachs, Wall Street in general, etc.), the US President-elect, members of the US congress, Rupert Murdoch and the alt right media, among other global elites - all led by Putin.

It's shaping up to be corporatocracy uber alles. If that's the case, will the lady from the WWE bring us Rollerball (preferably the James Caan version) for our circus? The feelies can't be too far off, can they.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I am concerned about this appointment. Primarily my concern relates to the lack of experience for what the job entails. It appears his appointments are similar to what we would expect if Clinton would have won (Goldman Sachs, etc.) or what we have had for the past couple of decades. Basically not the change that many of those that voted for him expected.

Regarding Russia: I think the U.S. having a good and close relationship with Russia is good for the U.S. and good for the planet as a whole. However, this appointment does not look good, especially with the past dealings between Russia and Exxon. I do not see this as a "left"/"right" issue at all as this is similar to what I would have expected from a Clinton Presidency...these types of appointments.

It is beginning to look more and more like we will have the same political cronyism in Washington, however Mr. Trump's term has not started yet. It appears the inner workings will remain the same while the outer face of the U.S. Presidency has a different look.

I guess we are going to have to wait until the electoral college does their work and then Trump is sworn in to see what will really happen.

@Wolfpack - Yes the next 4 years will be entertaining, but in which way remains to be seen.

One thing I would think we could all agree on is Americans have elected a President quite different than we have ever seen in the past.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I predict that one (or more) of Trump's appointments, given their past history, is going to overreach and will either be fired or "resign" before the first year is over. It's an easy bet, considering the sheer volume of egotistical non-team players he's picked so far. One classic example is Scott Pruitt at EPA, which exemplifies the fox guarding the henhouse. And there are many more.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Wolf pack: Trump is a buffoon

Why do you say that?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When Trumpets make comments about being happy with Trump's selections because they will drive the left crazy, I wonder about their motivations behind such comments. Are they actually disappointed with the selections, but don't want to admit it, so find a silver lining? Are they so partisan that they actually care more about bothering the left than they do about the good of the country? Are they true anarchists that want to see America fall apart, and are happy to see the democrats annoyed in the process? Or do they actually think the picks are good, and are happy to see the liberals annoyed with these good picks?

I'm wondering how many of the right actually think Trump's choices are good, versus the number that are growing concerned, but don't want to admit it since Trump is supposed to be their savior. I don't suppose there is any real way to find out that divide though.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Strangerland: When Trumpets make comments about being happy with Trump's selections because they will drive the left crazy

It's not hard to do. Like watching a waterbug in a puddle. They're whirling most of the time anyway.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Romney got supremely punked. The naivety he displayed in allowing himself to become enmeshed in Trump's mechanisms are proof of why he was unqualified to be president. Trump never seriously considered him, but now, after offering himself up, Romney can no longer provide legitimate criticism of the Trump regime.

Tillerson is not the worst choice (that would have been Bolton) and should come as no surprise: Trump is intent on bending the powers of the world towards benefiting the 1%, and this is why he's aligned with Putin. What is alarming was his "Apprentice"- like selection method, whose ultimate goal was to emasculate his enemies. All in the the GOP who opposed Trump have now been discredited (Romney), co-opted (Perry for the DOE - not coincidentally that one agency he'd forgotten when debating about which departments he'd abolish), or are hiding in terror.

Good start to the next four years!

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Put more people with businesses vested interest in the govt....what can go wrong ?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

worth a try. The last 16 years haven't exactly been a success economically or policy wise.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@Wakarimasen - I can understand your sentiment and feeling on this matter. This, as well as the fact the Democrats had a poor candidate, has led the U.S. to electing Mr. Trump, who in a normal year would not have had a chance.

My concerns about this appointment are;

His lack of experience to do the specific job for which he has been appointed.

His ties with Russia (and I am for a strong U.S. Russia relationship) - basically my opinion is based on what "Plasticmonkey" pointed out in his post above. This is the type of cronyism I would have expected from the Bushes or Clintons.

Regardless of how we feel I guess we will really find out how this will all play out next year.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The right has been complaining about wealth redistribution of years, then the first chance they get they elect a kleptocrat.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Laguna: Romney got supremely punked. The naivety he displayed in allowing himself to become enmeshed in Trump's mechanisms are proof of why he was unqualified to be president.

Only one will be selected. It's not like we, standing on the outside, have any visibility on the progress of the selection process. I know, though, that news media routinely make pronouncements of opinion like this, based on no evidence whatsoever.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

"Ingraham: Tillerson pick is frankly pretty genius: ( of course CrazyJoe knows WAY more about all this stuff than Laura Ingraham"

Who knows what the Fox sock puppets really think.

I do think they believe Jesus and Santa are white. That seemed to be from the heart.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

there is so much mud in "the swamp" that Donald is obviously having trouble finding the plug to pull so he can drain it...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

turbostat - patterns spread through history are instructive. Learning to read them provides skill in understanding intentions. While both Romney and Trump are both very rich, the latter has a cunning which the former lacks. He fell into the trap.

Trump does not need to publicly announce this - he cannot publicly announce this - but the writing is on the wall, clear for other possible GOP renegades to read.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Laguna: turbostat - patterns spread through history are instructive. Learning to read them provides skill in understanding intentions. While both Romney and Trump are both very rich, the latter has a cunning which the former lacks. He fell into the trap.

Quite an interesting novel, there :). If one of the networks produces an unholy hybrid of West Wing with The Game of Thrones, you should ask for a finder's fee.

I'm doubting a lack of cunning in any of the candidates making it to the general election.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

That should make one wonder about this man's view of foreign policy, especially now that we are about to have a very pro-Russian president.

I don't think it's such a bad idea IF Trump is looking out for the best US interest. I think if Obama can try and re-establish diplomatic ties with Cuba and with someone like Castro or the Mullahs, it would be of a greater benefit and advantage long term for the US to do the same with Russia, we can't always agree on everything, take China for example, we almost don't agree with them on numerous issues, but at the same time, we have a lot of trade, them being our biggest trading partner, we need to see some common ground. It's just funny how liberals were always jumping on conservatives to scale back the rhetoric when it comes to Moscow and now that Trump has picked a S of S that knows what he's doing and that can apply leverage (they are having a complete meltdown, once again) to one of our biggest foes and has the power and knowledge of negotiation under his belt, I think it's probably an ingenious calculated move on his part.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

@turbostat, "I'm doubting a lack of cunning in any of the candidates making it to the general election."

I think that is a very accurate statement.....not only the election for President but for Congressional seats as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Lifetime politicians - scum for the most part."

Possibly.

Billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies. Paragons of virtue?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies.

Thank God for them.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies.

Thank God for them.

Fair enough that you think this way. But for many of the 99% of us who aren't billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies, we've got some concerns about how these people may game the system towards making more money for themselves, at the cost of the rest of us.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

It is beginning to look more and more like we will have the same political cronyism in Washington, however Mr. Trump's term has not started yet.

He seems to be cutting out the middle man (i.e., corrupt career politicians). Now the corporate billionaire class will have direct control of the government.

Lifetime politicians - scum for the most part.

Maybe a lot but not all of them. And why are the scummy ones so scummy? Because they get paid to do the bidding of corporations and Wall Street. Again, Trump is just cutting out the middle man.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Fair enough that you think this way. But for many of the 99% of us who aren't billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies, we've got some concerns about how these people may game the system towards making more money for themselves, at the cost of the rest of us.

At the same time, these are the people that create the jobs and make things happen, I think for years that entire narrative that the CEOs are ONLY in it for themselves is a bit overkill. Scrutinize, yes, not going to argue that point, but let's be fair about the people that have the power to create jobs. As long as they can create jobs, get people to spend money and put it back into the economy in the form of taxes, tax it at a lower rate and you will start to see the economy slowly come back. I think that's the bigger picture we all should be looking at first and foremost. Let's see where this pans out.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

"Billionaires and CEOs of enormous companies."

"Thank God for them"

They undoubtedly made quite a lot in the Obama years with a healthy stock market. You should have kept an eye on this and made some money rather than believing that the stock market only recovered on November 8th after Trump's victory.

Never mind.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@bass that entire narrative that the CEOs are ONLY in it for themselves is a bit overkill

The business magazine Forbes says something different: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/#e330ca373c39

Psychopaths are by definition: "showing a “pathologic egocentricity [and incapacity for love],” which is affirmed in the PPI by its inclusion of egocentricity among its criteria. The PCL also mentions a “parasitic lifestyle.” "(source: Psychology Today)

BTW, thank you for explaining the trickle down on theory.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"Tillerson’s ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin are drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill"

No worries:

TOP SPY AGENCY DISAGREES WITH CIA: No Evidence Russia Intended to Boost Trump With WikiLeaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgFlhWM2Kso

I, for one, am glad relations with Russia are going to improve with the incoming government which is going to be sooooo much better than the current mess.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Learning to read them provides skill in understanding intentions.

Romney did look a bit more downcast than usual and resigned to something coming out of that first meeting. He may still get another appointment but State was impossible given that he didn't have more foreign experience than Trump on top of all the other drawbacks and there would have been no way to explain the choice to the public.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Drain the swamp and replace it with the Black Lagoon. Looking to be the most corrupt, in it for themselves bunch ever assembled. Trump went on and on and on about how Hillary was too close to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. And who does he appoint? What a big effen hypocrite. This is all simply beyond disgusting. You were hookwinked USA. Good bye labour rights, good bye human rights. Have fun fermenting in it. Too bad other countries have to be affected by this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I get that, Lizz - so why so greatly publicize their meeting? Romney was summoned to Trump's Florida compound and served a plate of frog legs (gee, do you think he requested those? and does the word "frog" have any symbolism?), an event which was photographed and broadly distributed. (Curiously, there are no photos of Trump interviewing Tillerson.)

Romney was the last GOP champ - and, ironically, won the same share of the vote as Trump so thus was on equal footing - so Trump had to very publicly humiliate him and take him out.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

TokyoEngr: I think that is a very accurate statement.....not only the election for President but for Congressional seats as well.

Primarily what we see is filtered through the media ... they try to make everybody they don't like look dumb.

Laguna: I get that, Lizz - so why so greatly publicize their meeting? ... Romney was the last GOP champ - and, ironically, won the same share of the vote as Trump so thus was on equal footing - so Trump had to very publicly humiliate him and take him out.

But all the same applies to Giuliani, a Trump friendly, considered for the same office.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Giuliani has been a Trump toady for some time - pretending to consider him was a bone tossed to bolster his all-but-exhausted reputation, not a take-down.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

They undoubtedly made quite a lot in the Obama years with a healthy stock market.

I don't know about healthy, but they did do quite well and from the looks of the Dow and the entire Stock market, things are about to roar along. More money for them, more incentives, job opportunities, growth....

Never mind.

I was about to say the same thing.

Romney was the last GOP champ - and, ironically, won the same share of the vote as Trump so thus was on equal footing - so Trump had to very publicly humiliate him and take him out.

Trump did way better with Hispanics and Blacks, plus Trump was able to flip 1/3 of Obama voters, Romney is good, but not that good.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

"I don't know about healthy"

A quick search showed just how healthy the stock market has been under Obama after the whole thing went round the u-bend under the Bush administration. This is from Business Insider:

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average's performance [under Obama] of 120.6% ranks as the sixth best of any US President since 1900, just behind Reagan and comfortably ahead of Truman, who at 74.4% is far behind."Jun 23, 2016"

I'm just wondering where you got the information that the stock market only recovered after November 8th. I hope you fired your financial adviser.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

these are the people that create the jobs and make things happen

Just as equally true is the other side of this statement - that the workers create money for the CEOs. It's not a one way street, both needs the other. There is nothing any more special about creating jobs than there is about creating money.

As long as they can create jobs, get people to spend money and put it back into the economy in the form of taxes

That depends on how much they are paid. Executives want to funnel money upwards, so their motivation is to pay less to the people on the bottom. The less people make, the less taxes they are paying. So the creation of jobs in and of itself doesn't provide much benefit to society when the jobs provided don't pay enough for the workers to pay much in taxes.

Trickle-down economics has been shown as a failed concept for years, and yet you still have the right clinging onto it like a liferaft.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Giuliani vetting was legit. He has actual qualifications as well as the downsides of that, and knows when to take himself out of the running for AG and SoS, unlike say, a record of saving the Salt Lake City Olympics.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

It'll be fracking amazing, with McJobs for all. Trust me!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The majority of large corporations make money by reducing costs. They do that by shifting them on to everyone else. The few jobs they create come at enormous cost to the other (usually smaller) market players, society and the environment. But this is the company Trump will keep and they will turn up the propaganda to try to convince everyone that an intensification of what has been policy since Reagan will benefit everyone. It's a sick joke. The only good that might come out of this is when all the people who voted for this joker realise they were conned and do something about it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Just as equally true is the other side of this statement - that the workers create money for the CEOs. It's not a one way street, both needs the other. There is nothing any more special about creating jobs than there is about creating money.

Tillerson isn't just some cookie-cutter CEO that joined Exxon from the outside, though. He's not the son of a rich family either. He started from the bottom as a production engineer at Exxon and worked all the way up to the top job. He actually knows what its like to work on a rig and in all the video I've seen of him he's come across as incredibly pragmatic, which is in line with his engineering background. He's an Eagle Scout and puts huge importance on personal integrity. I think people may be surprised once they learn more about him. Here's a good video to get a sense of him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKG18Aqle_I

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average's performance [under Obama] of 120.6% ranks as the sixth best of any US President since 1900, just behind Reagan and comfortably ahead of Truman, who at 74.4% is far behind."Jun 23, 2016"

If Trump keeps going this route, he just might break Obama and Reagan's record and he's not even president yet.

Trickle-down economics has been shown as a failed concept for years, and yet you still have the right clinging onto it like a liferaft.

And taxing the 1% and raise taxes across the board, punishing small businesses as well as big corporations didn't help either, also as far as the trickle down effect is concerned, we are living in a democracy and use the capitalist system, a competitive system, I have done well for myself and I believe it can bring the best out of anyone, you have the same opportunities and I believe with enough hard work ethics, attitude, there is pretty much No limit of how far you can rise up.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

At the same time, these are the people that create the jobs and make things happen.

That's totally false. The largest employer in America is the government (department of defense). Moreover, over the last twenty five years, almost all of the private sector jobs have been created by businesses less than five years old. Companies more than five years old destroyed more jobs than they created in all but eight of those years.

Exxon has shed 20,000 jobs in the last 15 years and barely makes it into the top 100 firm in America listed by number of employees.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"I have done well for myself and I believe it can bring the best out of anyone, you have the same opportunities and I believe with enough hard work ethics, attitude, there is pretty much No limit of how far you can rise up"

The US now lags behind many developed countries in terms of social mobility. Massive wealth inequality is a key reason behind this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Bass simply put not matter how you want to spin it... trickle down economics... do... not... work. As long as there is greed behind those that make the most money... it... will... NEVER...work. It's a societal issue/illness. If there were no greed in our society, there would be no problem with trickle down economic theory. But human beings aren't innately good. Reality once again defeats ideology.

I agree with Strangerland on this because I've been seeing (and experiencing) exactly what he stated happens... FOR THE LAST 22 YEARS in my worklife. I've even got to see some folks that worked their butts off for their 401k lose it due to someone elses greed.

Nothing wrong with people wanting to be wealthy, it depends on how they choose to go about gaining wealth. Some people don't care about wealth and just want to be financially secure.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

That's totally false. The largest employer in America is the government (department of defense).

I meant in the private sector, which we have not seen any growth for years, manufacturing, coal, gas, products and goods etc. Jobs that spur growth, there hasn't been any under this president or nothing substantially big.

Moreover, over the last twenty five years, almost all of the private sector jobs have been created by businesses less than five years old. Companies more than five years old destroyed more jobs than they created in all but eight of those years.

How many government jobs from Obama took off? Almost 85% of government jobs that the government funded burst like the Hindenburg. Do you remember Solyndra?

Exxon has shed 20,000 jobs in the last 15 years and barely makes it into the top 100 firm in America listed by number of employees.

But still one of THE biggest companies in the world, a company that pretty much every country does business with. Good on Trump.

The US now lags behind many developed countries in terms of social mobility.

And under this president, it's gotten a whole lot worse.

Massive wealth inequality is a key reason behind this.

You will always have that and that's something that has been since man has been working, the very idea that we will live in a world where everyone will be financially equal to one another is back door fantasy dream. Inequality will never go away. But Obama's way was the reason why we had stagnant growth and the reason why we have Trump. Trump is a clear and in your face repudiation of Obama and all of his failed policies and now what little of legacy the man had will soon be erased like the footprints in the sand on a beach. The country tried it his way and it led to more inequality 46 million people on food stamps, greater unemployment, racial division, higher taxes, higher unemployment benefits, out of control medical costs. The people decided when they saw Hillary with the same economic platform and wanted to follow the same Obama pattern, the people said, "enough." That's the real reason.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

@bass Almost 85% of government jobs that the government funded burst like the Hindenburg.

Is this one of your numbers like 98% of the media is liberal, or 160,000,000 watch FOX 'news' daily? If so, please provide a source. Go ahead, use infowars, impeachobama.org, Breitbart, any of your usual entertainment sites.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

" Looking to be the most corrupt, in it for themselves bunch ever assembled."

You want corrupt? Hillary Rodham Clinton comes to mind...

NSA, FBI, ODNI FIND NO TRUMP WIKILEAKS RUSSIA LINK: U.S. Spy Agencies Contradict CIA Russia Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCm-LWfXc50

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Massive wealth inequality is a key reason behind this.

You will always have that and that's something that has been since man has been working, the very idea that we will live in a world where everyone will be financially equal to one another is back door fantasy dream.

You're conflating wealth inequality, with massive wealth inequality.

There is nothing wrong with a system in which there is wealth inequality. The problem is in MASSIVE wealth inequality. A reasonable wealth inequality is the goal. Not a world where everyone is financially equal to each other. Simply one where the playing field is a little more level.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

But still one of THE biggest companies in the world, a company that pretty much every country does business with. Good on Trump.

Wrong again. Where do you come up with this stuff? Exxon is one of the biggest companies in the world in terms of REVENUE not employment. That only benefits it's shareholders.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Is this one of your numbers like 98% of the media is liberal, or 160,000,000 watch FOX 'news' daily? If so, please provide a source. Go ahead, use infowars, impeachobama.org, Breitbart, any of your usual entertainment sites.

We've been around this block so many times, every time, I or other conservatives site a source and libs don't agree with it, you guys dismiss this as false, just like you guys dismissed Trump ever becoming president, gee, how'd that work out? LMAO!

Wrong again.

Nope.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Exxon is one of the biggest companies in the world in terms of REVENUE not employment. That only benefits it's shareholders.

They don't matter???

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

We've been around this block so many times, every time, I or other conservatives site a source and libs don't agree with i

Sounds like a cop-out.

just like you guys dismissed Trump ever becoming president, gee, how'd that work out? LMAO!

Guessing at winners is a lot different than pulling numbers out of your... the air.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

...just like you guys dismissed Trump ever becoming president, gee, how'd that work out?

Yeah, Bass - well, you were against him before you were for him, but more importantly, how things work out are yet to be seen. How did that Bush presidency work out? - at this time twelve years ago, many were discussing cutting his term short just to get him the hell out of there.

I don't want him to fail; this is not a sports game. Failure would bring great hardship to many not only in America and to the world. He's entirely unpredictable, and a New Yorker to boot - we'll see, but the omens his cabinet posts cast do not portend well.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

bass

I or other conservatives

I thought you said you were nonpartisan.

just like you guys dismissed Trump ever becoming president

Just like you did until not too long ago.

The people decided when they saw Hillary with the same economic platform and wanted to follow the same Obama pattern, the people said, "enough."

You mean a sizable number of semiliterate Americans fed a diet of hysterical misinfotainment voted for a bigoted dictator who talks tough and offers simple solutions to their paranoia.

That said, I agree with your opinion that Trump is in over his head. Chaos is in charge now.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

They don't matter???

Not to anyone who isn't a shareholder it doesn't matter. You said you were happy that Tiller heads a company that has gotten rid of 20,000 jobs in the last 15 years because, according to you, ' CEOs create jobs'. Something is weird about tha way of thinking.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

It continues... Trump's pick for the Department of Energy head is Rick Perry. Rick Perry, the moron who in a presidential primary debate forgot the third of the three government departments HE wanted to ABOLISH if made president. Which department was that? The Department of F**** Energy! You can't make this stuff up...

He also happens to serve on the board of directors at Energy Transfer Partners, the company involved with the Dakota Access pipeline. A company that Trump also has business dealings with. You've been had people...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It continues... Trump's pick for the Department of Energy head is Rick Perry. Rick Perry, the moron who in a presidential primary debate forgot the third of the three government departments HE wanted to ABOLISH if made president. Which department was that? The Department of Energy! You can't make this stuff up...

He also happens to serve on the board of directors at Energy Transfer Partners, the company involved with the Dakota Access pipeline. A company that Trump also has business dealings with and that donated millions to both campaigns. You've been had people...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Sounds like a cop-out.

No, just been around that mulberry bush with libs for years, not wasting my time.

Guessing at winners is a lot different than pulling numbers out of your... the air.

Since when can Dems a d libs count? That's a new one.

I thought you said you were nonpartisan.

Yup, I'm both, that doesn't mean that being a conservative you can't be a nonpartisan, come on, dude.....

Just like you did until not too long ago.

Yes, in the first few early months, so what's the point?

You mean a sizable number of semiliterate Americans fed a diet of hysterical misinfotainment voted for a bigoted dictator who talks tough and offers simple solutions to their paranoia.

Don't worry in a month Obama won't be here and we can all have peace.

That said, I agree with your opinion that Trump is in over his head. Chaos is in charge now.

I think he's actually a very calculating and shrewd thinker, kudos.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass: At the same time, these are the people that create the jobs and make things happen

Just like Carrier, who was profitable but decided they could be more profitable if they shipped American jobs overseas.

You keep equating wealth with jobs as if it's always there. Its not. Sometimes corporations do better by cutting out Americans, yet you treat them all the same.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yup, I'm both, that doesn't mean that being a conservative you can't be a nonpartisan, come on, dude.....

Right, you're a nonpartisan conservative who believes that liberals are idiots, a priori. Makes sense, in a post-truth/logic Trumpiverse. I admire your style, dude, ROFL.

I've never used the word 'conservative' as a pejorative. I disdain the current GOP, but not because they are conservative per se.

Point is you hated Trump until you thought there was no way avoiding the fact that his brand of idiocy was the future of your brand of partisanship. Then you bought into it with no qualms. Like Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus, you have no backbone.

Have fun with it. Personally, I would have a problem betraying my morals like that.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Personally, I would have a problem betraying my morals like that.

Plastic, what is alarming is how many clearly don't.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Just like you did until not too long ago."

"Yes, in the first few early months, so what's the point?"

You called Trump supporters a lunatic fringe. What was it that changed your mind? Was it the whooping noises they made at rallies when Trump said Elizabeth Warren?

What exactly was it? I didn't see any particular change which could make someone make such a screeching U-turn.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hillary 65 million votes, Trump 62 million votes. Winner of the election? The (biggest) LOSER.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Right, you're a nonpartisan conservative who believes that liberals are idiots, a priori. Makes sense.

I'm glad you agree.

I disdain the current GOP, but not because they are conservative per se.

Agreed!

Point is you hated Trump until you thought there was no way avoiding the fact that his brand of idiocy was the future of your brand of partisanship. Then you bought into it with no qualms. Like Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus, you have no backbone.

I see, well, that's your opinion and you are free to believe whatever you like.

Have fun with it. Personally, I would have a problem betraying my morals like that.

If I did, I would equally feel as bad if that were the case.

What exactly was it? I didn't see any particular change which could make someone make such a screeching U-turn.

You don't get it because most liberals still can't get or understand how someone as flawed as Hillary could have lost to someone like Trump. Understand this and you'll understand the exact reason as to why I changed. Go back to the maze.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bass basically supported whichever GOP candidate he thought would win. For a while he was pro Cruz when he was leading, then turned against him when he started falling in the polls. Trump was his only horse left so he hopped over to what he called the fringe and never left.

It's what people so when they've been fed the "liberal menace" narrative.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

mukashiyokatta: Hillary 65 million votes, Trump 62 million votes. Winner of the election? The (biggest) LOSER.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dancing+donald+trump

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What's funny is that when Clinton was leading by just over 2 million votes Trump and other conspiracy theorists said 3 million illegals votes for Clinton. If the popular vote margin goes over 3 million then they'll have to adjust their conspiracy numbers upward.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Bass basically supported whichever GOP candidate he thought would win.

Either that or vote for Hillary, come on now!

For a while he was pro Cruz when he was leading, then turned against him when he started falling in the polls. Trump was his only horse left so he hopped over to what he called the fringe and never left.

Yup and he turned out to be a godsend.

It's what people so when they've been fed the "liberal menace" narrative.

Now we have to scurry from the truth??

What's funny is that when Clinton was leading by just over 2 million votes Trump and other conspiracy theorists said 3 million illegals votes for Clinton. If the popular vote margin goes over 3 million then they'll have to adjust their conspiracy numbers upward.

Thank God we don't have to worry about California, New York or Massachusetts dictating for the rest of the country how the election should run, great we have the electoral college system. There's always a silver lining.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Winner of the election?"

Trump 306 electoral votes, Clinton 232 ( including California's 55 ) electoral votes.

i guess we'll have to give California more electoral votes next election, lol.

Being as how Hillary, despite having the support of the president of the United Staes and his wife, the media, Beyonce, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Bruce Springsteen, still lost,it must have been Russian hackers stealing the election from her!

Oh my:

NEW CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: CIA Knows Hillary Clinton's Unencrypted Server Hacked By Global Hackers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xx6OmZ-m10

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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