The Trump Presidency...

You're not, though. You're attempting to force the world back to the comforting certainties of the 1950s as it was in 'I Love Lucy.'
The same as fatty's brain "Gone with the Wind" you mean.
 
Boring
 
It’s called pick a side
If you do that, you have to be prepared for the people you're counting on picking the other side or mixing and matching depending on the issue and their own perception of need.

If you get it wrong, you get mighty lonely.
 
If you do that, you have to be prepared for the people you're counting on picking the other side or mixing and matching depending on the issue and their own perception of need.

If you get it wrong, you get mighty lonely.
As would you, the difference though is one side doesn’t skimp on certain things and is not reliant on others and can go it alone.
 
As would you, the difference though is one side doesn’t skimp on certain things and is not reliant on others and can go it alone.
Where is it that you think the US gets its wealth from?
 
Business and trade, the same as the U.K. old bean.
Yet you can say with a straight face that the US is not reliant on others?

Business and trade are inherently reliant on their customers.
 
Yet you can say with a straight face that the US is not reliant on others?

Business and trade are inherently reliant on their customers.
For our security purposes?? Yes I can. Can you say the U.K. can make the same claim?

When you expect others to say honor article 5, it is a two way street don’t you think? You heed my concerns and I heed yours? Or is expected that I am supposed to sacrifice my interests so you can gain at my expense and continue jogging as normal?
 
For our security purposes?? Yes I can.
You've previously wrapped trade up with security, so how do you see the US developing its security without cultivating its trade partners?
 
You've previously wrapped trade up with security, so how do you see the US developing its security without cultivating its trade partners?
By investing in our defense and not expecting others to cover vital aspects of it.

In order to do so you have to grow your economy and ensure you have access to markets and also the ability to protect your own.

Then ensure one has the political will to invest their money into defense and not the welfare state.

One can trade with others without being on the hook for there security, which is very expensive.
 
One can trade with others
Providing you can offer them terms acceptable to them.

Right there is why you need to consider the rest of the world's opinions.
 
Providing you can offer them terms acceptable to them.

Right there is why you need to consider the rest of the world's opinions.
Pot calling Kettle...The US has been rather busy on the trading front. I imagine a mini deal with the EU by the middle of March. I don’t see anything with India yet.
 
Whoops, looks like they are having to rapidly de-escalate the Russian interference hoax now Bernie has been dragged into it:

 
By investing in our defense and not expecting others to cover vital aspects of it.

In order to do so you have to grow your economy and ensure you have access to markets and also the ability to protect your own.

Then ensure one has the political will to invest their money into defense and not the welfare state.

One can trade with others without being on the hook for there security, which is very expensive.
Everyone whinges about Uncle Sam, oh it all about oil etc, etc. but when it all goes tits up like Syria and kids are getting offed, the lefties are all whinging about Uncle S not rushing in and saving everyone.

The USA doesn't need oil anymore. They produce more than enough of their own through fracking. The peaple who need the oil are China, Japan, Germany amongst others. Why should the American taxpayers shell out to keep the sea lanes open and put their service peaple at risk for the benifit of others.

Its the same with NATO. Why should Germany have a trade surplus every year and have a comprehensive welfare and health care system which is not available to American voters and expect those voters to pick up the lions share of the defence bill for NATO.
 
Looks like you're going to have to vote GOP if you want a government job.o_O

'HOGAN GIDLEY (PRINCIPAL DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY): It's not a secret that we want people in positions that work with this president, not against him. And too often we have people in this government -- I mean, the federal government is massive with millions of people, and there are a lot of folks out there working against this president. If we find them, we will take appropriate action.

'The Fox News anchors immediately changed the subject.

'Purging civil servants for being anti-Trump is blatantly illegal: Under federal laws dating back to the late 1800s, government workers can only be hired or fired based on their merit and work performance. It’s illegal to make those decisions based on political affiliations or patronage. Additional laws passed in the wake of Watergate and President Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre strengthened those protections, mandating that supervisors show cause for firing any federal worker and setting up the Merit Systems Protection Board for employees to appeal their cases.

'This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the administration firing people based on their politics.'


 
Looks like you're going to have to vote GOP if you want a government job.o_O

'HOGAN GIDLEY (PRINCIPAL DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY): It's not a secret that we want people in positions that work with this president, not against him. And too often we have people in this government -- I mean, the federal government is massive with millions of people, and there are a lot of folks out there working against this president. If we find them, we will take appropriate action.

'The Fox News anchors immediately changed the subject.

'Purging civil servants for being anti-Trump is blatantly illegal: Under federal laws dating back to the late 1800s, government workers can only be hired or fired based on their merit and work performance. It’s illegal to make those decisions based on political affiliations or patronage. Additional laws passed in the wake of Watergate and President Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre strengthened those protections, mandating that supervisors show cause for firing any federal worker and setting up the Merit Systems Protection Board for employees to appeal their cases.

'This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the administration firing people based on their politics.'


'working against this president. If we find them, we will take appropriate action'

'Under federal laws dating back to the late 1800s, government workers can only be hired or fired based on their merit and work performance.'



You cant comprehend that going against the administrations wishes could be viewed as 'poorly performing'?
 
Looks like you're going to have to vote GOP if you want a government job.o_O

'HOGAN GIDLEY (PRINCIPAL DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY): It's not a secret that we want people in positions that work with this president, not against him. And too often we have people in this government -- I mean, the federal government is massive with millions of people, and there are a lot of folks out there working against this president. If we find them, we will take appropriate action.

'The Fox News anchors immediately changed the subject.

'Purging civil servants for being anti-Trump is blatantly illegal: Under federal laws dating back to the late 1800s, government workers can only be hired or fired based on their merit and work performance. It’s illegal to make those decisions based on political affiliations or patronage. Additional laws passed in the wake of Watergate and President Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre strengthened those protections, mandating that supervisors show cause for firing any federal worker and setting up the Merit Systems Protection Board for employees to appeal their cases.

'This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the administration firing people based on their politics.'


Hmmmm.

If you substituted, say, Jews for example, rather than “liberals, democrats etc” I wonder if there is a historical precedent?
 

Latest Threads

Top