OT: politics

[John Larkin]

My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:

What does D.N.C. stand for?

Donald, Nancy, Chuck.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[Martin Riddle]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:08:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
>
>What does D.N.C. stand for?
>
>Donald, Nancy, Chuck.

Teflon Don...
<http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/teflon-trump-democrats-messaging-242607>

Cheers

[George Herold]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
>
> What does D.N.C. stand for?
>
> Donald, Nancy, Chuck.

I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
Maybe in 2020?
He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.

George H.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have happened.

[k...@notreal.com]

Like Hillary.

[John Larkin]

Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
women? How about the Kennedys?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[George Herold]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 3:19:33 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> > My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
> >> >
> >> > What does D.N.C. stand for?
> >> >
> >> > Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
> >>
> >> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
> >> Maybe in 2020?
> >> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.
> >>
> >> George H.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
> >> >
> >> > lunatic fringe electronics
> >
> >I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have happened.
>
> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
> be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
> women? How about the Kennedys?

Right it's hard to know how they (I) would have responded.
I like to think I'd have been part of a democrat "never Trump"
group, but..... (If it was to defeat that ultimate evil
'insert name of some republican' would I have held my nose
and voted for him. :^)
I don't really like Donald, but if he gets things done, I'm for it.

George H.

>
>
> --
>
> John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[lonm...@gmail.com]

I really don't think so. Remember all the people within his own party who were trying to prevent him from getting the nomination? That wasn't because they wanted it themselves (for the most part), it's because they genuinly believed he wasn't fit for office. And also likely beleived he couldn't win. Well, he won, and a lot of those fears are playing out. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see this guy has some issues, or at least is behaving like he does. A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas. Is it any wonder his approval rating fell so low so early in his term, or that the turnover at the WH is so high? I mean really, this isn't a political issue. I didn't care for GW Bush, but he at least he didn't have all these personality issues. You can make up all the excuses you want about polls being wrong, "liberal media", but his behavior speaks for itself.

And yeah, Bill and Kennedy were womanizers, but at least they weren't so overt about it and weren't the mental case Trump is.

I honestly cannot understand anyone who thinks Trump is so great. It has nothing to do with his policies, it's his behavior that gets me.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

After watching Donald during the debates I had my mind made up. His responses were, for one, often based on facts he made up, and two, less coherent than typical presidential candidates.

I know some say the fact he's never been in politics is a positive, but would you go to a doctor with no experience whatsoever, or an accountant who has never filed their own taxes? I wouldn't.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

(about Trump)

> A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas.

Uh huh.

Look where people (advertised to be) like that have gotten us.


Mark L. Fergerson

[bill....@ieee.org]

Trust krw not to have noticed that Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State for a few years - a diplomatic job, which she seems to have done rather well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bitrex]

On 09/14/2017 03:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
>>>>
>>>> What does D.N.C. stand for?
>>>>
>>>> Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
>>>
>>> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
>>> Maybe in 2020?
>>> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.
>>>
>>> George H.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
>>>>
>>>> lunatic fringe electronics
>>
>> I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have happened.
>
> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
> be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
> women? How about the Kennedys?
>
>

Even the liberal press savaged Geraldine Ferraro for her father's
alleged ties to the mob

[bitrex]

On 09/15/2017 09:36 AM, bitrex wrote:

>>> I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so
>>> insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have
>>> happened.
>>
>> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
>> be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
>> women? How about the Kennedys?
>>
>>
>
> Even the liberal press savaged Geraldine Ferraro for her father's
> alleged ties to the mob

Also the fact that, like Obama, she was about as hard-center as you
could be and still be considered "left"

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Can you elaborate? I don't want to assume I know who you're referring to.

To add to my original post, if I did some of the things at work that Trump does in public, I'd be having meetings with HR, or fired. Crooked Hillary, Little Katy, Little Marco, Lyin Ted, Low Energy Jeb, Crazy Bernie. Calling Alicia Machado "Miss Piggy", then falsely claiming there was a sex tape of her. Claiming Mika Brzezinski was bleeding from a bad face lift. It goes on and on.

Tell me this is behavior consistent with a mentally stable person with respect for others. I'm not going to fault anyone for a random snide remark, but this goes much, much further than that.

[John Larkin]

Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
parties play.

> And also likely beleived he couldn't win. Well, he won, and a lot of those fears are playing out.

Like tax reform. Politicians of both parties live on pay-for-play
loopholes.

> It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see this guy has some issues, or at least is behaving like he does. A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas. Is it any wonder his approval rating fell so low so early in his term, or that the turnover at the WH is so high? I mean really, this isn't a political issue. I didn't care for GW Bush, but he at least he didn't have all these personality issues. You can make up all the excuses you want about polls being wrong, "liberal media", but his behavior speaks for itself.
>
>And yeah, Bill and Kennedy were womanizers, but at least they weren't so overt about it and weren't the mental case Trump is.
>
>I honestly cannot understand anyone who thinks Trump is so great. It has nothing to do with his policies, it's his behavior that gets me.

He may just turn out to be very, very smart. It's fundamantal that
can't be obvious.

Sometimes the best way to get what you want is to act crazy. Most
people can't deal with that.

I should get his "Deal" book.

[Tom Gardner]

This isn't new (Jane Goodall, who ought to know(!),
commented on it before the election), but the overt
visible similarities are surprisingly congruent.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/14/donald-trump-alpha-male-chimpanzee-behavior

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> parties play.

Nobody listens to his huffin' and puffin' anymore,
least of all N Korea.

Nobody trusts him anywhere.

It is time for the UK to suspend intelligence
sharing /again/, because motormouth is stupidly
and /unnecessarily/ endangering us /again/.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908643633901039617


"Doanld Trump has said he will call Theresa May "right now" after she criticised
him over his "unhelpful" speculation over the Parsons Green terror attack.

The Prime Minister delivered a stern rebuke after the US President claimed the
perpetrators responsible for the Parsons Green tube bombing were known to police.

Mrs May said that such an accusation was not “helpful” and that the police and
security services are working to ascertain the “full circumstances” surrounding
the attack."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/donald-trump-says-parsons-green-attacker-demented-terrorist/

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Yet he hasn't drained the swamp. He's only brought in his family, other politicians and people previously in powerful positions (Tillerson, Mnuchin, Pai). Not all these guys are bad, but 'draining the swamp' is difficult to quantify.

>
>
> > And also likely beleived he couldn't win. Well, he won, and a lot of those fears are playing out.
>
> Like tax reform. Politicians of both parties live on pay-for-play
> loopholes.

Tax reform is good. Some of Trump's goals are good. Right now I'm having trouble believing he'll achieve any of it because he's so combative.

>
> > It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see this guy has some issues, or at least is behaving like he does. A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas. Is it any wonder his approval rating fell so low so early in his term, or that the turnover at the WH is so high? I mean really, this isn't a political issue. I didn't care for GW Bush, but he at least he didn't have all these personality issues. You can make up all the excuses you want about polls being wrong, "liberal media", but his behavior speaks for itself.
> >
> >And yeah, Bill and Kennedy were womanizers, but at least they weren't so overt about it and weren't the mental case Trump is.
> >
> >I honestly cannot understand anyone who thinks Trump is so great. It has nothing to do with his policies, it's his behavior that gets me.
>
> He may just turn out to be very, very smart. It's fundamantal that
> can't be obvious.

And global warming may turn out to be wildly successful.

Look, anything is possible. But if this guy is so smart he would have gotten more done by now. He's got a majority Repub congress and yet what's he achieved in nearly 8 months? The Republicans aren't "out to get him" or "backstabbers". They want to get reelected too, but you can't work with a guy like this.

Mark my word, Trump is going down as the worst president in modern history. He has record low poll numbers, insults everyone, can't get along with his own staff and party, is potentially in legal trouble both as president and involving his businesses, is is beginning to piss off his own base.

>
> Sometimes the best way to get what you want is to act crazy. Most
> people can't deal with that.

You're ever the optimist. Or denialist. Seems Trump is making more enemies than friends. That's not the way to get what you want. It might work initially but not long term.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Absolutely. I'm at a loss to describe what Trump's appeal is. It's not that I disagree with all of his policies. I disagree with his behavior. I'm all for quirky, eccentric, or unconventional people. But I'm not ok with someone who's chronically disrespectful and flings personal insults like it's candy at a parade. My only guess are voters that supported him don't want to admit "their guy" is a mental case, or there's some primal thing going on like the chimp thing you mention.

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:

> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> parties play.

Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
a swamp.

Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:31:04 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
>> parties play.
>
>Nobody listens to his huffin' and puffin' anymore,
>least of all N Korea.

The poison gas attacks in Syria have stopped for some mysterious
reason.

[John Larkin]

It did in my company.

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
>>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
>>> parties play.
>>
>> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
>> a swamp.
>>
>> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
>
> It did in my company.

We only have your word for that anecdote ;}

Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Even the word's synonyms don't sound all that positive: favoritism, preferential treatment, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, partiality, partisanship.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:13:37 +0100, Tom Gardner

<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
>>>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
>>>> parties play.
>>>
>>> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
>>> a swamp.
>>>
>>> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
>>
>> It did in my company.
>
>We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
>
>Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.

DNA is powerful. Historically, people have tended to trust family more
than strangers. Usually.

There are lots of family farms and businesses in the USA. They tend to
be a lot less ruthless than public corporations. People tend to
respect their parent's business and employees, and want to pass it all
on to their kids.

We have leased a new place for our company. Uber was bidding against
us (to do self-driving car development) and had a lot more money. The
owners, retiring from a family business, wanted to pass it onto "a San
Francisco family business", which we are, so we got it.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[John Larkin]

Mother. Father. Children. Family. Love. Not a bad set of things to
build a business around.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 12:13:43 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
> >> > <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> >> >>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> >> >>> parties play.
> >> >>
> >> >> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
> >> >> a swamp.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
> >> >
> >> > It did in my company.
> >>
> >> We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
> >>
> >> Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.
> >
> >Even the word's synonyms don't sound all that positive: favoritism, preferential treatment, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, partiality, partisanship.
>
> Mother. Father. Children. Family. Love. Not a bad set of things to
> build a business around.
>
>

I didn't come up with those synonyms, the thesaurus did. But then you'd tell me you don't trust the thesaurus either.

A family run business is one thing. You screw up, you're done. Not necessarily so with politics where there can be little accountability and yet the money keeps flowing.

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/09/17 20:28, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:13:37 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
>>>>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
>>>>> parties play.
>>>>
>>>> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
>>>> a swamp.
>>>>
>>>> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
>>>
>>> It did in my company.
>>
>> We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
>>
>> Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.
>
> DNA is powerful. Historically, people have tended to trust family more
> than strangers. Usually.

Indeed, except where they don't; think fratricide!

But "blood will out" may not be a bad way to run a
family business, but it is a bad way to run a country.
Unless, of course, you think hereditary monarchies are
A Good Thing.

But then the US does tend to have its dysenteries
(Kennedy, Bush), and Trump doesn't appear to be able
to keep personal financial gain separate from governing.

> There are lots of family farms and businesses in the USA. They tend to
> be a lot less ruthless than public corporations. People tend to
> respect their parent's business and employees, and want to pass it all
> on to their kids.

Indeed, but it doesn't scale well, and can often
be dysfunctional. Plus there are standard problems
working for a family business if you aren't one
of the family.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:13:37 +0100, Tom Gardner

<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
>>>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
>>>> parties play.
>>>
>>> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
>>> a swamp.
>>>
>>> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
>>
>> It did in my company.
>
>We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
>
>Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.

You must have hated JFK.

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 9:17:20 AM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:

> > Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because...

> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
> a swamp.
>
> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?

Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General was a major force in civil rights reforms.

Trump talks a lot about 'good people', but mainly seems to want people
that won't do anything to get attention, or just plain won't do anything.
He's budgeting for... letting US infrastructure collapse.

The population of DC was rather against the Donald on election day,
presumably because he hadn't any bureaucratic experience.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 1:01:06 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 2:19:33 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> > My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What does D.N.C. stand for?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
> >> >>
> >> >> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
> >> >> Maybe in 2020?
> >> >> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.
> >> >>

> >> >I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have happened.
> >>
> >> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would
> >> be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing
> >> women? How about the Kennedys?
> >>

> >I really don't think so. Remember all the people within his own party who were trying to prevent him from getting the nomination? That wasn't because they wanted it themselves (for the most part), it's because they genuinely believed he wasn't fit for office.

>
> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> parties play.

Nobody took his claim to be planning to "drain the swamp" any more seriously than they took his claim to be about to build a wall along the Mexican border.
Probably less seriously, since Trump is creature of that swamp, and always has been.

>
> > And also likely beleived he couldn't win. Well, he won, and a lot of those fears are playing out.
>
> Like tax reform. Politicians of both parties live on pay-for-play
> loopholes.

It is a feature of US politics, documented in the fact that US corporate tax rates are amongst the highest in the world, and the amount of tax paid by US corporations (as a fraction of profits) is one of the lowest around.

> > It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see this guy has some issues, or at least is behaving like he does. A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new ideas. Is it any wonder his approval rating fell so low so early in his term, or that the turnover at the WH is so high? I mean really, this isn't a political issue. I didn't care for GW Bush, but he at least he didn't have all these personality issues. You can make up all the excuses you want about polls being wrong, "liberal media", but his behavior speaks for itself.
> >
> >And yeah, Bill and Kennedy were womanizers, but at least they weren't so overt about it and weren't the mental case Trump is.
> >
> >I honestly cannot understand anyone who thinks Trump is so great. It has nothing to do with his policies, it's his behavior that gets me.
>

> He may just turn out to be very, very smart. It's fundamental that
> can't be obvious.

Seems unlikely. If he were really smart, the people whom he lured into investing in all those projects that went bankrupt would have made money rather than losing it - that would have made it easier to recruit more suckers.

> Sometimes the best way to get what you want is to act crazy. Most
> people can't deal with that.

Sure they can. Back off and leave the crazy guy to talk to himself. That's why Trump ended up starring on "The Apprentice", away from people who knew what a fruitcake he was, then ran for president, where he was up against the kinds of fruitcakes that the Koch brothers (aka the Tea Party faction) happen to like.

> I should get his "Deal" book.

Sure you should. It's isn't actually sub-titled "Megalomania for fun and profit" and it was written by a ghost writer, but you do seem to exhibit much the same character defects, and you'd probably enjoy it.

What you ought to read is something closer to "How to live with megalomania" which would concentrate on dealing with the unrealistic convictions that you know best - as in you and Trump being convinced that you know better about anthropogenic global warming than the sane 290 of the 300 top climatologists.

--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 2:34:50 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
> >> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> >> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> >> parties play.
> >
> >Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
> >a swamp.
> >
> >Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
>
> It did in my company.

But you are a megalomaniac, with unrealistic ideas about your own expertise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 5:31:39 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 12:13:43 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
> >> > <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> >> >>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> >> >>> parties play.
> >> >>
> >> >> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
> >> >> a swamp.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
> >> >
> >> > It did in my company.
> >>
> >> We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
> >>
> >> Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.
> >
> >Even the word's synonyms don't sound all that positive: favoritism, preferential treatment, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, partiality, partisanship.
>
> Mother. Father. Children. Family. Love. Not a bad set of things to
> build a business around.

Competence and objective judgement are better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 5:29:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:13:37 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 15/09/17 17:34, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:17:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
> >> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 15/09/17 16:00, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> Not really. Nobody in DC trusts him because he threatens to drain
> >>>> their swamp, mess up the enormous money-and-power game that both
> >>>> parties play.
> >>>
> >>> Historically nepotism has been the /cause/ of many
> >>> a swamp.
> >>>
> >>> Are there /any/ examples where it has drained the swamp?
> >>
> >> It did in my company.
> >
> >We only have your word for that anecdote ;}
> >
> >Nonetheless neoptism a A Bad Thing, from many points of view.
>
> DNA is powerful. Historically, people have tended to trust family more
> than strangers. Usually.

There's a shared common interest in making your off-spring and close relatives do well. Unfortunately "clogs to clogs in three generations" is also historical.

> There are lots of family farms and businesses in the USA. They tend to
> be a lot less ruthless than public corporations. People tend to
> respect their parent's business and employees, and want to pass it all
> on to their kids.

Who tend not to be as competent. Reversion to the mean.

> We have leased a new place for our company. Uber was bidding against
> us (to do self-driving car development) and had a lot more money. The
> owners, retiring from a family business, wanted to pass it onto "a San
> Francisco family business", which we are, so we got it.

Uber isn't getting great publicity at the moment - they don't seem to be treating their customer or their sub-contractors particularly carefully.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 7:02:58 AM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 2:34:40 AM UTC-5, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > (about Trump)
> >
> > > A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new
> > > ideas.
> >
> > Uh huh.
> >
> > Look where people (advertised to be) like that have gotten us.
>

> Can you elaborate? I don't want to assume I know who you're referring to.

Pretty much every standard politician ever. Note the "advertised to be" part.

The world pre-Trump was no bed of roses.


Mark L. Fergerson

[bill....@ieee.org]

In other words it was contentless cynicism. Trump's predecessors had their defects, but Trump seems to lack any virtues at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:19:19 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would be
> praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing women?

And a *lot* worse.


--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 9:46:27 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:19:19 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would be
> > praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing women?
>
> And a *lot* worse.

Bill Clinton isn't on record as boasting about having grabbed women by the pussy.

Trump gloated about being able to exploit his celebrity in a remarkably crude and brutal way, which was unusually gross, even for a US politician.

Cursitor Doom's judgement is not exactly good - he not only reads the Daily Mail but also believes the nonsense they publish - and he doesn't seem to have noticed that Donald Trump is an unusually vile character, even for a US politician.

He does seem to have been less repulsive than the other Republican candidates, who were psychopathic enough to appeal to Tea Party extremists, like James Arthur, but to some extent that may reflect the fact the the American public had been seeing his particular psychopathology on "The Apprentice" for some years and may have become habituated to it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[lonm...@gmail.com]

I don't disagree, but Trump is on an entirely different level. He doesn't even present himself as being all that intelligent nor diplomatic.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:46:27 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:19:19 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they would be
> > praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with harrassing women?
>
> And a *lot* worse.
>

Bill Clinton had his faults, but was objectively a very smart man. He also had charisma, something Trump doesn't even know the meaning of.

This doesn't mean someone who's smart with charisma can get by with whatever they want, but being those two things in a position as complex as the presidency is obviously advantageous and arguably even required.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 9:28:34 AM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 3:41:09 AM UTC-5, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 7:02:58 AM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 2:34:40 AM UTC-5, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-7, lonm...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (about Trump)
> > > >
> > > > > A president is supposed to be diplomatic, well-read, and open to new
> > > > > ideas.
> > > >
> > > > Uh huh.
> > > >
> > > > Look where people (advertised to be) like that have gotten us.
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate? I don't want to assume I know who you're referring to.
> >
> > Pretty much every standard politician ever. Note the "advertised to be"
> > part.
> >
> > The world pre-Trump was no bed of roses.
>

> I don't disagree, but Trump is on an entirely different level. He doesn't
> even present himself as being all that intelligent nor diplomatic.

Doesn't seem to matter to certain highly-placed Democrats (Pelosi and Schumer), not that party affiliation will matter much longer:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/trumps-new-reality-republicans-and-democrats-are-both-finished.html

(Notice this is no "Right Wing alt-news" source)

Certain persons on this group have often ridiculed America's restrictive two-party system (me among them) and it seems that it's crumbling as we watch.

About damned time.


Mark L. Fergersom

[k...@notreal.com]

Multi-party systems have done such a great job in Europe.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:35:57 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> > My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
> >
> > What does D.N.C. stand for?
> >
> > Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
>
> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
> Maybe in 2020?
> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.

What DACA mess, it's only 800,000 people. There are estimated 11 million illegals, not that's a mess, and putting a bunch of money into a wall isn't going to fix anything.
>
> George H.

> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
> >

> > lunatic fringe electronics

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:16:33 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:35:57 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> > My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this joke:
>> >
>> > What does D.N.C. stand for?
>> >
>> > Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
>>
>> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem.
>> Maybe in 2020?
>> He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA mess.
>
>What DACA mess, it's only 800,000 people. There are estimated 11 million illegals, not that's a mess, and putting a bunch of money into a wall isn't going to fix anything.

It's only 800,000 people, times five or fifty.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

When I say Trump is a mental case, I'd say the same if he was my boss. It doesn't matter what political party he's from as he's crazy regardless. I never cared for him much when he was just a TV personality but he had less power and was easier to ignore.

I certainly won't lament at the dissolution of the traditional parties we have now. I wish there were no parties and each person would stand on their own, but I know that will never happen.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Krw gets something right for once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

He's one of the 99% of Americans that are being shat on by the wealthy 1%, but he's too dumb to notice. The UK, which is also stuck with a two party system, is almost as bad.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[mixed nuts]

On 9/14/2017 4:08 PM, George Herold wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 3:19:33 PM UTC-4, John Larkin

> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com

>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 12:35:57 PM UTC-5, George

>>> Herold wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-4, John
>>>> Larkin wrote:
>>>>> My wife woke up in the middle of the night and invented this
>>>>> joke:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does D.N.C. stand for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald, Nancy, Chuck.
>>>>
>>>> I always wondered what would happen if Don ran as a Dem. Maybe
>>>> in 2020? He gets full marks from me if he helps fix the DACA
>>>> mess.
>>>

>>> I'm not sure the Dems are dumb enough to vote in a guy who is so
>>> insecure, thin-skinned and undiplomatic. But stranger things have
>>> happened.
>>

>> Oh, if he switched to being a Democrat (which he once was) they
>> would be praising his many virtues. Didn't Bill get away with

>> harrassing women? How about the Kennedys?
>
> Right it's hard to know how they (I) would have responded. I like to
> think I'd have been part of a democrat "never Trump" group, but.....
> (If it was to defeat that ultimate evil 'insert name of some
> republican' would I have held my nose and voted for him. :^) I don't
> really like Donald, but if he gets things done, I'm for it.

He loves Hispanics who make delicious taco bowls. He also loves it when
people do things like mow his lawn and prune his scrubs and build his
buildings for free. The whole DACA thing would clear up in no time if
them crazy Hispanics treated him like kings were treated in the old days
when the people were for the king and not as defined in the US founding
documents where the king is for the people and the government draws its
powers through the consent of the governed.

And he needs to get a proper crown - a red baseball cap doesn't cut it.
And Melania needs to stop squinting - queens don't squint.

--
Grizzly H.