Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1163945]I feel like the nonsense about crowd size and whatever his latest nonsensical bs is about is so we ignore the real issues, like eliminating the fee cut that the Dept of HUD announced, or letting the REINS act sail through Congress this time around. If he constantly puts out a cycle of bullshit, it will distract us from the issues that will need to be paying attention to. Maybe we won't even notice that he signed another order putting the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines back on track. Has he even produced paperwork showing that he got rid of his investments in those? Has he even produced any paperwork saying he's gotten rid of control of his businesses? I know his press secretary said he did but nobody has produced any paperwork showing it's actually done.[/quote]

I agree with your first part. One way to control salacious media is to give them useless news and let them tear away at it while the real work moves forward.

It's like throwing raw meat laced with cyanide in a lion's den. Why cyanide? Because, at least I believe, the more the liberal media tears at these meaningless fights, the more they show themselves to be biased, and cause people who are not in the diehard anti Trump group to look at the media with disgusted eyes.

I would go another step and say that the slow roll of the promised executive orders adds another layer to the spin control. Basically, by having a salacious (juicy) point like illegal voters, and a major promise signing or two, like steps to repeal ACA and freeze regulations, most major media outlets aren't given time to get their spin straight, and leaves a disjointed telling of "just the news" as opposed to a unified and biased(imo) version of it.

When you add in the meetings with leaders, and the backside regulation and departmental memo's - it really is like a tidal wave clearing out the [U]political/bureaucratic[/U] swamp. I am referring to the swamp as Trump voters defined it, not the [I]banking/corporate[/I] version that Trump opponents tried to redefine it as.

Donald Trump has been invited to speak before both houses of Congress on Feb 28th. If he continues this pace of actions for the next 30+ days, the media may have to do day long refresher shows just to try and cover it all.

Like him, hate him, whatever - it is clear that up front he certainly is working hard at doing what his agenda and platform was. Very much reminds me of Newt Gingrich's contract for America leadership, in the style of pushing his agenda forward each day, and not stopping for the politically inspired tantrums.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=dmek25;1163968]mooby quit trying to delegitimize his presidency by asking for fact. im sure all of those " alternative facts" says he has[/quote]

ok. Since "alternative facts" is so fun to distract with I'm gonna start with a football analogy, give a literal liberal "alternative facts", then help antiTrump'ers with lunch :).

Catch/No Catch you decide the facts - of course it depends on the definition of a catch the NFL is using at the time.
[url]https://youtu.be/s7sLEWGOO6U[/url]

I will even lean on Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the definition of is is" quote - which as fun as it is to pick on that sentence, is legally correct.

The "fact" is, that facts are not all encompassing in most cases and specifically to Spicer's statement in question:

[quote]This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe. [/quote]

The truth of the statement lies in the whether Spicer's claim was that this the largest audience in person, and also around the globe, or whether - as he has said repeatedly - his claim was that this was the largest audience when in person and other sources are added together.
It clearly was not the largest audience in person, so a reasonable person's interpretation should be that he was not claiming that, but instead that he was pointing to the en masse numbers - hence why he included both as a way to aggregate them.

But in terms of throwing raw meat laced with cyanide, I am confident that Spicer made that statement [U]KNOWING[/U] the press would take the negative interpretation and he would be able to come back, and say see - this media is purposefully twisting our words. No it doesn't win diehard antiTrump'ers, but it feeds the fact that there is a media bias to anyone who wants to hear that. If he didn't want to throw raw meat, he would have phrased it more like "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — [when adding up the] in person and around the globe [viewers]."

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1163945][B]I feel like the nonsense about crowd size and whatever his latest nonsensical bs is about is so we ignore the real issues, like eliminating the fee cut that the Dept of HUD announced, or letting the REINS act sail through Congress this time around. If he constantly puts out a cycle of bullshit, it will distract us from the issues that will need to be paying attention to.[/B] Maybe we won't even notice that he signed another order putting the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines back on track. Has he even produced paperwork showing that he got rid of his investments in those? Has he even produced any paperwork saying he's gotten rid of control of his businesses? I know his press secretary said he did but nobody has produced any paperwork showing it's actually done.[/quote]

well who would you blame for falling for this strategy? The stupidity of the opposition or the media...id say both.

But your def on to something...good post. Lotta leaders thrive on conflict.

Speaking of what no one is talking about...ever unless its mexico for some unknown fucking reason, a country that really moves no needle....foreign policy. How about one of Trump first thing was taking a call from the Taiwanese Pres and then having his Pres Sec said "they would protect South China Sea interest" 2 days ago. This is straight from Trump's book, you come in and let people know you are in charge and change will be coming immediately. Shows strength and says the status quo is over. Landing the first punch to wake up the opponent.

Re: What would it take?
 

I think he does like to put out bullshit as a distraction, but I also think he's genuinely not happy about losing the popular vote and was definitely embarrassed over the crowd size thing. The guy is all about perception and when things don't go his way watch out, its temper tantrum time.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163372]So what is your answer for government?

You spew out a lot of idealistic bs [/quote]


So wanting a better earth/society is now "idealistic BS"? Interesting. I thought it was more along the lines of a sign of higher intelligence and a progressive humanity.

I'm all for a Democracy. I personally think the popular vote should win the election, but I've always thought that. Hard to fathom winning an election where you don't even get the most votes. My biggest qualm with our government is the corporate money intertwined with our politics. The lobbying, the campaign cash. All of it needs to be done away with. Until we get that straight, we are going to continue being a Oligarchy. Yeah, you might be fine with being ruled by rich elite, but I'm not.


[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163372]but reality is that history shows how all the governments progress. There is no utopian government that is going to suddenly appear but we do have a rich human history of what makes better, and worse, governments.[/quote]

I never said there was any Utopian government, only we should strive for perfection (regardless if obtainable or not). Yes, history does show that governments progress, which is exactly what this government will take to progress. Time.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163993]I think he does like to put out bullshit as a distraction, but I also think he's genuinely not happy about losing the popular vote and was definitely embarrassed over the crowd size thing. The guy is all about perception and when things don't go his way watch out, its temper tantrum time.[/quote]


See I agree with you,he loves to be loved and I'll go a step further and say the Women'march got to him.He is tired of hearing how he snuck into the White house and he is not the President of the People.Saturday he learned exactly how much he is dislike and it bothers him.

Re: What would it take?
 

Trump's start has been a hot mess to start:

1) Have your Press Secretary lies about inauguration crowd and later double down on that same lie.
[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-sean-spicer-trump-crowd-lies-perspec-0124-20170123-column.html]'Baghdad Sean' Spicer doubles down on crowd lies - Chicago Tribune[/url]

2) Told EPA not to tweet about climate change and restricted Federal agencies on social communication. Yet, this asshole can't stop tweeting about SNL and other bullshit not related to his job.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agencies-ordered-to-restrict-their-communications/2017/01/24/9daa6aa4-e26f-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.993277deb9f5[/url]

3) Use your introductory speech at CIA to bitch about media/crowd numbers, and bring along staff to clap for you at CIA speech. "Please clap"
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say-theres-a-sense-of-unease-in-intel-community-after-trump-cia-visit/]Trump CIA Speech may have made worsened intel community relations - CBS News[/url]

4) Says that voter fraud kept him from winning the popular vote and will even start an investigation into such fraud.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/trump-calls-for-major-investigation-into-voter-fraud/]Trump calls for 'major investigation' into voter fraud - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

5) Kellyanne Conway states the White House is using "alternative facts".
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/]Conway: Trump White House offered 'alternative facts' on crowd size - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

6) Tells EPA to remove climate change website page.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G]Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website: sources | Reuters[/url]

7) Threaten to send in the Feds to Chicago if they can't fix the "carnage".
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/the-stupidest-part-of-obamacare-goes-away.html]Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare—Commentary[/url]

Have I missed anything stupid he's done? It's been so much in such a short amount of time.



I will give Trump props on one thing (regardless if I agree with these or not), is that he's keeping his word on what he was going to do.

1) Ban refugees from Muslim countries
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-exclusive-idUSKBN1582XQ]Trump expected to order temporary ban on refugees | Reuters[/url]

2) Build a wall and boost deportations.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/donald-trump-build-wall-immigration-executive-orders/index.html]Trump to order construction of border wall, boosting deportations - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

3) End the EPA or make it ineffective.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/23/trump-administration-tells-epa-to-freeze-all-grants-contracts/?utm_term=.b692e6f813b6[/url]


4) Repeal Obamacare. (his first step)
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/the-stupidest-part-of-obamacare-goes-away.html]Trump gets rid of the stupidest part of Obamacare—Commentary[/url]

5) Officially withdraw from TPP.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/]Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal withdrawal Trump's first executive action Monday - CNNPolitics.com[/url]





Good news though. Trump's approval rating is higher in Russia than it is here in the US.

[url=http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-russia-approval-ratings/]Donald Trump Has a High Approval Rating in Russia | Fortune.com[/url]

What would it take?
 

Feels like the next 4 years are going to go a lot like this, Trump says or tweets something stupid and the WH has to scramble to make excuses for him like with this "investigation" into voter fraud. He truly is a fucking moron if he thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally, that would be fraud on such a widespread scale it would be almost unimaginable.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1164014]Feels like the next 4 years are going to go a lot like this, Trump says or tweets something stupid and the WH has to scramble to make excuses for him like with this "investigation" into voter fraud. He truly is a fucking moron if he thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally, that would be fraud on such a widespread scale it would be almost unimaginable.[/quote]


Dan Rather is right, call the dumbass out on every stupid thing he does and says .It's the media's job and don't be bullied by Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

There is so much crazy shit coming out of the WH right now. I swear I am in the middle of a quirky Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen movie at the very least an Onion article.

Re: What would it take?
 

I don't care what side you're on right now. This shit is unprecedented.

Re: What would it take?
 

getting more stuff done in 10 days than Obama did in 200 hundred days. Mind spinning!!!

Re: What would it take?
 

also I think the media is starting to realize they the one being trolled...by the Big Don!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164082]getting more stuff done in 10 days than Obama did in 200 hundred days. Mind spinning!!![/quote]

IMO, a lot of negative stuff too, whether he intended or didn't. He's also coming across as the total moron/sensitive beyotch that a lot of people thought he might be. I was totally willing to give it a chance, but regardless of how much stuff he's signing through, it's not very calculated. It's, "I said I would do this, SIGN NOW." Damn the repercussions. I hope it's all his supporters wanted and more, because the more this goes on, the more I don't like it.

Waiting for his first military conflict... argh.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1164085]IMO, a lot of negative stuff too, whether he intended or didn't. He's also coming across as the total moron/sensitive beyotch that a lot of people thought he might be. I was totally willing to give it a chance, but regardless of how much stuff he's signing through, it's not very calculated. It's, "I said I would do this, SIGN NOW." Damn the repercussions. I hope it's all his supporters wanted and more, because the more this goes on, the more I don't like it.

Waiting for his first military conflict... argh.[/quote]

its crazy for sure...the end is nigh!!!

For me, The fact torture is ok...that's a problem & The willingness to take on voter fraud with an investigation, but be hesitant on Russia hacking scandal isn't consistent. Those are the early issues im having with the administration

Talking about pictures of inauguration, that's just fodder for the faux outragers...

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1164085]IMO, a lot of negative stuff too, whether he intended or didn't. He's also coming across as the total moron/sensitive beyotch that a lot of people thought he might be. I was totally willing to give it a chance, but regardless of how much stuff he's signing through, it's not very calculated. It's, "I said I would do this, SIGN NOW." Damn the repercussions. I hope it's all his supporters wanted and more, because the more this goes on, the more I don't like it.

Waiting for his first military conflict... argh.[/quote]


This and let's remember he can sign all he wants doesn't mean it's going to happen.He'll be impeached within 18 months .

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164087]its crazy for sure...the end is nigh!!!

[B]For me, The fact torture is ok...that's a problem & The willingness to take on voter fraud with an investigation, but be hesitant on Russia hacking scandal isn't consistent. Those are the early issues im having with the administration[/B]

Talking about pictures of inauguration, that's just fodder for the faux outragers...[/quote]

Really good point. I also don't understand why relations with Russia at the expense of ALL the rest is worth it? I know we all say, "Well, he's in it for the money." He was rich (maybe?) before. What else can he stand to gain after being president and all the scrutiny that comes with it? I can't imagine his life would be happy.

Re: What would it take?
 

Let's see where it is in a month, but I think alot of the momentum simply scares people. The Democratic media has guided group think for so long that now that the Republicans actually can pass their agenda items you see this panic but once people get past that, and see physical improvement in their lives, it may very well create a huge swell against both the media and the democratic party.

No government plan fits everyone (hence why govt run stuff is generally a bad idea) and everyone will have issues with some parts of Trumps agenda... But bottomline, so far Trump has not done one thing that he didn't say he was going to do, and guess what, that's why most people who voted for him --- did.

G1, and Punch, he's not going to be impeached, and if his plan brings jobs and a higher growth rate, not only will he be re-elected but based on how many democratic seats are up for grabs in 2018, you could see a 60+ republican majority in the senate.

edit
what did people think kicking out lifelong bureacrats and democrats would look like. a lot of temper tantrums and fear mongering is par for the course in democratic circles (and yes moving the doomsday clock a half minute closer 6 days into Trump's presidency is temper tantrums and fear mongering from political hacks, NOT a scientific calculation from the "SCIENCE" community)

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164098]

No government plan fits everyone (hence why govt run stuff is generally a bad idea) and everyone will have issues with some parts of Trumps agenda... But bottomline, so far Trump has not done one thing that he didn't say he was going to do, and guess what, that's why most people who voted for him --- did.
[/quote]


That's just it, most people didn't vote for him.
"A Leopard can't change his spots".

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1164101]That's just it, most people didn't vote for him.
"A Leopard can't change his spots".[/QUOTE]
That's a useless point and well discussed. The senate which IS the next battle is voted by states. And several democratic senators up for reelection from states trump did win the popular vote are well aware that if jobs and growth in their senate district go up a republican candidate is going to be a challenger. California and NY get 2 senators each. That's it. So yes you can take those votes and lock them up for the democrats. But WV, Michigan, guess how many senators they have. Yup 2 ea. The next time popular vote counts has any topical interest is 2020. And I will tell you this right now if he brings jobs to Michigan Wisconsin Pennsylvania as promised it will be like Reagan's second election against Mondale.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

All that said. The republicans are like the redskins under Snyder they can have wade Phillips right in front of them and they take joe Barry. So I won't be surprised if republican infighting overtakes trumps inertia

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

One of the scariest things about Trump is the censorship he is implementing on news from government organizations. He is literally trying to have state run media. FYI I love what NASA did in response to his demand to remove climate change from the EPA site.

Re: What would it take?
 

We aren't moving to state run media. That's ridiculous and fear mongering. Watch MSNBC shows like Hardball and The Rachel Maddow show (which I like to laugh at every night) or under Obama.show like OReilly or Hannity. There is plenty of venues for alternative points of view. Government employees just need to do their work. When I was in the military we weren't allowed to be political in our official speech. That's just government work.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

We aren't talking politics we are talking about censoring valid science because it does not fit Donnies narrative. The news from EPA, NPS etc are being removed due to politics despite not being political agendas.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164106]We aren't moving to state run media. That's ridiculous and fear mongering. Watch MSNBC shows like Hardball and The Rachel Maddow show (which I like to laugh at every night) or under Obama.show like OReilly or Hannity. There is plenty of venues for alternative points of view. Government employees just need to do their work. When I was in the military we weren't allowed to be political in our official speech. That's just government work.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

Talking about science and your field of work has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with updating the people on progress that the people are paying for. He is literally telling departments they can't say anything unless he approves it. It is censorship. We're not talking about radio shows discussing current events, or offering their opinions on the matter. We're talking about departments of gov't that are funded by citizens being told they are not allowed to speak directly to the populace. Trump is just worried they will say something that doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to tell.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1164038]Dan Rather is right, call the dumbass out on every stupid thing he does and says .[COLOR="Red"]It's the media's job[/COLOR] and don't be bullied by Trump.[/quote]

Their job? LMAO!
No one hired the media to do anything.
They are not private investigators.
They are independent companies that want you read and listen to their stuff.
They want to make money...period.
And for the most part it is drivel, bullshit, full of mistakes and hype.
And they have made it quite obvious, maybe with the exception of Brietbart that they lean way left and go out of their way to make the right look bad.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164109]Talking about science and your field of work has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with updating the people on progress that the people are paying for. He is literally telling departments they can't say anything unless he approves it. It is censorship. We're not talking about radio shows discussing current events, or offering their opinions on the matter. We're talking about departments of gov't that are funded by citizens being told they are not allowed to speak directly to the populace. Trump is just worried they will say something that doesn't fit the narrative he is trying to tell.[/quote]

Yes censorship is bad. But it's not state run media which is what was mentioned. As for not having anything to do with politics, at this moment, the whole bureacratic nation is fearing for the collective soul, and so yes tweets can be made political - see #resistance for example.

Re: What would it take?
 

Trump has removed or will remove information that he believes is false and misleading.
I know its nice to demonize him by calling it censorship but thats not what it is.
And if it is a "government" website the should decide whats on it?
Wolf Blitzer?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164121]Yes censorship is bad. But it's not state run media which is what was mentioned. As for not having anything to do with politics, at this moment, the whole bureacratic nation is fearing for the collective soul, and so yes tweets can be made political - see #resistance for example.[/quote]

Idk about state run media but he is trying to control the message that his gov't puts out. Luckily it's 2016 and thanks to Twitter he has a direct line to the people which allows him to cut out the middleman.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164131]Idk about state run media leanings but he is trying to control the message that his gov't puts out. Luckily it's 2016 and thanks to Twitter he has a direct line to the people which allows him to cut out the middleman.[/quote]

Well it's 2017 :food-smil and all sides of the discussion have twitter, and facebook, and cable shows etc.

In my opinion, Pres Obama controlled the news the govt put out, but because it jived with most media, and because he was personable, it wasn't treated as an assault on humanity. FDR, LBJ, definitely JFK all controlled what was fed through to the press. Other than Reagan, the rest of the Republicans have just plain blown it when they spun news or limited bureaucratic responses.

One thing I guess differentiates older and younger, is that older people (myself at 49 am at the young end of this group) grew up with 4 tv channels, maybe 1 phone. It was a big deal in my house when we got call waiting.

I get that information flows more freely now, but much like when I type too much, not everything that is being put out is worth the cyber air its sent across.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164132]Well it's 2017 :food-smil and all sides of the discussion have twitter, and facebook, and cable shows etc.

In my opinion, Pres Obama controlled the news the govt put out, but because it jived with most media, and because he was personable, it wasn't treated as an assault on humanity. FDR, LBJ, definitely JFK all controlled what was fed through to the press. Other than Reagan, the rest of the Republicans have just plain blown it when they spun news or limited bureaucratic responses.

One thing I guess differentiates older and younger, is that older people (myself at 49 am at the young end of this group) grew up with 4 tv channels, maybe 1 phone. It was a big deal in my house when we got call waiting.

I get that information flows more freely now, [B]but much like when I type too much, not everything that is being put out is worth the cyber air its sent across[/B].[/quote]

Well put. Agreed.

Re: What would it take?
 

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/tv/jerry-seinfeld-slammed-black-life-matters-tweet-180014558.html[/url]

You want to know why Trump won? Because folks, excuse me not folks, but pussy millennials are offended somehow by a Seinfeld joke. People are tired of the overly pc environment. Trump ran on that message and folks identified with it.

Amazing how sensitive of a generation we've raised.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1164124]Trump has removed or will remove information that he believes is false and misleading.
I know its nice to demonize him by calling it censorship but thats not what it is.
And if it is a "government" website the should decide whats on it?
Wolf Blitzer?[/quote]


LOL, so the "World according to Trump",damn all the facts is that it?When one man decides what it is you should know to fit "his agenda" then yes it's "censorship".
If Donald Trump says the sun is up I'm looking out the window!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164136][url]https://www.yahoo.com/tv/jerry-seinfeld-slammed-black-life-matters-tweet-180014558.html[/url]

You want to know why Trump won? Because folks, excuse me not folks, but pussy millennials are offended somehow by a Seinfeld joke. People are tired of the overly pc environment. Trump ran on that message and folks identified with it.

Amazing how sensitive of a generation we've raised.[/quote]


Trump won becuase like it or not he went and campaigned for the electoral college ,he new he couldn't win the popular vote .He campaigned on hate and bigotry and racism and scared the hell out of the rust belt,that and he won over middle aged white men.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1164148]Trump won becuase like it or not he went and campaigned for the electoral college ,he new he couldn't win the popular vote .He campaigned on hate and bigotry and racism and scared the hell out of the rust belt,that and he won over middle aged white men.[/quote]

Lol hilarious...the electoral college. Why is this a problem now and not in the middle of the campaign or years before?

If you think it's that true or actually that simple, I promise you trump will get a second term.

But my point is this culture shift has hurt the country and trump successfully tapped into it. Read the joke giantone, terrible isn't it?

Re: What would it take?
 

Hillarys intolerant tolerance scared me more than anything Trump said.

In my opinion the democrats ran the bigger fear campaign, every person I know who voted against Trump did so because of fear not because of Hillary's vision. Every voter I know who voted for Trump either saw hope in his message or hated Hillary

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164151]Hillarys intolerant tolerance scared me more than anything Trump said.

In my opinion the democrats ran the bigger fear campaign, every person I know who voted against Trump did so because of fear not because of Hillary's vision. Every voter I know who voted for Trump either saw hope in his message or hated Hillary

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
You just stated my thoughts exactly!

Seriously! I couldn't have said it better myself!

Re: What would it take?
 

I thought he was all about jobs?

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-hiring-freeze_us_588b9f18e4b08a14f7e5c121?]Donald Trump Promised To Bring Back Jobs. For These Workers, He's Taking Them Away. | The Huffington Post[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

Not government jobs...

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

That's great, can't wait to see how this goes over the next few years as government agencies that are already seriously understaffed struggle to provide valuable services to the public.