the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

I dunno man, when John Lewis refuses to even show up for the inauguration, can't really call him a bad apple.

Michael wrote:I dunno man, when John Lewis refuses to even show up for the inauguration, can't really call him a bad apple.

he would be fired immediately

What kind of comment is that? He's an elected representative and can't be fired. It's important in our political system to have people who can not be fired, sometimes their contrary stance is important. You know, three branches of government, right?

trump appears to have one response to all perceived criticism, attack, create division and polarization. A more Yin approach with humor might serve him better, an appearance on snl would defuse the situation.

Michael wrote:What kind of comment is that? He's an elected representative and can't be fired. It's important in our political system to have people who can not be fired, sometimes their contrary stance is important. You know, three branches of government, right?

No we do not need bad apples who can not be fired.
That's the problem, they can and should be fired.
If you were working for a company that was created by highly effective people, would
you just say no i'm not going to do my job and then expect not to be fired?
No a contrary stance is not welcome. it causes stagnation and limits the amount of real effectiveness.
Perhaps your jealous that Trump is a highly effective person?

Perhaps your jealous that Trump is a highly effective person?

Not at all. I hope he is effective as a president in doing all the good things he's said. Have to wait and see.

I understand what it means to fire or marginalize bad apples, but it doesn't apply to every situation. Government is not exactly the same as business, or even a strictly authoritarian organization like the military, where you also can't fire people, for example.

KEND wrote:trump appears to have one response to all perceived criticism, attack, create division and polarization. A more Yin approach with humor might serve him better, an appearance on snl would defuse the situation.

Considering his TV experience and willingness to engage with anyone, it would be a great idea. I don't think he would lose anything by joking around with Baldwin. I remember when SNL skewered him back in '89.

Michael wrote:

Perhaps your jealous that Trump is a highly effective person?

Not at all. I hope he is effective as a president in doing all the good things he's said. Have to wait and see.

I understand what it means to fire or marginalize bad apples, but it doesn't apply to every situation. Government is not exactly the same as business, or even a strictly authoritarian organization like the military, where you also can't fire people, for example.

Military leaders get relived, or depending on rank are not
allowed to re enlist, it's called or was called "up or out"

They also can get killed , maybe not by the ones they led as in the past but but by making bad decision in time of war.
The worst are those who don't suffer the consequences of their decisions while others do or did.

In this past election not just the president was elected but many of the states
had changes reflecting dissatisfaction with the present administration and polices.

"Trump became the first Republican since the 1980s to win the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin"

The "Trump" soon to be sworn in, the next president of the US.
Change agent.

willie wrote:

Michael wrote:I dunno man, when John Lewis refuses to even show up for the inauguration, can't really call him a bad apple.

he would be fired immediately

Oh! Now the strongman is a dictator, is he?

I know we live in a bannana republic. But firiing those who don't pay respect? WTF are they teaching you at electorial college?

You obviously have issues with the first ammendment but in case you did not read it and I am sure you did not because you have not commented on it but now 25 congress men and women are boycotting the swearing in of Chump.

"Trump became the first Republican since the 1980s to win the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin"

Yeah, but, the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. Three million more voted for Clinton, and a sizable percentage voted for someone else. Then, there are so many who DID NOT VOTE AT ALL! So, when they argue why Trump won, it's sheer hypocrisy. They can't speak for the "Americans" who did vote. They're losers. Fire 'em. They don't count, and then they explain the result.

Michael wrote:

KEND wrote:trump appears to have one response to all perceived criticism, attack, create division and polarization. A more Yin approach with humor might serve him better, an appearance on snl would defuse the situation.

Considering his TV experience and willingness to engage with anyone, it would be a great idea. I don't think he would lose anything by joking around with Baldwin. I remember when SNL skewered him back in '89.

Speaking of SNL...

2015 THR Interview: Trump Said He Wasn't "Germophobic"

https://www.google.com/amp/www.hollywoo ... oid-att-us

Obviously that wasn't the kind of germophobic he meant during the press conference, duh.

Michael wrote:Obviously that wasn't the kind of germophobic he meant during the press conference, duh.

Missing out on the political jokes, are we?

Here is my response after Klonk let me know I could be sued. LOL!

grzegorz wrote:Yeah right!

Actually urine kills germs therefore it would explain why it is his fetish of choice.



No germs there. I figured it was common knowledge but apparently not. No jelly fish experiences, eh?

He hates germs and urine kills it and athlete's foot apparently.

The more you know...

FWIW, the story first came out in October...but her email!

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/ ... nald-trump

Btw, he did seem awfully fascinated with Hillary's urine too in case you forgot.

grzegorz wrote:

https://youtu.be/AOfIm5YZzVo

I caught the jokes, was trying to make my own about how Trump or Conway would rationalize the two contradictory statements.

Yeah, but, the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.

its not the system used by which one is elected to the office.

"Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Others: 7,804,213 (5.7%)"

Its called freedom of choice.

He won by the standards by which the winner is determined under
the present system. He also could have lost by those same standards.

Don’t understand how the system works, you lose
HRC lost. Why she lost seems to be what many are trying to figure out.
I feel she should have never been allowed to have run in the first place.

Don’t vote, you end up with the result, lessons learned.
In 4 yrs one gets another chance.