It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As I mentioned in my last response, the President Elect is just signalling. Don't take his statements all that literally.
The markets are up because they realize this is just bombast. He is sending a message to German manufacturers to become more US centric with production that is geared to the US market, that's all. He expects some voluntary changes in behaviour. As you noted earlier, he is a businessman. He realizes that they won't change things to the level where they lose a competitive advantage. He just wants a little more love to be shown to US industries. That's about all. The Koreans (Hyundai), Japanese (Toyota) and others are complying, and I think the Germans will do the same. Yes, I realize the Mexican plant is more geared for global production. His point is more that they shouldn't expect to make future Mexican investment with an intention to serve the US market from there without consequences. Keep in mind that the US will soon enact tax reform and is focused on reducing regulations on business. All of this will bring about the necessary investment anyway. He wants US corporate profits that are stashed overseas (increasingly) brought back home:
The President Elect's advance twitter messaging and signalling for the past two months is because he doesn't have an official bully pulpit until Friday.
@BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I'm extremely disappointed to read your comments about Mr. Trump's legitimacy. Not your president you say? How disconcerting. Especially after you gave me and others assurances on the old thread that was closed down that you would accept Mr. Trump if he won (I realize at the time that most were living in a media concocted fantasy land that Hillary would be victorious and celebrating on the Hudson River on election night). Civil War? Is that what you really want? I think you may want to apply "Watch out what you ask for...you just may get it." inwards if that is seriously your point of view at present. Those who keep crying about the possibility of a 'police state' may in fact bring it upon themselves with such outrageous attitudes imho. Frankly I'm extremely displeased by all of this disrespect for the Office of the Presidency. I used to dismiss negative comments against those with liberal leanings. Sadly, I'm beginning to understand what detractors have been saying now. You may make me a Sean Hannity convert yet.
Russian President Vladimir Putin weighed in yesterday on the infamous alleged Russian 'dossier' of salacious Trump behaviour when in Moscow.
During his remarks, he demonstrated more common sense than many in the US media and also took the opportunity to comment on Mr. Trump's formidable taste in women as well as the beauty of Russian women:
"Trump, when he came to Moscow a few years ago was not a politician," Mr. Putin said, according to a Sputnik News translation. "We did not even know about his political ambitions, he was just a businessman, one of the richest men in America. Is someone really thinking that our intelligence agencies are chasing every American billionaire, or what? Of course not! It's just a complete nonsense."
President Elect Trump, Mr. Putin said, was a victim of an "acute political struggle" in the U.S. Putin said Trump's foes hope to "tie the hands & legs of the newly elected president" and thus make it more difficult for Trump to implement his campaign promises.
“These bogus stories are clearly fake,” Mr. Putin said at a news conference of allegations that included Mr. Trump cavorting with prostitutes while visiting Russia.
“This is an adult, and a man who for years organised beauty contests and spoke with the most beautiful women in the world. I can hardly believe that he ran off to meet with our girls of low social morals. Although of course ours are the best in the world,” said Putin.
“The people who order these fakes which are being spread against the president-elect of America and use them in the political battle are worse than prostitutes. They have no moral limits,” the Russian president added.
"I don't know Mr. Trump, I have never met him," Putin said. "I don't know what he will do in the international arena, so I have no reason either to attack him, criticize him or defend him."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/trump-dossier-a-crude-provocation-compiled-by-a-fugitive-crook-says-russian-minister
http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-responds-to-claims-made-in-trump-russia-dossier-2017-1
Sauce for goose = sauce for gander.
How's this suit you?: I'm taking Trump's tactics for my own. I don't accept the results of the election if there was cheating involved. And I think obvious Russian involvement in helping us select our president is a clear case of an unfair election. Therefore, second amendment solutions? Oh, that would be a shame, a real shame. I'm not saying anything, y'know? I'm just sayin'......... *
"All of this will bring about the necessary investment anyway. He wants US corporate profits that are stashed overseas (increasingly) brought back home:"
Well he should certainly start with US enterprices like amazon, Facebook, Apple, or google which btw. are all also operating in Europe and having facilities and making business here but are all paying hardly any taxes because of high transfer prices these facilities pay to the headquarters and thus making no profits in the EU, simply to avoid any taxation.
The problem is, why should Google or Facebook stay in the US if Trump forces them to stop tax avoidance? (The EU has the same problem) These are multinational enterprices that can settle down everywhere in the world. And if Trump lowers the tax rate to make the US attractive for them, he will also not achieve any substantial tax revenues.
Yes, you are correct that lowering the tax rate will blow an even bigger initial hole in a massive deficit. Mr. Trump will definitely get some push back from the Congressional deficit hawks on this, but his view is to get growth going first. The growth rate has been anemic since 2008, and he aims to boost it first and foremost, even if at the expense of revenues. In a debt fueled Capitalist model, growth is critical.
@BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I'm relieved to read that you 'may' have been exaggerating your views in your prior post. I don't have a problem with that. The problem is that you are perhaps in a minority on that front. There are certainly 'Alt' radicals on both sides of the fence who are stirring up trouble and stoking passions uncontrollably. That's not a recipe for a stronger America, but rather, a weaker one. Was it really necessary to start a new thread here after the election to bitch and moan? When has that been done before? If the old thread had been left to run, it would have died out of its own accord.
I recognize that campaigns are increasingly heated and the rhetoric is overly aggressive every four years. Having said that, once an election is over, then I believe that it's time to come together to get the important work done. I believed that 8 years ago and I believe it now. There are several large problems to be solved, both domestically and overseas.
America should consider itself privileged to have elected its first 'outsider independent' President, even if he did it by, in effect, usurping an established party and even if he is a bit of a showman. Both sides of the aisle should work with him and try to influence him. The current president has already signaled to the Congressional Democrats that he is 'not ideological'. If they can't take the hint, then they are bigger idiots than I previously thought.
The important work that needs to be done is to find a president who truly has the interests of the American people (not a Russian dictator) uppermost in his mind. Herr Drumf ain't that guy. Four years? Not even! Maybe you're being optimistic... or maybe I am. We'll see. Maybe, as your thread title implies, he'll be in charge of things until The End of Days...
Civil war yes of course. Don't doubt that. The radical anarchist fringe is often nearer than you might think.
There is much ditch digging to do and many lefty propaganda-rag links to provide.
Meantime in the wake of the actual election results, the discussion regarding degrees of protectionism etc is interesting. The import-export equation, tarifs, plant locations are all good discussions.
Trump rightly is focused on America first as any sovereign leader should be.
Everything is negotiable.
@bondjames wrote Yes of course,business will have to adjust to the new political-economic climate.
They will protect their bottom lines.
Trump understands negotiations, especially the part about negotiating from strength and overplaying one's hand, so that one can be seen to pull it back, when needed.
Industry knows the game too. Bottom line is all parties will be looking for opportunity and robust productivity.
And as I do have time. (Working to rule this week.)
I will engage some walrus patrol. I see the EC ignorance remains in full bloom, and trust me I am under no delusions that this might change, as I shall explain, but what the heck. It can be cathartic sometimes to put thoughts to "paper"
Self indulgent too, I fear, pedantic even, but just this one last time.......
I promise a related Miss Universe pic.
Into the breach
@walrus piped up Only to those who don't have any understanding of how elections are actually conducted. Wouldn't matter if the EC majority didn't "agree" with the popular vote, every time. It doesn't validate or invalidate.
On the contrary, any EC winning margin only reflects validation of a sound electoral strategy ie an effective distribution of resources in order to mobilize targeted demographics.
There is a reason billions are spend on campaigns. One has to work the vote and with a an effective strategy.
I am beginning to realize though, that such pragmatic comprehension is probably beyond @walrus capability.
eg I can only presume a Rumpelstiltskin like tantrum followed the belching up of this very telling nugget
eg If I lose the game, than I simply delegitimize the game. I do remember children behaving this way. I might have even been one of them, but we were children, so we had that excuse.
====== @walrus ignorance of numbers, basic economics and such, brought to mind a recollection from university days.
Despite being lazy student, majoring in social and extra curriculars,
I do remember some first year Statistics, a course which I hated, because it required lots of actual studying, however some insights were gleaned.
Notably, that statistical data-points tell one thing and only one thing. They have a precise meaning.
In the case of the 2016 popular vote, this is what the two numbers mean.
The two numbers quantify the number of persons who cast ballots for each candidate.
That's it.
Now if one is to derive meaning from the numbers, one has to understand context.
The simple context is that the numbers were achieved, within the context of the rules of a broader electoral-college contest.
Now the analysts and/or propagandists go to work.
Hence Mark Twains famous utterance. "lies, damn lies and statistics"
Twain knew numbers can be distorted, misrepresented etc to spin all kinds of nonsense, knowingly or otherwise.
I think @walrus fits into the "otherwise" category.
Brezhnev, I am sure, fits in the "knowingly" category. ie he was a pure socialist propagandist. He knew full well, that under the rules, Canada had won the hockey super-series, however the nature of the Soviet state was to always elevate the supreme Soviet.
Thus he took the numbers, and spun them to tell a different story ie that Mother Soviet had ruled the day. One would expect no less. Such is the nature of the Socialist State.
@walrus on the other hand is not propagandizing. @walrus truly does not understand the context of the numbers.
In this case ignorance is bliss, as has been amply demonstrated.
But others of @walrus ilk are propagandizing.
The good propagandist though understands what the reality is.
They do need to know what it is, that they are actually distorting, in order to do so effectively, and target who might lap it up.
The "popular vote" numbers, ie the number of persons that voted for each candidate, would be different under different electoral systems, simply because resource allocations and strategies would change accordingly. It could not be otherwise.
Apples are not oranges. An election under Apple rules will be conducted accordingly.
An election under Oranges rules will also be conducted accordingly.
So you cannot extrapolate PV (pop vote) numbers achieved from an Orange contest and say they would be transferable to the results of an Apple contest.
The PV number of 2016 is only anecdotal to that EC contest. And anecdotal is the operative word.
If for example an actual national plebiscite were contested with a simple majority of all ballots cast - a different type of contest with different rules - then candidates would adopt appropriate strategies to mobilize targeted demographics.
In fact, as I explained in an earlier post, at the Party level, different candidates might even have been selected by the parties, as that process would have been impacted by the looming reality and associated strategies associated with the coming election and its particular rules.
What leaves @walrus out in the cold, and irrelevant, is that no self respecting DNC strategist would say they won the 2016 election, or call the results illegitimate.
They knew the rules and devised strategy accordingly, but came up short.
All they are doing with the PV numbers now, is analyzing them to see how such voting patterns might be exploited in a future EC contest and of course attempting to determine what went wrong.
This will take considerable work, as they will need to study the why and the where and how of the votes. And it truly is an inexact science.
Not to mention the landscape will have changed by the time 2020 rolls around.
In fact, I expect in the great electoral game, many participants are drawn to the game itself as opposed to party platforms.
Political strategizing is a very marketable skill. Hence the number of persons, that do cross Party lines in order to ply their talents.
@walrus I do realize this is all lost on you. You feel helpless, bordering on anarchy, However I would humbly suggest the good election-strategy folks at the DNC are back to work, busily plotting to claim the Electoral College next time out.
Some might even feel compelled to cross over to the winning side.
@bondjames wrote
You can put that in the bank. The lefty mindset is about expanding the reach and scope of government and centralizing power.
I heard one of ours, who was actually considering a run for his Party leadership, expounding on the joys of the uber government.
The lefty mindset is an activist mindset. They have agenda and the only way to impose it is by force of government.
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
We all have agendas, but those of us who are democracy minded, value a free society over one in which we can impose our will.
We value limited decentralized government which maximizes individual freedoms and thus prosperity.
The current premier of Ontario who is about as leftist-activist as you can get, betrayed herself in the last election. She would noticeably flinch when anyone questioned her on reducing government spending. In her world this is not even an option.
Growing government is always the goal. Inefficiencies and bloat are just required trade-offs.
Dealing with crippling government debt, was naturally something she had to address, so she did so by prattling on about schemes for increasing government revenues, with attempts at balancing budget via increased revenue forecasts, blah blah.
Anyway she got elected because she ran a good campaign. The Conservatives were a little cocky. They though they had her beat on her failed fiscal management, but failed to factor that elections are often popularity contests. You have to engage the voters on more visceral levels. Its not only about having good policy. You have be able to sell it and you need to be able to work the vote and work the demographics.
She will be tossed out in the next election though, as her approval rating is now at all-time historical lows. The reason is simple. Her agenda driven energy policies are impoverishing people. People can't pay their hydro bills. You can't smooth it over, when person's cost of living is noticeably going up.
She is the worst lefty idealogue I have ever seen in this country. Her own Party might toss her in a bid to salvage the next election, and they might pull it off
The Conservative leader is rather a dullard. He is quite capable of blowing things.
He could beat her now, but a new fresh leader, down the road, maybe not.
Who knows? Unlike some folks I can't predict elections with absolute certainty.
Edit:
As promised related Miss Universe nod
Iceland
Where walrus belch and burp all day long, kind of like a since discontinued-thread prior to a certain election.
Poor walruses are now ditch digging
but Miss Iceland compensates, radiating peace and love to all-even grumpy walruses
They're better than the mud photos. We grade on the curve around here, for timbo the bar's been set pretty low.
@blowhard
@flatulence
my personal favourite @walrusAvecblowhole
but that's a little cumbersome.
but it does play on the general @blowhardiness of the entity in question.
but @walrus is a good default non de plume
It works
@Creasy47, you are unqualified as you don't have a brother that owns Blackwater- the firm that charged the U.S. government $1000 per day per merc to help 'stabilize' Iraq. God's work, donchya know. Get thee to a gentrified & politically connected nunnery...
I found a $20 bill on a public street once and kept it, is that qualified enough?
:))
A lot of these cabinet picks have positions that seem to be contradictory to the departments they are being asked to lead. I suspect a form of creative disruption may be Mr. Trump's aim. To quote Blofeld, "out of horror, beauty". Hopefully it plays out that way.
It doesn't appear to hurt if one is a billionaire or a Goldman Sachs alum.
Thank you to the outgoing 44th President, Mr. Barack H. Obama, for his 8 years of scandal free service to the United States. He launched his historic campaign on the back of a superb keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, vaulted to fame and captured the hearts and minds of the world. Yes We Can! He will be missed. His presidency was inevitable to some of us who saw it coming in 2008 & some of us were especially thankful that he won his contentious primary battle.
Advance congratulations to the incoming 45th President Mr. Donald J. Trump. Billionaire Business Developer, Television Star, & Celebrity. Another historic occupant, he confounded the critics and the pundits, although again, some of us saw it coming and inevitable. I wish him the best of fortune as he takes on the most challenging job of all. Some of us were especially thankful that he won his contentious general election campaign. Make America Great Again! For all of us!
A few photos from earlier today:
A few photos from yesterday's festivities:
At Arlington National Cemetery (Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) with incoming VP Mike Pence
Outside the Lincoln Memorial
At a Donor's Dinner last night with wife Melania
Jon Voight's speech (thank you sir for having the gonads to do it)
For those interested, included below is a link to a biography of the incoming President of the United States:
http://www.biography.com/people/donald-trump-9511238
Useful (or useless depending on how you look at it) fact: 3 of the last 4 presidents share the same birth year: 1946 (Messrs. Trump, Clinton & Bush) and were all born roughly within 2 months of each other.
Or the other way around.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-potus-twitter-banner-545389
I suppose that isn't a surprise whatsoever, considering his Inauguration was incredibly barren. I'm sure it was a bit of an ego bruising for him.
This is what makes America great -such smooth and civilized transfers of power.
Great pomp!
Real interesting seeing the former Presidents together. W and Hillary sure seem like good pals.
I do like Willie. He's a civilized, well socialized individual and W has a schmoozy charm.
Jimmy Carter not hanging with the others. He's of a slightly different time I guess.
Bush Sr is ill, probably doesn't have long left, at age 93.
Obama, the Clintons and Bushes all seem like good pals
Bill and Hillary looking smart, and thats old Bob Dole, WWII veteran to Hillary's right, in the chair, who got beat by Clinton in 1996.
Trump and Hillary making nice. I believe he mouthed thank-you to her, according to a tweet I saw.
Maybe they'll do battle again in another 4 years.
Great day for America!
And the bill signing ceremony that CNN ran live. That was real interesting. Pelosi, Mitch,Paul Ryan, Trumpy, Pence, everyone on their best behaviour, joking smiling, getting things done. These are good people. A civilized lot.
the formal swearing in. Melania kinda echoing Jackie, with that rather stylish get-up
These shots always crack me up. It's a club. And I don't meet that in a bad way. There's only a handful of persons alive at any given time, that can commiserate over their shared experience of the oval office.
Good times. "See you at the annual President's golf tourney and yuk fest."
Melania seems a little of fish out of water yet. This whole scene is going to take some time. The other three have it nailed down. :)
I may emigrate or get some temporary status. Maybe get a job in the States.
I want to help make both Canada and America great!
Two great hockey nations.
I'll live here in the summer. Somewhere warm stateside in the winter.
:( .
But, I think it's important to explain that smiley a bit better....
I think it's better, more wiser that the 'losers' of elections like those in the USA last year, and probably like those in my country The Netherlands in two months from now, stay silent for a while. Call me one of those 'losers' as well then. I've always been a fierce debater, I'm very assertive, and in real-life friends know me as a rather dominant speaker and debater. I don't take 'no' for an answer.
Yet, after watching Trump's inaugural address I have this uncomfortable feeling that it's better if I stay more silent. In my own personal life I have had lots of problems. And even now as a Dutch expat living and working in Barcelona, Spain, I have a lot of problems. Certain members of my family would probably think of me as a 'crazy guy' for accepting this insane lower salary I receive as opposed to a Dutch salary. And make no mistake, financially I'm pretty poor. Got only €85 left for the remainder of the month.
Even then I can say that my 'international' style of working and living truly enriched my life. Both as a private citizen and as an employee. You are seeing the complexities of this planet in a more nuanced way, and it becomes so much easier to criticise your own stupid financial mistakes first, instead of blaming banks and governments all the time.
But no matter what I write, it will mostly fall on deaf ears. And when I'm saying that it's better for me to stay silent more often, it is because I sadly have to admit that it's very hard to sell my style of living as something positive for others who struggle with money. My style of living, my ideology, is currently losing. And there's not much I can do about that. Except that I feel very sad.
I wish Donald Trump the best of luck. And probably the man will have some surprises for us, some positive surprises. But to me it felt like I was watching a man ranting against my lifestyle, and with it all my shortcomings. As if Donald was saying "You're fired, you're not my kind of guy!". That hurts and that's not something I expect from a president.
So I will end again with this smiley: :-(.
I took it, because it was the best deal on the table. I didn't have anything else to wave in his face.
I can't speak to your work, but I find in my business, the trick is to stay connected, and always take the best deal on table, even if it sucks, beause it potentially sets you up for a better deal.
Stay active, stay working.
Cheers!
==
I'm actually enjoying a Nancy Pelosi speech today. She did a real nice job with the flag presentation.
These career politicos will be back to their battles soon, but I do think its speaks well for the great Republic, that they can also conduct their affairs in so civil a manner.
The Bush Obama transfer- nice and smooth. Same with this one.
I'm proud to be an American today. OK honoray American.
@Gustav_Graves, you can be such a party pooper. Today is a day to celebrate and come together. The President will surprise you positively.
The best photos for me today were of Former President Obama and President Trump. These two do really seem to have hit it off personally, or else they are fantastic actors (neither of them are known to hide their true feelings so I believe they do genuinely like each other despite differences in policy). Hopefully they can indulge their shared passion for golf with former President Clinton during weekends:
A few more from this momentous day:
The 44th President meets the first future female President? It's not as far fetched as it may seem. She was rocking the white pantsuit, made famous by someone else, far more sytlishly than that other person. I'd vote for her.
Yet, I can't help feeling of my youth when I was bullied a lot.....and how that negatively influenced my (future) life. And let's be honest here, there's a new US president now who turned bullying into some piece of media art. I don't care if he means it or not. And most of the time it's not even racism. But bullying mostly creates division and polarization and usually it doesn't lead to positivity and unification.
I wish Mr Trump God's strength. He needs it.
Here's my comment in a nutshell: People don't understand President Trump. They think they do, but they are projecting.
This man is a disrupter. He is unconventional, creative, instinctive and relentless. He is not an intellectual but he has a very good eye for what's happening. He will disrupt the Washington machine because it has become fat and lazy. Think business monopolies and what happens when a new entrant arrives (like Apple or Uber). The process will be messy, there will be casualties (particularly those who benefited unfairly before, either collectively or individually), but eventually, what comes out of it will be much more sustainable and effective than what we had before. I understand what he is doing with these cabinet picks. He is creating disruption within the agencies. That's the way to shake a bureaucracy out and make change. It will never happen otherwise due to ingrained vested interests. It won't be pretty, and it won't be perfect, but there will be change.
Foreign countries & institutions that have benefited more than their share will see changes too. Yes, I'm afraid the EU is on its own for now, but that's because nothing can be done to save it from the outside. As I've said countless times before, the EU's fate is in its hands. Reform or die a slow and painful death. It's as simple as that.
I can tell you one thing. He will get things done. That's what the people who voted for him demand. No more high in sky talk that gets shut down by the Washington machine. This is now about action.
EDIT: He will also live up to his name. He is looking for the best deal on everything. Identify the problem, negotiate the hell out of it (without ever showing your true 'trump' cards...keep them guessing and let them come to you with their solutions...then take best one you can deal) and get to a practical solution. No high minded unimplementable ideology. Just the best solution that can be possible once disruption throws out the possible options.
So I didn't understand the guys who bullied me all these years? The guys who were shouting "Hey ugly Beavis!!" at me all the time when I had to walk 200 m's from one building to the other classroom? And that this continued in my 2nd year at highschool when even 1st graders that I didn't know continued shouting "Beavis!" at me? Tell me please. I didn't understand the people who bullied me all these years? Did I have to translate that bullying into some kind of positive uplifting message that could facilitate some selfempowerment?
Regarding promising things.....I think I've heard a very different inaugural address from Trump. Where Obama actually warned people that no problems can be solved in one...or two terms during his inaugural speeches, Trump did not care to say that. It was one giant campaign spot in which he doesn't nuance things and basically says "I will make America great again". That slogan in itself is unrealistic and nothing short of exaggeration. Not to mention the fact he already registered the slogan "Keep America great". And then there was this giant indirect middlefinger to everything and everyone that represents 'the elite' in DC, Obama included (which is bullocks, because in a way he was an outsider too, a mild centre-left populist) until he became president.
His speech was short and to the point. He is not an orator and apparently he wrote it himself (I think we can see that based on the content). It's genuine and reflects what he feels and what he's been saying. He is not a traditional politician. He didn't directly attack former President Obama. He attacked the Washington system and what politics has meant for people who are frustrated. The former president is a big enough man not to take that personally, because he himself has been as frustrated by that system as anyone. It stopped him from implementing most of his agenda for 8 long years.
People can judge the new President and make their decision on what to do with him four years from now based on his results, or lack thereof. I believe that he expects the public to hold him accountable for his promises & results and not his oratory.
This was a fascinating scene to watch. CNN ran it live. You could hear them all unscripted, making little jokes and friendly jabs at each other.
I have new respect for Pelosi. Her civility was exemplary and maybe that shouldn't be surprising, and it isnt, as she is a very polished presenter.
But her manner in particular, illustrates I think, what truly equips some of these senior leaders for power.
They exude a natural grace, civility and competence in these environments.
They are cool cucumbers. They truly do seem to respect the great traditions that underscore the American experience, and do embrace the lofty responsibilities of their roles.
It was on full display during this extended live segment that CNN showed
Such traits are essential to conducting the business of the nation in a civilized productive manner.
Yes, civilized is today's word of the day.
@bondjames wrote
This one is smart apple. Definitely one to watch. Speaking of I am having some trouble keeping all the blondes straight. There's another looker behind her. No idea who that one is. Probably just someone standing there.
But I count no less than 4 who routinely line up behind new President.
===I am a little worried about supermodel First Lady. Not about her credentials -
based on this wiki blurb below, she does seem an interesting sort.
My friendly worry, is that the whole America thing, Land of the Free, red white and blue, might be a little overwhelming.
The pomp and protocol of office, comes naturally to the Nancy Pelosis, Hillarys, Michelles and Laura Bushes of the world. They are of America.
Melania grew up in a different world. It may take some time for her to ease comfortably into her new and very public role.
This is obviously not a major issue, but I thought she seemed a little overwhelmed, whereas Pelosi and her ilk, easily navigate these waters.
Melania says she has traditional First Lady models such as Jackie and Betty Ford. So that can work for her. She's certainly got Jackie worthy looks.
Personally I always liked Laura Bush's look, but Jackie of course was awesome.
===Melania wiki blurb
"Melania assumed the role of First Lady of the United States on January 20, 2017. She is the second foreign-born woman to hold the position (after Louisa Adams, wife of John Quincy Adams, who was born in 1775 in London to an American father and British mother).[a][65][66] Melania is the first First Lady to have immigrated to the United States.[67][68]
At 5 foot 11 inches, she is also one of the tallest First Ladies to hold the office, tied with Michelle Obama and Eleanor Roosevelt who were also that height.[69]
When asked by The New York Times in 1999 what her role would be if Donald Trump were to become president, Melania replied: "I would be very traditional. Like Betty Ford or Jackie Kennedy."[8] In 2016, she told CNN her focus as First Lady would be to help women and children. She also said she would combat cyberbullying, especially among children, having quit social media herself due to the "negativity"."
@bondjames wrote This is interesting. I heard some Canadian reaction today. Political pundits were suggesting that the Cdn government understands that when dealing with the new admin, it will need to show how America might benefit from whatever deals are being brewed.
This is posturing to a large degree though. It is all about negotiation. Clearly both sides need something. There are always trade-offs. Canada historically has strong relations with the USA, as natural free world, North American allies, but some of the bilateral trade talks have been a little frisky.
So we have to be extra vigilant now, to make sure we can cut some good "Canada First" deals with the new Make America Great admin.
==I think we took a first step, by letting USA beat us in the World Junior hockey Gold medal game, so Trump owes for that. That's quite the concession on our part.
We had to make due with silver, but it could have been worse. Better than losing to Russia. That's not allowed.
Edit:
This inauguration ball is a hoot.
( Even Anderson Cooper is very bearable. Actually, he's generally pretty smooth and pro.)
But what I'm getting at, is the entertainment. Sinatra, the Rockettes, a Michelle Pfeiffer look-a-like in a slink red dress.
And then Pelican 212! Who?
These guys!
These kids!
They come out hitting an old Monkees song- "I'm a believer".
Now I feel compelled to dust off the old Monkees Greatest Hits. Mickey Dolenz on drums!
I love America! I'm going to bake apple pie tomorrow, or maybe buy one, and get a big flag for the basement. :D
Plus watch wall-to-wall NFL conference championships on Sunday.
On a side note, I must say I've really been enjoying the inaugural ball festivities that are playing on CNN at the moment this evening. There may not be any 'big names' on show, but everyone who is performing so far has really been good imho. Classy stuff. The Piano Guys just finished off and The Rockettes were excellent as well.
All good. I honestly don't care how many balls a new POTUS attends.
The entertainment is great. Good for my cultural diversity.
I generally only listen to good rock bands, and a selection of female pop stars that I like
If I was POTUS, I would invite the Stones, Macca, The Who, Teenage Head, Pat Benatar, Belinda Carlisle,Kylie and Pelican 212.