At first I had the same reaction to “He says what he means and never backtracks” but then I thought about it some more and I only think it’s half wrong. I don’t know if he “says what he means” because I don’t know if he ever really “means” anything sincerely, but I don’t think he ever really “backtracks” entirely. He definitely does this…
…but in the Donald’s mind, that isn’t “backtracking” because he never really goes back and admits that his original position was wrong. It’s more like he pretends that his original position on an issue never existed in the first place.
In my mind he’s more of a bullshitter than a liar.
Obama is a “liar” because you never know what he actually believes and can bet $1,000 everything that comes out if his mouth is done so based on “how it polls”.
Trump just says what-ever-the-fuck he wants to. You can bet that the central theme of what he says is what he believes, but is, without question, the type that will say he called 200 people when he called 4.
You know what I mean?
Not saying one is better than the other (I prefer one to the other, but both suck), just saying it’s different. At least in my mind.
“His company, Fuyao Glass, has invested over $1 billion stateside, according to the Post, the most significant move of which is opening its U.S. factory in the Ohio town of Moraine, a suburb of Dayton, back in October. The glass maker is re-purposing the town’s former General Motors assembly that had been standing empty since late 2008, as the Dayton Daily News reports.
According to Ohio TV station WDTN, the plant now employs a workforce of almost 2,000, and Cao expects that the fully operational facility will employ up to 3,000 workers.”
Can we talk about how President-Elect Trump either:
a) still doesn’t know anything about our country’s nuclear capabilities.
b) actually does understand our country’s nuclear capabilities, but still decides to Tweet “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
Oh, dear fucking lord. I know this sounds great to you, raj, because your understanding of military matters is about the same as my understanding of particle physics, but this is just a wee bit more complicated than “I’ve told the guys at Boeing to price out a new strike fighter.”
He’s not wrong in his criticism of the F-35 program. But the gazillion dollars that have been poured into the F-35 are already gone; they’re sunk costs. The attraction of the F-35 was, supposedly, going to be its ability to do, like, everything that a combat aircraft has to do. A “comparable” F-18 Super Hornet simply does not exist. The F-35 was supposed to replace all of the following: the F-16, F/A-18, A-10, and AV-8. Deciding to scrap the F-35 program now (whether it’s the right or wrong decision) is not simply “drop that and build a new generation of F-18’s instead!”
Someone else who knows more about this should chime in, if they’re out there, but my understanding of this would indicate that’s a typical “say something that sounds good but actually has no real substance or value” tweet.
My buddy the F16 pilot says no single plane can do all of those things, and perhaps some desk jockey brass have worked up a scenario that can’t be solved by 1 plane.
I have wondered why the push wasn’t more towards unmanned personally.
That’s basically my understanding as well (that the entire concept of the F-35 was a little too pie-in-the-sky), but I just wanted to illustrate that this isn’t quite as simple as “Call Boeing for a free price quote on a new F-18!”
