SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Donald Trump appears to have changed his story about a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower that is pivotal to the special counsel's investigation, tweeting that his son met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer to collect information about his political opponent.
[...] That is a far different explanation than Trump gave 13 months ago, when a statement dictated by the president but released under the name of Donald Trump Jr., read: "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
President Trump Changed His Story on Son's Meeting with Russian Lawyer
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 221 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Misfortune, n.:
The kind of fortune that never misses.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:59PM (3 children)
The problem, as you point out, is that he will use up or burn out or actively destroy anything. I always find it odd that people who call themselves "conservative" are often the first to "sell off the family silver" for short-term gain (e.g. privatize public assets, and use up resources that only exist because someone else specifically conserved them).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 10 2018, @05:03AM (2 children)
Those generalizations aren't always short-sighted. For example, Europe did quite well (and will continue to do so indefinitely) by privatizing its telecommunications and airline industries which in large part used to be public assets. Public assets frequently don't make sense in the long term because they're managed by people even more incompetent and short-sighted than the "next quarter" business person.
Another example of such incompetence is the regulatory thrashing that frequently comes from tragedy of the commons scenarios where someone abuses a public asset, the regulators come up with new rules for dealing with the abuse, and then in a renewal of the cycle, the abusers come up with new ways to abuse. The end result is that the public asset becomes much less useful than it would be, if owned by a private entity, because of a mesh of rules and laws that obstruct legitimate use more than illegitimate abuse.
As to resources that exist "only" because someone conserved them, it frequently doesn't make sense to conserve resources. For example, conserving resources merely to conserve them in the future (in other words, never actually using the resource ever, even as a possible emergency resource/insurance policy) is far less useful than using the resource today. Some resources are short lived. It doesn't make sense to grow oranges and then let them rot.
In summary, it's a cool story bro, but reality is often different.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 22 2018, @07:33PM (1 child)
True, it doesn't make sense to grow fruit and let it rot. OTOH I worked in an office building whose footprint (and parking lot) had been an orchard where I picked fruit less than 5 years earlier. Now NOBODY will get any fruit, probably forever, because it will never go back to being an orchard. I'm sure someone made much more money than selling fruit . . . once.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:40AM
And that would be a big deal, if it weren't for the enormous acreage devoted to the growing of fruit.
And the people who use such office space. They make much more money than selling fruit indefinitely.