EU official used colorful, simplified cue cards in trade meeting with Trump

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/international-taxes/399042-eu-official-used-colorful-simplified-cue-cards-to-explain

by mpweiher • 8 years ago

20 27 8 years ago

docdeek• 8 years ago

I know this is meant to feed into the whole ‘Trump is an idiot’ meme but is it really that unusual? My CEO doesn’t have the time to read a half dozen 100 page reports - he wants a two-page memo; he doesn’t want a 200 slide deck, he wants me to report the essentials on a couple of slides. Key points, summaries, icons, top-line and bottom-line numbers - seems pretty normal for briefing someone with a lot on their plate.

phito• 8 years ago

Yeah pretty sure it's used all the time.

You don't need to make up things to point his stupidity. It just makes things worse.

bildung• 8 years ago

I think it is unusual for meeting of what are supposed to be equally qualified people, e.g. your CEO meets with another CEO and gets such a memo from them, not from their employees.

TazeTSchnitzel• 8 years ago

Trump reportedly won't read 3 pages of normal size print report unless it mentions him every third sentence.

smadge• 8 years ago

I feel like my expectations for a president have been unrealistically set by the TV show the West Wing where president Bartlett is often staying up until 3am reading hundreds of pages of policy reports, not getting into Twitter fueds and refusing to read anything handed to him.

growlist4• 8 years ago

Reagan took a pretty relaxed approach by all accounts.

timrichard• 8 years ago

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Juncker relied on more than a dozen of the cards while explaining trade topics to Trump

The article wasn't too clear on whether the flashcards were for Juncker's benefit or Trump's. The Serially Sedated or the Conceptually Challenged. Yay, politicians.

knbknb• 8 years ago

I don't think Juncker has ever used such cards anytime when me works in Brussels or elsewhere in Europe.

growlist4• 8 years ago

I guess these cards might also be useful to help see through a drunken haze.

s9w5• 8 years ago

Comments (and articles) like this are a-ok, but even the slightest deviation from the ultra-left bias gets flagged or removed within minutes or hours. All while self-congratulatingly blasting against right-wing opinion bubbles? Okay then

oxide• 8 years ago

Most people here lean libertarian right. You're seeing ghosts.

majewsky2• 8 years ago

I'm on the left side of the political spectrum, and I find it fascinating when right-wingers spot "ultra-left bias" in forums that I find balanced or right-leaning.

growlist4• 8 years ago

I was talking about Juncker!

posting2fast• 8 years ago

They may be dumb or an asshole or wrong about X, but they're still your brother/sister. I don't mean Trump, I mean Americans, being a subset of humanity. At the very least, they're people you're better off working with in whatever common ground you have, than fighting endless and unwinnable battles about someone being stupid or ugly as a distraction from how badly things are, and how muddy and muddled the road forward is... it's really incredibly sad to see that nation so torn up. Not over nothing, but also not over anything that warrants this, and the way it's treated. Just like Brexit, I get no joy from it. It just sucks, and instead of a growing opportunity, it's just used for more wounds. As if people really want it to get even worse; because whatever the lips say, that's what the hands are doing says.

How much has been achieved by the eye rolling and talking about "the other side" (no matter by whom and at what "side") since Trump was elected? What has been rationally been recognized as a problem, and what steps have been taken towards solutions? Where have people made an effort to hear others, instead of their bubble? I'm sure there are people outside the limelight who actually did do these things, but from what I see being surfaced most of the time, it's kind of a shit show.

I'm sure it's a scene in a movie or ten, where parents have a real bad fight, but then realize that screaming at each other is something their kid should not see, because regardless of who is right, or who wins, or whatever, seeing them sink so low can do a whole other set of damage. This feels like that movie for me, for too long now. Be wary of things that are hard or impossible to come back from.

I'm not one who gives a crap about badges or offices, but even I feel uneasy how the office of the President of the US is being damaged by this. I say by this, not just "by Trump". You have to think of the future, too. And by this I do not mean "no criticism", that is 100% not my point. Adults do have discussions, and they fight, but being demeaning about it is orthogonal to that and not good ever, in no context. And also no matter how wrong or dumb or how much of an asshole someone is. Actually: The more they are, the more you should "win", and the more important it is for that to be clean and fair, and for that to allow them a route to "join the win" by actually coming around from their own volition and voluntary insight.

I'm not American, I never was in America and there has been no president during my lifetime I really liked. I could not care, but I do. Because "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" as John Donne wrote, and this can't go on. You are better than this, all of you. Roughly speaking, "you" invented being better at this, ffs. So take care, of yourself and each other, and as in actually do that. Please.

Sorry for it being so jumbled, not sorry for ranting... I adamantly believe in the importance of this thing I don't know how to put well.

pjc50• 8 years ago

The business of demeaning the President has been going on for years, dating back to the Clinton administration at least; there was a real scandal (sexual harassment of an intern) among a huge cloud of guilt-by-association scandals (Whitewater etc) that were held onto despite being cleared by thorough investigations.

Then we had all those people trying to claim that Obama wasn't born in the US and was therefore disqualified?

Anyone remember Reagan and his astrologer, and probably Altzheimer's?

I'm sure it's a scene in a movie or ten, where parents have a real bad fight, but then realize that screaming at each other is something their kid should not see, because regardless of who is right, or who wins, or whatever, seeing them sink so low can do a whole other set of damage.

In real life this often ends with one parent deciding, again and again, that they have to give up and take the abuse because otherwise they're going to be beaten. Or murdered.

plaidfuji• 8 years ago

Hacker News is a welcome respite from traditional American news sources whose sole purpose today is wall-to-wall Trump coverage. Leave it to HN commenters to find a long-term thoughtful and productive point of view when a Trump story finally does make it up through the ranks.

I know when you say "brother/sister" you're talking in the abstract, but the problem is that intra-familial political divides are increasingly uncommon, I.e. Trump voters are unlikely to even be my third cousin. A recent precinct-by-precinct 2016 election map published by the NYT showed that it's likely I'd have to drive up to 30 miles to find a precinct that swung the other way, so they're not my neighbor either. Major protests, which remain one of the more productive tools of political communication because they require actual human effort, happen in large cities and end up preaching to the choir, effectively. The "Other Side" receives news of the worst elements of these protests in coverage designed to make them angry, /because that's what news coverage today is designed to do/. People read the news to get mad about something. They click on the story that's likely to have the juiciest arguments. And it's not the media's fault - yes they choose what to publish, but they have to maximize profits and therefore clicks.

I think what people don't get, or keep forgetting or whatever, is that Trump won because of the Midwest. Yes, he carried a bunch of traditional red states that were going to vote for him anyway. But he won because he convinced swaths of workers in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that he would fight harder to keep their jobs around than his opponent. And he's basically stuck to that promise, whether or not what he's doing will actually help them in the long term, or if he even understands the basic tenets of global trade (as this article seems to insinuate he doesn't).

These are the people who are being alienated by Democrats' efforts to unseat Trump at any cost, instead of pushing their own solution to the changing economic environment. What they'll likely say in 2020 is "so he's racist and sexist- but I still have a better chance with him than you."

As much as I'm nervous about the country being run by somebody who appears to be incompetent, ego-driven and lacking long-term strategy, I'm more nervous about what the left's candidate will be in 2024. In other words, if Trump is the response to 8 years of Obama, what will the response to 8 years of Trump look like?

Not sure where this is going so I'm gonna stop.

jarfil• 8 years ago

Just remember that you've always been at war with Eastasia, Eurasia always supported you... and Trump always promised to cut useless jobs.

Saying otherwise is plusuntruth, I mean, fake news!

candiodari• 8 years ago

I know when you say "brother/sister" you're talking in the abstract, but the problem is that intra-familial political divides are increasingly uncommon, I.e. Trump voters are unlikely to even be my third cousin. A recent precinct-by-precinct 2016 election map published by the NYT showed that it's likely I'd have to drive up to 30 miles to find a precinct that swung the other way, so they're not my neighbor either.

In the vast majority of districts, even in California, Trump scored ~32% on average. That means, minimum he scored ~13% (ie. 1 in 8 voters), average 32%, and up to 80%.

The above statement is bullshit. In your immediate environment, at the very least 13% of people voted for Trump, and very likely more. The odds that you don't know, have as a neighbor, or are family to one of them, seem very remote indeed.

That anyone in California (who would like to remain there) lies about their political preference ... seems a much, MUCH more likely explanation.

So, the real situation (again, with overwhelming likelihood), is

1) If you take the 8 houses around yours, one voted for Trump, absolute minimum. More likely 3 (in California, which would be the minimum). Out of your family, 1 in 8 voted for Trump, minimum (given that it will be skewed to the older ones, lets say, one of your parents, two of your grandparents seems a good guess).

2) These people clearly feel that you would react unreasonably if you found out, and that's why you don't know. Given how you describe Trump voters, I can certainly see why they feel this way.

But of course, I get that it's very comforting for you to think like this, even if it's extremely unlikely to be true. By the way, wasn't the whole point of Democrat values that people can have whatever political views they want, and you should support them regardless ?

EU official used colorful, simplified cue cards in trade meeting with Trump

Related Stories