Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:13 pm https://twitter.com/KeatonPatti/status/ ... 8961880064

We can finally achieve the dream of milk independence by tapping our greatest resource...COAL!

And I thought milking almonds was difficult!

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:27 pm https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/statu ... 6002777088

Zarathud wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:21 pm Owch. But we'll see how Trump reacts when his Southern deplorables are affected. It's going to differentiate between him being a shitgoblin or a racist shitgoblin.

His reaction is simple.

Shitgoblin wrote:Democrats stole money from FEMA by refusing to fund ICE to make me look bad. My response is the best in history. People didn't just thank me, they loved me for it. They had the driest paper towels and the wettest water. Better than ungrateful Puerto Rico.

Orange Dipshit is in a lather right now. He’s tweeting more crap about the death toll in Puerto Rico. It’s really bugging him that not everyone is buying into his vision of things.

Honestly, I hope he just goes insane so we can replace him with the human cut out that is Pence. At least he’s stupid and quiet.

The idea that the president is not already mentally ill only exists amongst red hat wearers. Even his staff are telling us they are doing everything they can to keep him from blowing up the world.

How long before he's diagnosed remotely by every quack in America based on his tweets that he is clearly a paranoid schizophrenic, I have no idea.

Have you ever watch a paranoid schizophrenic off their meds? I saw the website of one once. It wasn't pretty. But it wasn't that far off the president's behaviour either. Ok that's not true, but the president is like dampened version.

I look forward to the Timecube initiative.

Milk AhaaAaaaa. Savior of the universe!!

Defiant wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:53 am Starting January 20, Donald Trump Can Send Unblockable Mass Text Messages to the Entire Nation

While it’d be a true nightmare to get screeching alerts from your phone that “Loser Senate Democrats still won’t confirm great man Peter Thiel to Supreme Court. Sad!”, there are some checks and balances on this. While President-elect Trump hasn’t shown much impulse control when it comes to his favorite mass-messaging service, Twitter, the process for issuing a WEA isn’t as simple as typing out a 90-character alert from a presidential smartphone and hitting “Send.”

FEMA to test 'Presidential Alert' system next week

"If you think Trump is a great president, please press 1. If you think Trump is the greatest president, please press 2. For all others, please hold on the line while we lookup the name corresponding to this cellphone account to add to our watchlist."

"Vote Republican in the mid terms and enter for a chance to win a Disney vacation!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3505465345

The President of the United States of America wrote:While my (our) poll numbers are good, with the Economy being the best ever, if it weren’t for the Rigged Russian Witch Hunt, they would be 25 points higher! Highly conflicted Bob Mueller & the 17 Angry Democrats are using this Phony issue to hurt us in the Midterms. No Collusion!

He's going to *explicitly* reference the midterms in firing Mueller, isn't he?

His poll numbers are what, 32%? If thats best ever Id hate to see his worst.

I really like the "my (our) poll numbers are good". The attempt is to get his supporters to think that Mueller is directly attacking them. It's a painfully obvious attempted piece of associative judo, and the fact that it's working on a bunch of people is terrifying.

Everything works on that percentage of Trumpets.

Whoa, now. Let’s not sully the name of a fantastic instrument by associating it with Trump love.

Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Zarathud wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:41 pm No Republican can ever claim to be fiscally conservative again. Supporting the Trump tax cut was a crime against America's future.

Yep, I will laugh in the face of any Republican that dares to mention the deficit in the future. Whatever you thought of Clinton, she proposed to pay for any new programs and not worsen the deficit. She was far more responsible than Republicans.

Who Killed the Deficit Hawks? You and Me, but Especially Paul Ryan.

Prediction: Right-leaning deficit hawks will magically spring back to life the minute the Democrats takes control of some combination of the House, Senate, and Oval Office. It will turn out that the hawks weren't really dead, they were just resting their eyes. It's anyone's guess when left-leaning deficit hawks might re-emerge. Reason's Peter Suderman has argued convincingly that due to blatant Republican hypocrisy on spending issues, Democrats no longer even have to pretend to give a shit about how to pay for stuff anymore. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other "Democratic socialists" really don't have to come up with plausible means to pay for $40 trillion (!) in new spending over the next decade because Republicans didn't bother to pay for all the new stuff they bought.

Moliere wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:17 pm

Grifman wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Zarathud wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:41 pm No Republican can ever claim to be fiscally conservative again. Supporting the Trump tax cut was a crime against America's future.

Yep, I will laugh in the face of any Republican that dares to mention the deficit in the future. Whatever you thought of Clinton, she proposed to pay for any new programs and not worsen the deficit. She was far more responsible than Republicans.

Who Killed the Deficit Hawks? You and Me, but Especially Paul Ryan.

Prediction: Right-leaning deficit hawks will magically spring back to life the minute the Democrats takes control of some combination of the House, Senate, and Oval Office. It will turn out that the hawks weren't really dead, they were just resting their eyes. It's anyone's guess when left-leaning deficit hawks might re-emerge. Reason's Peter Suderman has argued convincingly that due to blatant Republican hypocrisy on spending issues, Democrats no longer even have to pretend to give a shit about how to pay for stuff anymore. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other "Democratic socialists" really don't have to come up with plausible means to pay for $40 trillion (!) in new spending over the next decade because Republicans didn't bother to pay for all the new stuff they bought.

Paul Ryan has never actually been a deficit hawk. He just plays one on TV.

If you ever wanted a bigger case for #fakenews, it'd be the media narrative around Paul Ryan. They built a rich fantasy about his policy wonk and deficit hawk ways. What he was truly good at was self-promotion and working reporters to spin his yarn. And his reward? He'll ride off to some cushy job somewhere.

Where is the non-FOX News source your figure for the Democrats?

None of this both sides bullshit. I've been railing against Ryan and the Republicans as fiscally irresponsible for almost two decades now. Trump put us $2.3 trillion in deficit in a single year, about 3 times its estimated cost. Fact. The estimated $7 trillion cost over 10 years will likely be worse because it assumed the discredited Laffer Curve revenue gains from growth. This will also be proven Fact, but Trump will be out of office leaving someone else to pay. It's his standard business practice.

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:04 am If you ever wanted a bigger case for #fakenews, it'd be the media narrative around Paul Ryan. They built a rich fantasy about his policy wonk and deficit hawk ways. What he was truly good at was self-promotion and working reporters to spin his yarn. And his reward? He'll ride off to some cushy job somewhere.

Come on, now. That’s not fair. Paul Ryan is a multi-faceted guy with a number of talents.

Think of all the "fit dudes" in prison.

Fit dude is not a meaningful attribute for a politician.

I don't give a crap about his personal life, barring evidence of dishonesty with those closest and dearest to him. If you'll betray the trust of your family, betraying the public trust would barely be a speed bump.

I'm not saying Ryan has personal life problems, I'm saying I don't care about his personal life outside of a very narrow set of criteria.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:08 am Think of all the "fit dudes" in prison.

Fit dude is not a meaningful attribute for a politician.

I don't give a crap about his personal life, barring evidence of dishonesty with those closest and dearest to him. If you'll betray the trust of your family, betraying the public trust would barely be a speed bump.

I'm not saying Ryan has personal life problems, I'm saying I don't care about his personal life outside of a very narrow set of criteria.

You’re being way too narrow in assessing Ryan’s skills. Did you not see those gym pics, let alone his marathon PR?

Kraken wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:27 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 pm

Kraken wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:17 am

Daehawk wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:32 am Trump supporters will stay Trump supporters. He could pull a gun and shoot one and then say he is draining the swamp and the supporter would whisper drain the swamp as they bled out. He can do no wrong and they believe everything he says. I see everything he says as stupid and a outright lie. I no longer watch anything one him. Ill read up on it but I refuse to hear his fucktarded mouth speak.

I think his approval is like 36% yet just watch come Nov at how many people vote GOP still.

You know what will be a good metric for this? The MA governor's race. Charlie Baker is the most popular guv in the US because he's stayed out of Trumpland and worked harmoniously with Democrats. His actual accomplishments are middling, but he's fiscally conservative and a decent enough man. Then, last week, he endorsed the Republican Senate candidate running against Warren. That guy's platform is "I'm Trump's BFF; vote for me and we'll have a seat at the table." Since then, Democrats have started dropping out of Baker's corner. Baker can't win without some D support, so what should have been a cakewalk is starting to look competitive. If he loses (or just barely squeaks by) it will be because he hugged a Trumpster.

Interesting, and a real shame. I really liked Charlie Baker. Good guy, and I'm more or less with him on many of the positions he holds. Surprised he endorsed a Trumper, but then again, that endorsement was pretty far from a hug:

When asked last Friday whether he would endorse Diehl, Baker failed to mention his fellow Republican by name: “I’ve endorsed the ticket, which I said I was going to do months ago,” said Baker. He went on to emphasize that he’s focused on his own campaign and helping Republican candidates who can advance his legislative agenda on Beacon Hill.

Pretty weak tea there.

Well, it's not a trend yet. Maybe Baker can keep walking the line that he's balanced on for the past two years, and maybe not. Gonzalez will do what he can to knock him off of it.

You know what else bodes ill for Baker? 1/3 of Republicans -- 98,000 people -- voted for the bigot Scott Lively. That's how narrow Baker's line is. He's not Trumpy enough for 1/3 of Republicans, and Democrats are watching for any hint of Trumpiness.

If anyone else is interested, the Globe tackled this very topic today.

At best, the unlikely pairing means more awkward moments ahead for Baker, who early polls showed had a large lead over any potential Democratic opponent. At worst, the presence of a Trump enthusiast on the GOP ticket could cause Democrats and independents who’ve supported Baker in the past — and whom he needs to win reelection — to reject the whole GOP ticket. Conservative Republicans, miffed by Baker’s moderate maneuvering, could also leave the ballot blank for governor.

Democrats — particularly the party’s nominee for governor, Jay Gonzalez — sense in Diehl’s primary victory a fresh opportunity to tie Baker to the unpopular president.

I am torn between believing that the GOP must be categorically opposed without exceptions, and that it can still be reformed from within. If there's any hope for the latter, Charlie Baker exemplifies it. I'm one of those independents who is on the fence.

Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:52 am

Kraken wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:27 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 pm

Kraken wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:17 am

Daehawk wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:32 am Trump supporters will stay Trump supporters. He could pull a gun and shoot one and then say he is draining the swamp and the supporter would whisper drain the swamp as they bled out. He can do no wrong and they believe everything he says. I see everything he says as stupid and a outright lie. I no longer watch anything one him. Ill read up on it but I refuse to hear his fucktarded mouth speak.

I think his approval is like 36% yet just watch come Nov at how many people vote GOP still.

You know what will be a good metric for this? The MA governor's race. Charlie Baker is the most popular guv in the US because he's stayed out of Trumpland and worked harmoniously with Democrats. His actual accomplishments are middling, but he's fiscally conservative and a decent enough man. Then, last week, he endorsed the Republican Senate candidate running against Warren. That guy's platform is "I'm Trump's BFF; vote for me and we'll have a seat at the table." Since then, Democrats have started dropping out of Baker's corner. Baker can't win without some D support, so what should have been a cakewalk is starting to look competitive. If he loses (or just barely squeaks by) it will be because he hugged a Trumpster.

Interesting, and a real shame. I really liked Charlie Baker. Good guy, and I'm more or less with him on many of the positions he holds. Surprised he endorsed a Trumper, but then again, that endorsement was pretty far from a hug:

When asked last Friday whether he would endorse Diehl, Baker failed to mention his fellow Republican by name: “I’ve endorsed the ticket, which I said I was going to do months ago,” said Baker. He went on to emphasize that he’s focused on his own campaign and helping Republican candidates who can advance his legislative agenda on Beacon Hill.

Pretty weak tea there.

Well, it's not a trend yet. Maybe Baker can keep walking the line that he's balanced on for the past two years, and maybe not. Gonzalez will do what he can to knock him off of it.

You know what else bodes ill for Baker? 1/3 of Republicans -- 98,000 people -- voted for the bigot Scott Lively. That's how narrow Baker's line is. He's not Trumpy enough for 1/3 of Republicans, and Democrats are watching for any hint of Trumpiness.

If anyone else is interested, the Globe tackled this very topic today.

At best, the unlikely pairing means more awkward moments ahead for Baker, who early polls showed had a large lead over any potential Democratic opponent. At worst, the presence of a Trump enthusiast on the GOP ticket could cause Democrats and independents who’ve supported Baker in the past — and whom he needs to win reelection — to reject the whole GOP ticket. Conservative Republicans, miffed by Baker’s moderate maneuvering, could also leave the ballot blank for governor.

Democrats — particularly the party’s nominee for governor, Jay Gonzalez — sense in Diehl’s primary victory a fresh opportunity to tie Baker to the unpopular president.

I am torn between believing that the GOP must be categorically opposed without exceptions, and that it can still be reformed from within. If there's any hope for the latter, Charlie Baker exemplifies it. I'm one of those independents who is on the fence.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:54 am

+100

A couple outliers can't reform a party 40 years in degradation. You can already see them flailing ineffectively as the Kool Aid is forced down their throats.

Paingod wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:00 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:54 am

+100

A couple outliers can't reform a party 40 years in degradation. You can already see them flailing ineffectively as the Kool Aid is forced down their throats.

That and the far too many of them greedily gulping that Kool Aid as fast as it can be poured.

Remus West wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:53 pm

Paingod wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:00 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:54 am

+100

A couple outliers can't reform a party 40 years in degradation. You can already see them flailing ineffectively as the Kool Aid is forced down their throats.

That and the far too many of them greedily gulping that Kool Aid as fast as it can be poured.

I would be more open to this philosophy if I thought it could possibly succeed. Consigning the party that controls all 3 branches of the federal government and most of the states to history's ashcan is...unlikely, especially if the Democratic establishment maintains its hammerlock on the only alternative. "Our oligarchs are better than theirs" inspires nobody. Trumpism might send them into the wilderness for a political cycle or two, but the GOP ain't going away.

IMO, at this point, voting the Republicans out of power is a more effective way of getting the party to change their ways than trying to empower the handful of reasonable Republicans that remain in the party.

Zarathud wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:23 am Where is the non-FOX News source your figure for the Democrats?

None of this both sides bullshit. I've been railing against Ryan and the Republicans as fiscally irresponsible for almost two decades now. Trump put us $2.3 trillion in deficit in a single year, about 3 times its estimated cost. Fact. The estimated $7 trillion cost over 10 years will likely be worse because it assumed the discredited Laffer Curve revenue gains from growth. This will also be proven Fact, but Trump will be out of office leaving someone else to pay. It's his standard business practice.

How about CNN? Is that non-FOX enough for you?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won't Say How She'll Pay for $40 Trillion Platform

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist running to represent the 14th District in New York, insists that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing aren't "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. But when asked yesterday where the tens of trillions of dollars to pay for these programs would come from, she wouldn't provide an answer.

Ocasio-Cortez was appearing on CNN's State of the Union to discuss a variety of issues, from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. When the conversation turned to her domestic policy ideas, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.

I don't think a good evaluation of how Medicare for all will impact wages and taxes yet if employers no longer need to pay for employee health care. To a large degree, it depends on how the transition plan is structured.

I would expect that at least a portion will be returned to workers, and people will be far more likely to look for better jobs if they aren't as likely to be stuck with huge transitional health care costs.

Moliere wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:45 pm How about CNN? Is that non-FOX enough for you?

Give me a break.

Call me when it's implemented, not when it's a campaign plank for a nobody without the means to realistically make it happen.

If you're trying to demonstrate "both sides", what you've done is compare current, actual deficit spending implemented by the entire GOP with a wackadoodle's campaign promise.

Good job.

I'm willing to listen to specific examples from Obama's 8 years though, or Clinton's even.

edit: Not knowing the details, a quick google search tells me Clinton balanced the budget and Obama spent the US into an additional 6.x Trillion over 8 years, a significant portion of which was spent on saving the US from a recession turning into a depression. I'll still count it but I think it should get a star beside it.

Comparatively, Drumpf is on track for 8.x trillion new debt after only 4 years, more than double Obama. Worse, there appears to be little benefit to the American public for this spending, whereas Obama's spending could arguably be described as preventing a terrible economic situation from becoming significantly worse. I'll *still* call out Obama's spending, but only if you admit that the last 2 GOP presidents have outspent the last 2 Dem presidents by a 2 to 1 margin.

Moliere wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:45 pm

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist running to represent the 14th District in New York, insists that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing aren't "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. But when asked yesterday where the tens of trillions of dollars to pay for these programs would come from, she wouldn't provide an answer.

Ocasio-Cortez was appearing on CNN's State of the Union to discuss a variety of issues, from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. When the conversation turned to her domestic policy ideas, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.

The obvious answer: tax the rich.

Fretmute wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:44 am

Moliere wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:45 pm

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist running to represent the 14th District in New York, insists that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing aren't "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. But when asked yesterday where the tens of trillions of dollars to pay for these programs would come from, she wouldn't provide an answer.

Ocasio-Cortez was appearing on CNN's State of the Union to discuss a variety of issues, from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. When the conversation turned to her domestic policy ideas, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.

The obvious answer: tax the rich.

Like we used to back in 1920. If you made more than $1,000,000 the government assumed it was because you stole it from other people - so they stole 73% of it from you. It is possible to live comfortably on a few million a year, even now. It'd never pass, but I can dream.

Not just preventing a disaster, quite profitable actually:

“In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing.”

That’s only a small part of the spending attributed to Obama’s administration, but you could easily reduce his total spend by $700B or so and not be far off.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:12 am Not just preventing a disaster, quite profitable actually:

“In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing.”

That’s only a small part of the spending attributed to Obama’s administration, but you could easily reduce his total spend by $700B or so and not be far off.

Presumably the debt numbers I was seeing took that into account. i.e. whether certain actions produced a direction, positive ROI or not, he still ended with 6.x trillion more debt than he started with.

Paingod wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:56 am

Fretmute wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:44 am

Moliere wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:45 pm

Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist running to represent the 14th District in New York, insists that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing aren't "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. But when asked yesterday where the tens of trillions of dollars to pay for these programs would come from, she wouldn't provide an answer.

Ocasio-Cortez was appearing on CNN's State of the Union to discuss a variety of issues, from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. When the conversation turned to her domestic policy ideas, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.

The obvious answer: tax the rich.

Like we used to back in 1920. If you made more than $1,000,000 the government assumed it was because you stole it from other people - so they stole 73% of it from you. It is possible to live comfortably on a few million a year, even now. It'd never pass, but I can dream.

That's nothing. Coming out of WWII the highest U.S. tax bracket was 94%.

Good luck with that. Power is now essentially allocated in proportion to tax bracket. And if we burn everything down and somehow try to tax the top at 94%, they'll just pull up stakes and go to Dubai or Tuscany or wherever they have built their safehouses. There will be several new Muscovites too, no doubt.

Let's do the math on US health expenditures and put the $40 trillion price tag in context. $3.2 trillion per year paid in total US health expenditures in 2015, with 10% uninsured. Just multiply that number over 10 years and that's $32 trillion we pay for the current system -- in 2015 dollars without inflation or proper treatment of the uninsured/underinsured. So we change who we pay and how we pay.

Studies have shown the profit interest in insurance screws consumers -- and government Medicare is surprisingly more efficient than the private sector. The scare tactics about health care are just like the cost of the bailout -- it's all designed to trigger an emotional reaction so you shut down before hearing that Democratic healthcare plans and the Recession bailout was good policy that saved us money in the long run.

The Republican party has become increasingly fiscally, ideologically, and morally bankrupt over time.

Just a reminder that Zarathud touched on.

The US is the most expensive place to receive healthcare, which has also created the myth that is the best healthcare system in the world.

It is not.

Other nations provide better healthcare for less to their citizens, although all nations struggle to control costs.

The reason for this is almost entirely due to the profit model. Efficient use of scarce resources falls apart when you hold a person's life hostage.

Who supplied the $40T cost estimate? IIRC that came from some Koch-sponsored analysis. I've seen other studies suggest that Medicare for All will be cheaper than the current system.

Opponents of MA Question 1 (which is to say, hospitals) claim that it will cost hospitals $1B. Proponents say the real number is closer to $50M. That's rather a large gap, and IDK what the real number is, or indeed if anybody knows.

If I were Ocasio-Cortez, I wouldn't speculate about where I was going to raise $40T until I was pretty sure I'd really need $40T. I might talk instead about how to refund the savings to ratepayers.