Octopus Overlords

$iljanus wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

$iljanus wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Purging -- if it's good for Turkey, then...

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday. Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election. “As you know from his other career, Donald likes to fire people,” Christie told a closed-door meeting with dozens of donors at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, according to an audio recording obtained by Reuters and two participants in the meeting. Christie was referring to Trump's starring role in the long-running television show "The Apprentice," where his catch-phrase was "You're fired!" The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The employees targeted are political appointees and I can understand why an incoming administration would want to put their own people in and sweep out anyone who's not on the same page as the new president.

Except that they are explicitly planning to use the excuse of appointees to make it easier to fire employees (who are not inherently appointees). Career civil servants are generally apolitical, and the Trumpistas aren't planning business as usual for a new administration if they need to pass new laws to do enact their agenda.

I was trying to see if Christie was saying that and I got the sense that it was more targeted towards appointees that have burrowed in. However, I won't deny that the ability to more easily fire your run of the mill career civil servant isn't something that the Trump administration would mind having.

"One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws. Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people," Christie said. He said firing civil servants was "cumbersome" and "time-consuming."

Captain Caveman wrote:This is pretty amazing.

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

Spoiler:

Rip wrote:Pence is just an insurance policy against someone killing Trump.

Go ahead make the far rights day.

Max Peck wrote:

$iljanus wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

$iljanus wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Purging -- if it's good for Turkey, then...

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday. Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election. “As you know from his other career, Donald likes to fire people,” Christie told a closed-door meeting with dozens of donors at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, according to an audio recording obtained by Reuters and two participants in the meeting. Christie was referring to Trump's starring role in the long-running television show "The Apprentice," where his catch-phrase was "You're fired!" The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The employees targeted are political appointees and I can understand why an incoming administration would want to put their own people in and sweep out anyone who's not on the same page as the new president.

Except that they are explicitly planning to use the excuse of appointees to make it easier to fire employees (who are not inherently appointees). Career civil servants are generally apolitical, and the Trumpistas aren't planning business as usual for a new administration if they need to pass new laws to do enact their agenda.

I was trying to see if Christie was saying that and I got the sense that it was more targeted towards appointees that have burrowed in. However, I won't deny that the ability to more easily fire your run of the mill career civil servant isn't something that the Trump administration would mind having.

This is what caught my attention:

"One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws. Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people," Christie said. He said firing civil servants was "cumbersome" and "time-consuming."

If "burrowing" is a thing, how has it been handled in previous changes of administrations, within the existing legal framework? Taken in the context of gutting the EPA, or maybe rebuilding an FBI that's more inclined to go after political opponents ("Lock her up!"), I find it interesting that they want to make legislative changes immediately upon entering power. YMMV.

It's entirely possible that I'm just more sensitive to the issue because of what is going on in Turkey (I have no doubt that a lot of the civil service being purged there are being targetted because they're not Erdogan loyalists rather than because they had any connection to the coup attempt).

Jeff V wrote:

Rip wrote:Pence is just an insurance policy against someone killing Trump.

Go ahead make the far rights day.

Ask McCain how that strategy worked for him.

tgb wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Rip wrote:Pence is just an insurance policy against someone killing Trump.

Go ahead make the far rights day.

Ask McCain how that strategy worked for him.

Or Nixon (if you can stand the heat).

Defiant wrote:

tgb wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Rip wrote:Pence is just an insurance policy against someone killing Trump.

Go ahead make the far rights day.

Ask McCain how that strategy worked for him.

Or Nixon (if you can stand the heat).

Did someone try to assassinate Eisenhower?

Jeff V wrote:If someone knocks off Trump before the election, does Pence get elevated to the top of the ticket?

Grifman wrote:

Jeff V wrote:If someone knocks off Trump before the election, does Pence get elevated to the top of the ticket?

I believe it would be up to the party to decide.

In response to Baldasaro's attack, Trump Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said: "We’re incredibly grateful for his support, but we don’t agree with his comments."

Enough wrote:
Pardon the weak vocab, but this is incredibly fucking sick. How can he not immediately disavow any connection to them? I am sure it has nothing to do with dog whistles for his more inflamed supporters, oh no... of course not.

He even called into question whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.

For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are the most recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

Xmann wrote:Wouldn't me or you be potentially arrested for making such public statements?

How is that not against the law? Am I missing something?

GreenGoo wrote:

Xmann wrote:Wouldn't me or you be potentially arrested for making such public statements?

How is that not against the law? Am I missing something?

No, it's not against the law to say someone should be shot for treason. It's not even against the law to say someone should be shot, although that's getting closer.

The secret service is investigating because it's their job to see if anything real is going on behind the scenes that might actually be a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime.

Dogstar wrote:Holy crap.

He even called into question whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.

For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are the most recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

Karen Pence, Your Future Second Lady, Sells the Least Useful Item In Existence

Enough wrote:WTF Jezebel?

Isgrimnur wrote:

Reddit wrote:It was found in the clearance section of a Gander Mountain sporting goods store.

Little Raven wrote:

Enough wrote:WTF Jezebel?

Yeah that's a pretty bad misfire. I'm glad Mrs. Pence has a business she presumably enjoys, and that's FAR from the most useless product I've seen for sale.

Dogstar wrote:Holy crap.

He even called into question whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.

For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are the most recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

Jeff V wrote:

Little Raven wrote:

Enough wrote:WTF Jezebel?

Yeah that's a pretty bad misfire. I'm glad Mrs. Pence has a business she presumably enjoys, and that's FAR from the most useless product I've seen for sale.

I don't know...I'm hard pressed to think of more useless shit at the moment. The baffling part is someone actually thinks this is a problem crying for a solution. Yeah, I want to spend $6 on a bauble so my $5 beach towel doesn't get picked up by someone else? And if I'm at a pool or resort that is providing towels, what difference does it make? Go to the towel rack and grab another one.

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Little Raven wrote:

Enough wrote:WTF Jezebel?

Yeah that's a pretty bad misfire. I'm glad Mrs. Pence has a business she presumably enjoys, and that's FAR from the most useless product I've seen for sale.

I don't know...I'm hard pressed to think of more useless shit at the moment. The baffling part is someone actually thinks this is a problem crying for a solution. Yeah, I want to spend $6 on a bauble so my $5 beach towel doesn't get picked up by someone else? And if I'm at a pool or resort that is providing towels, what difference does it make? Go to the towel rack and grab another one.

Any media source going after the wives of candidates for something this trivial makes them sound petty and ridiculous...and further reinforces the Trump supporter belief that the media is out to get them.