Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:52 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:22 pm Politico

"I have recently learned that the Ethics Committee is reviewing an inquiry regarding my discussion of surrogacy with two previous female subordinates, making each feel uncomfortable," he said in a statement. "I deeply regret that my discussion of this option and process in the workplace caused distress."

There is no way an anti-abortion warrior is being given the boot by a GOP congress just for discussing pregnancy options in ways that might have made someone feel uncomfortable. That's, like, the whole debate.

Oh, wait--[reads article]--so this was like a HANDMAID'S TALE thing?

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:02 pm**

The article has been heavily expanded since I posted it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:20 pm**

Holman wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:52 pm Oh, wait--[reads article]--so this was like a HANDMAID'S TALE thing?

Are there any other surrogacy options? The answer is, "No".

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:31 pm**

malchior wrote:A little bit disheartening and a little bit showing *way more integrity* than the GOP.

I’m astonished that anyone thinks this matters. Taking the moral high ground when your opponent has no morality aside from winning accomplishes nothing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:33 pm**

I'm having trouble believing this is all there is to the Trent Franks thing. There has to be more to this. It truly went from allegation to quitting in a matter of hours.

(Is it possible that "proposing surrogacy" is a fucked-up ideological last-ditch euphemism for attempted rape?)

Franks has the pull of an eight-term Congressman, and he is not yet near retirement age. He has won most of his elections (including last year) in the 75% range.

Somebody's hiding something. Isn't this kind of immediate resignation usually an attempt to avoid an investigation?

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:03 pm**

Yeah, this isn't the same as discussing surrogacy:

Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who asked staffers if they would bear his child as a surrogate, says he will resign

While Franks’s statement left the circumstances of the “discussion” murky, three Republicans familiar with the allegations said that he had asked the staffers, who worked for him at the time but have since left his office, if they would serve as surrogate mothers for his child. A spokesman for Franks did not respond to a request for comment on that claim.

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:09 pm**

That's not a normal conversation you'd have with your boss? How was your weekend? Did you see that Eagles game? Hey, will you gestate a fetus for me?

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:14 pm**

"gestate"

Posted: **Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:21 pm**

Resignation still seems avoidable, though.

If he tried to compel or pressure the staffer(s), that's obviously heinous. But if it were merely presumptuous and naive and clueless, there's nothing criminal in that. I would think a pro-life stalwart would be able to ride it out with a sincere apology and a paean to the miracle of the unborn and etc.

Betcha there's more here. These kinds of people don't resign just for being rude.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:36 am**

Do we know if it was IVF or the good ol' fashioned way?

That makes a huge difference to me. One is insanely inappropriate in the workplace. The other one is probably illegal. I mean, just bringing up the topic at all, not the activities, which are a whole other barrel of fish.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:46 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:36 am Do we know if it was IVF or the good ol' fashioned way?

That makes a huge difference to me. One is insanely inappropriate in the workplace. The other one is probably illegal. I mean, just bringing up the topic at all, not the activities, which are a whole other barrel of fish.

Wait....illegal? It's illegal to have someone surrogate for you the old fashioned way?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:50 am**

Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:46 am
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:36 am Do we know if it was IVF or the good ol' fashioned way?

That makes a huge difference to me. One is insanely inappropriate in the workplace. The other one is probably illegal. I mean, just bringing up the topic at all, not the activities, which are a whole other barrel of fish.
Wait....illegal? It's illegal to have someone surrogate for you the old fashioned way?

Asking if you can have sex with your underlings/co-workers/boss is illegal, yes.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:21 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:50 am
Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:46 am
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:36 am Do we know if it was IVF or the good ol' fashioned way?

That makes a huge difference to me. One is insanely inappropriate in the workplace. The other one is probably illegal. I mean, just bringing up the topic at all, not the activities, which are a whole other barrel of fish.
Wait....illegal? It's illegal to have someone surrogate for you the old fashioned way?
Asking if you can have sex with your underlings/co-workers/boss is illegal, yes.

Well I guess there are a number of married co-workers who should look for attorneys.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:56 am**

Why do you waste both our time?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:15 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:56 am Why do you waste both our time?

I have to, it is my superpower.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:38 am**

Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:21 am
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:50 am
Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:46 am
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:36 am Do we know if it was IVF or the good ol' fashioned way?

That makes a huge difference to me. One is insanely inappropriate in the workplace. The other one is probably illegal. I mean, just bringing up the topic at all, not the activities, which are a whole other barrel of fish.
Wait....illegal? It's illegal to have someone surrogate for you the old fashioned way?
Asking if you can have sex with your underlings/co-workers/boss is illegal, yes.
Well I guess there are a number of married co-workers who should look for attorneys.

I'm trying to figure out how it would be possible to be married to your surrogate. ...?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:57 am**

Holy shit, Roy Moore, again.

https://twitter.com/reaganbattalion/sta ... 6549998594

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:07 am**

Expect more of this shit.

The positive arm of Putin's propaganda presents Russia as the leader of the explicitly Christian (white, European, Islamophobic) world. Putin has climbed completely into bed with the Orthodox Church for this, but there's also been a lot of outreach and invitations to Christian Right groups in the US and Europe.

I won't be surprised at all to see more GOP Christianists becoming vocally pro-Moscow.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:14 am**

Joe Arpaio and Paul LePage of Maine are apparently considering running for the senate. Only Roy Moore rivals these two in their ignorance and indecency.

This appears to be the direction the GOP is going now and it’s absolutely horrifying. Trump was not an aberration but a harbinger.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:22 am**

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:57 am Holy shit, Roy Moore, again.
https://twitter.com/reaganbattalion/sta ... 6549998594

This is directly out of the Trump playbook. Didn't hurt Trump when he said similar stuff, I have no reason to expect these comments to hurt Moore.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:27 am**

It used to be only hippies and liberals hated America.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:35 am**

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:27 am It used to be only hippies and liberals hated America.

And non-Americans.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:44 am**

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:31 pm
malchior wrote:A little bit disheartening and a little bit showing *way more integrity* than the GOP.
I’m astonished that anyone thinks this matters. Taking the moral high ground when your opponent has no morality aside from winning accomplishes nothing.

It depends on whether or not the "moral high ground" matters to the American people, by which I mean undecided voters. Also, while it obviously will have no effect on committed Republican voters, but it may shore up Democratic support by undercutting the eroding effect of whataboutism.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:46 am**

Personal integrity matters to those who have it. You have to be able to live with yourself, whether you win or lose.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:27 pm**

Max Peck wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:44 amIt depends on whether or not the "moral high ground" matters to the American people, by which I mean undecided voters.

If it mattered to the American people, we wouldn't be in this mess. Which is the point. The Dems are scrambling for a moral high ground that only they care about.

Edit to add: And I should point out that they only care about it because they think they can weaponize it politically.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:33 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:27 pm
Max Peck wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:44 amIt depends on whether or not the "moral high ground" matters to the American people, by which I mean undecided voters.
If it mattered to the American people, we wouldn't be in this mess. Which is the point. The Dems are scrambling for a moral high ground that only they care about.

Edit to add: And I should point out that they only care about it because they think they can weaponize it politically.

Well, it clearly matters, the question is whether it matters *enough*. We'll see what happens in the AL Senate election on Tuesday, but while the polling is a bit all over the place (and Senate races are hard to poll), it's pretty close to a toss-up for now. Which you might say "that proves that people don't care", but it's Alabama, which voted for Trump by 30+ in 2016. Even accounting for the degradation in GOP polling and standing party-wide, that Alabama is seriously considering electing a pro-choice democrat to the Senate shows you that a lot of people there really do care about Moore's shit.

And while I hate to see Franken go (as a political matter anyway), it's not only the right thing to do, it's probably better for the democrats politically. The Democrats are better off with a different (governor appointed) incumbent running for reelection in 2018 who is not tainted by scandal, and it's a chance to elevate a new rising star (from a deep bench in Minnesota). Assuming Dayton doesn't fuck up the pick.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:41 pm**

I guess we'll know Tuesday, but I don't think it will be close. A child molester is going to win comfortably. All it will take to burst this bubble is *one* veritably false claim against anyone, and that will be used by everyone that needs to dismiss any and all claims against the people they want elected.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:52 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:41 pm I guess we'll know Tuesday, but I don't think it will be close. A child molester is going to win comfortably. All it will take to burst this bubble is *one* veritably false claim against anyone, and that will be used by everyone that needs to dismiss any and all claims against the people they want elected.

We'll see. The thing is that the most likely outcome (based on polling, which is less reliable for a race like this, to be fair), is Moore winning by like 2 - 4 points. An outcome like that will show that the allegations against Moore had a huge negative impact (insofar as even in this environment, a generic Republican should be winning by double-digits in Alabama), although that's not how it will be covered in most political post-mortems.

I'm already annoyed by the political punditry on the outcome of this election and it hasn't even happened yet.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:27 pm
Max Peck wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:44 amIt depends on whether or not the "moral high ground" matters to the American people, by which I mean undecided voters.
If it mattered to the American people, we wouldn't be in this mess. Which is the point. The Dems are scrambling for a moral high ground that only they care about.

Edit to add: And I should point out that they only care about it because they think they can weaponize it politically.

As a column that I read earlier put it, Democrats are taking the high road, Republicans are taking the low road, and neither one leads anywhere.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 pm**

The woman who showed her high school yearbook bearing Roy Moore’s signature as evidence that he knew her on Friday admitted that she wrote notes on the page herself while still insisting that his John Hancock was legit.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/08/roy-moore ... ook-entry/

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:31 pm**

Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 pm
The woman who showed her high school yearbook bearing Roy Moore’s signature as evidence that he knew her on Friday admitted that she wrote notes on the page herself while still insisting that his John Hancock was legit.
He didn't know her until Friday?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:00 pm**

Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 pm
The woman who showed her high school yearbook bearing Roy Moore’s signature as evidence that he knew her on Friday admitted that she wrote notes on the page herself while still insisting that his John Hancock was legit.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/08/roy-moore ... ook-entry/

Two thoughts:

1. Very, very stupid of her to not admit to this up front.
2. Let's pretend for a moment that this somehow invalidates all the other women who have spoken out against him, and the feedback from other community members that they saw it happening with Moore (hint: it doesn't). He's still proving on a daily basis just what a racist, backwards, unrepentant bigot he is and continues to be. Conservatives have no problem with that because...?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:11 pm**

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:00 pm
Rip wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:18 pm
The woman who showed her high school yearbook bearing Roy Moore’s signature as evidence that he knew her on Friday admitted that she wrote notes on the page herself while still insisting that his John Hancock was legit.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/08/roy-moore ... ook-entry/
Two thoughts:

1. Very, very stupid of her to not admit to this up front.
2. Let's pretend for a moment that this somehow invalidates all the other women who have spoken out against him, and the feedback from other community members that they saw it happening with Moore (hint: it doesn't). He's still proving on a daily basis just what a racist, backwards, unrepentant bigot he is and continues to be. Conservatives have no problem with that because...?

Prercisely, and all she added was date and place. If she had just come clean about it then no worries. But it should not impact the voting choice of any decent human being one iota and I cannot imagine anyone who believes in civil liberties voting for the American Taliban.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:11 pm**

Did she add the date at the time (in 1977), or did she add it recently?

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:12 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:11 pm Did she add the date at the time (in 1977), or did she add it recently?

I would really like to know this as well.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:52 pm**

Moore apparently is flipping Republicans now,

A former spokesman for GOP lawmakers and Breitbart News is leaving the Republican Party for the Democratic Party over GOP leaders' support of Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore.

Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Breitbart, wrote in an op-ed for USA Today that he can no longer support the Republican party after President Trump and other leaders backed Moore, who is facing allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct involving teenagers.

“President Trump and the Republican National Committee are endorsing, supporting and funding Moore because they would rather elect a sexual predator who preys on underage teenagers at the local mall, than a crime-fighting prosecutor who happens to be a Democrat,” Bardella wrote.

“This is not a party I want to be associated with any longer. This is not a party that is trustworthy enough to protect innocent children from sexual predators.”

Bardella said that he had left Breitbart after the publication refused to stand by reporter Michelle Fields following a physical altercation between Fields and then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski at a campaign event.

He said that the longer he didn’t have clients to work for, “the more I came to realize that Republican positions on the most pressing challenges facing our society were out of alignment with what I believed.”

“This is a party that constantly buries its head in the sand on climate change, racial profiling, guns, LGBTQ equality, income inequality, food insecurity, paid family leave and the treatment of women,” he wrote.

“The embrace of Moore by the Republican Party’s top ‘leadership’ is all the proof you need to know that this is a party that no longer stands for anything.”

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:06 pm**

Read the USA Today article. He was what he thought of as a "compassionate" Republican, and his positions on social programs and such were already quite left of center. How he could work for Breitbart at the same time is beyond me, but whatever.

My only point is that this guy, if he is to be believed (I only heard of him today) was never a hard right Republican. Not to diminish the idea of a party switch, but he was about as moderate a republican as I've ever heard of in today's atmosphere.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:13 pm**

Oh Onion, I love you. Never change!

RNC: 'We Warned You Gay Marriage Would Be A Slippery Slope Toward Accepting Pedophilia'

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:18 pm**

Nothing to see here. Just GOP Rep Steve King (IA) going full-on white nationalist on Twitter this morning.

Diversity is not our strength. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.”

At least they used to try and hide it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:23 pm**

https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/938160754490052609

Jeff Flake writing a $100 check to Doug Jones saying "Country over Party".

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness