Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote:

He is uniting us.

Ladies and gentlemen, our President Elect. At least it wasn't from this year. The fact that I assumed it was is not a great sign.

I'm going to develop a dent from four years of facepalming.

Chaz wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, our President Elect. At least it wasn't from this year. The fact that I assumed it was is not a great sign.

I completely did not notice that. My apologies. I guess my faith isn't high.

Apparently the problem isn't too many Mexicans flooding across the border. The problem is not enough Mexicans flooding across the border.

Maybe that wall is being built to keep them in?

RunningMn9 wrote:Apparently the problem isn't too many Mexicans flooding across the border. The problem is not enough Mexicans flooding across the border.

Maybe that wall is being built to keep them in?

That really puts the lie to the double-sided myth that Mexicans are not only lazy, but they are stealing American jobs.

Having lived on or close to the Mexican border for about half of my adult life, I can honestly say you'll never find a nation of people who bust their ass 7 days a week as much at the Mexicans do. It's not uncommon to see guys working construction on a Sunday morning when it's 115 degrees out.

And Anthony Bourdain has famously said many times, he has never seen a native American come into one of his restaurants to apply for a job as a busser or dish washer.

Perhaps they aren't looking in the right places?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/unempl ... n-2015.htm

Among the 14 states with the largest Hispanic or Latino labor force in 2015, Arizona had the highest unemployment rate for Hispanics or Latinos, 8.3 percent. Other states with Hispanic unemployment rates above the national average were Nevada (8.0 percent), Pennsylvania (7.7 percent), California and New Jersey (both 7.6 percent), North Carolina (7.4 percent), and Illinois (7.2 percent).

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/11750 ... bruary.htm

A real determination of the rate of jobless Latinos includes those not actively seeking employment, a significantly high figure at nearly 13.7 million Latinos. Although the unemployment rate dropped considerably between February 2015 and February 2016, the rate of Latinos not in the labor force has remained consistent at more than 13 million people.

Just like the temp on my porch doesn't mean much as far as whether global temps are rising, the shortage of illegal immigrant workers at a handful of businesses doesn't indicate whether there is a shortage of cheap illegal immigrant labor nationwide.

What makes you think those statistics have anything to do with illegal immigrants?

It's far from being Trump country, but the Boston area is coping with labor shortages, particularly restaurant and construction workers. The state unemployment rate is only 3.6% and the minimum wage here is $11. We like immigrants.

Jeff V wrote:What makes you think those statistics have anything to do with illegal immigrants?

Why would you hire a hispanic here illegally over one that isn't?

Kraken wrote:It's far from being Trump country, but the Boston area is coping with labor shortages, particularly restaurant and construction workers. The state unemployment rate is only 3.6% and the minimum wage here is $11. We like immigrants.

How about hiring some yokels, Hicks, trailer trash and hillbillies?

New analysis reveals surprises for Trump tax plan:

President-elect Donald Trump's proposals would modestly cut income taxes for most middle-class Americans. But for nearly 8 million families — including a majority of single-parent households — the opposite would occur: They'd pay more.

Most married couples with three or more children would also pay higher taxes, an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found. And while middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of about 2 percent, they'd be dwarfed by the windfalls averaging 13.5 percent for America's richest 1 percent.

More details:

Right now, a single parent with $75,000 in income and two children can claim a head of household deduction of $9,300, plus three personal exemptions. Those steps would reduce the household's taxable income by $21,450, to $53,550.

Trump's plan would more than double the standard deduction to $15,000. But that change would be outweighed by his elimination of personal exemptions and head-of-household status. So the family's taxable income would be $60,000, and their tax bill would be $2,440 more than it is now.

A married couple with four children and income of $50,000 would absorb a tax increase of $1,090 because of their loss of personal exemptions.

And the punchline:

All independent analyses show most of the benefit of Trump's plan flowing to the wealthiest Americans. Nearly half of Trump's tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of earners, the Tax Policy Center found. Less than a quarter of the cuts would benefit the bottom 80 percent.

I'm certainly shocked to discover that Trump wasn't entirely truthful during the campaign, and that he will be looking out mostly for the wealthiest. It's a good thing we didn't elect Clinton, who's in the pockets of Wall Street, and instead elected Trump, who's...wait.

On the *off* chance that he fixes it - it said -- Drumpf is going to be our President. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." So much time and money will be spent - same result! Sad!

malchior wrote:Falwell claims he was offered the Education post but turned it down.

Jeebus. That almost makes DeVos palatable by comparison.

malchior wrote:

On the *off* chance that he fixes it - it said -- Drumpf is going to be our President. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." So much time and money will be spent - same result! Sad!

To put this in context (since it makes zero sense by itself), this was part of a much larger tweet storm criticizing Stein and Clinton for the recount.

Is Il Douche really tweeting about himself in the third person now?

Captain Caveman wrote:

malchior wrote:Falwell claims he was offered the Education post but turned it down.

Jeebus. That almost makes DeVos palatable by comparison.

I'm thinking that's his strategy. Float the really scary options, so that when he actually officially nominates some of the not-that-crazy options, we'll be grateful.

On the flip side, though, if he goes too far and manages to get congress pissed and reject his picks (for being too white supremacists, being too inexperienced, etc), it might bring him back from crazyville... Or not.

tgb wrote:Is Il Douche really tweeting about himself in the third person now?

No, it was part of a quote from Clinton that was part of a longer chain of tweets.

Not that I'd ever want to defend Drumpf, but that looking at that single tweet out of context of the rest of his thread is very misleading.

Defiant wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

malchior wrote:Falwell claims he was offered the Education post but turned it down.

Jeebus. That almost makes DeVos palatable by comparison.

I'm thinking that's his strategy. Float the really scary options, so that when he actually officially nominates some of the not-that-crazy options, we'll be grateful.

If that were the case, wouldn't we have heard Falwell's name before the DeVos nomination? Maybe we did and I just wasn't paying attention.

Skinypupy wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

malchior wrote:Falwell claims he was offered the Education post but turned it down.

Jeebus. That almost makes DeVos palatable by comparison.

I'm thinking that's his strategy. Float the really scary options, so that when he actually officially nominates some of the not-that-crazy options, we'll be grateful.

If that were the case, wouldn't we have heard Falwell's name before the DeVos nomination? Maybe we did and I just wasn't paying attention.

It had been reported that he met with him to discuss education

Skinypupy wrote:

tgb wrote:Is Il Douche really tweeting about himself in the third person now?

No, it was part of a quote from Clinton that was part of a longer chain of tweets.

Not that I'd ever want to defend Drumpf, but that looking at that single tweet out of context of the rest of his thread is very misleading.

That's fine, Donald is very misleading, himself.

Trump's tweetfest this morning makes it sound like his win was a landslide, but with the popular vote now going against him to the tune of 2 million votes and the electoral win hinging on about 109k votes in three states, was it that sweeping? I mean, it's probably just more of Trump playing up anything he does as the best yuge thing that's ever happened.

Chaz wrote:Trump's tweetfest this morning makes it sound like his win was a landslide, but with the popular vote now going against him to the tune of 2 million votes and the electoral win hinging on about 109k votes in three states, was it that sweeping? I mean, it's probably just more of Trump playing up anything he does as the best yuge thing that's ever happened.

Not to mention that, while they did retain control, Republicans actually lost seats in both houses of Congress.

That's the spirit. He may have kicked your ass but he didn't knock you out.

Hillary 2020!

Yeah, we should definitely follow the Republican model of winning where we welcome the new leadership with open arms, look for areas where we agree, work toward compromise in areas where we don't, and move forward with a mutual spirit of respect and understanding pledge at the beginning to make sure that Trump is a single term President, then cross our arms, say no to everything, and do everything we can to make sure that government functions as little as possible, while also spending eight years questioning his legitimacy as President.

Chaz wrote:Yeah, we should definitely follow the Republican model of winning where we welcome the new leadership with open arms, look for areas where we agree, work toward compromise in areas where we don't, and move forward with a mutual spirit of respect and understanding pledge at the beginning to make sure that Trump is a single term President, then cross our arms, say no to everything, and do everything we can to make sure that government functions as little as possible, while also spending eight years questioning his legitimacy as President.

You say that like it isn't what we all know will happen.

Rip wrote:

Chaz wrote:Yeah, we should definitely follow the Republican model of winning where we welcome the new leadership with open arms, look for areas where we agree, work toward compromise in areas where we don't, and move forward with a mutual spirit of respect and understanding pledge at the beginning to make sure that Trump is a single term President, then cross our arms, say no to everything, and do everything we can to make sure that government functions as little as possible, while also spending eight years questioning his legitimacy as President.

You say that like it isn't what we all know will happen.

Except you know it won't. Well, if you were honest with yourself you would.

Chaz wrote:Trump's tweetfest this morning makes it sound like his win was a landslide, but with the popular vote now going against him to the tune of 2 million votes and the electoral win hinging on about 109k votes in three states, was it that sweeping? I mean, it's probably just more of Trump playing up anything he does as the best yuge thing that's ever happened.

Even more absurd when you realize he's criticizing them for doing the exact thing he said he would do if he had lost. But, as we all know, what Trump actually says means very little.

As Badger once so wisely stated, "Crime and politics, little girl. The situation is always...fluid."

What is absurd is how much time was spent hand wringing over whether Trump would "accept the results". Which we now know was such a big deal to them because they knew that is exactly what they would do and wanted to make it seem as though not doing so was some type of indictment of some evil.

Most amusing part is being able to submit that question to every Democrat candidate in the future. My money's on each and every one squirming around the edge of the question. Good times.

Their answer can easily be "the Green party is the one asking for the recount."

It's also worth noting that the thing being done here is requesting a recount using mechanisms already in place in the state election laws. What Trump was threatening, and what he actually did in Nevada, was to bring legal suits that would go outside existing mechanisms. I'd say that was extrapolating unfairly except that the Nevada suit did exactly that, and it seems likely that he was prepared to use that tactic elsewhere if the election didn't go his way.

Is it a bit double-standard? Sure, I'll accept that it is, but we haven't had a President Elect like Trump before, and if we're going to be saddled with him for four years, let's use the systems in place to make sure that he got there the right way.

Rip wrote:What is absurd is how much time was spent hand wringing over whether Trump would "accept the results". Which we now know was such a big deal to them because they knew that is exactly what they would do and wanted to make it seem as though not doing so was some type of indictment of some evil.

No it was because of things he said that made people doubt his intentions. Please stop externalizing his shitty behavior.

See, this kind of thing is what gives me all kinds of doubts about him:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4532209664

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

The call for a recount doesn't say anything like "our system is completely broken." It says (or should say) "these results were very close, and we have systems in place to ensure the results were accurate, so let's use them." Trump is still saying that Hillary only won the popular vote because the system is broken enough that millions of illegal votes were cast in her favor. Basically, he's won, but still finding a way to say "but the system is still rigged against me." Because either he wins completely, or anywhere he didn't win, it's because someone cheated.

"And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those damned Mexicans".

Chaz wrote:See, this kind of thing is what gives me all kinds of doubts about him:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4532209664

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

The call for a recount doesn't say anything like "our system is completely broken." It says (or should say) "these results were very close, and we have systems in place to ensure the results were accurate, so let's use them." Trump is still saying that Hillary only won the popular vote because the system is broken enough that millions of illegal votes were cast in her favor. Basically, he's won, but still finding a way to say "but the system is still rigged against me." Because either he wins completely, or anywhere he didn't win, it's because someone cheated.

It was mentioned in the other thread, but probably worth bringing up here as well. I can't help but think this insane tweetstorm was likely done to draw attention away from the news breaking about his numerous conflicts of interest around the world, which is far more damning. Just as he did with the whole Hamilton flap, he generates utter nonsense to distract from real issues (in that case, the $25MM settlement for Trump U).

Chaz wrote:See, this kind of thing is what gives me all kinds of doubts about him:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4532209664

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

In his defense, he's referring to anyone who voted against him as "Voting Illegally"

Skinypupy wrote:It was mentioned in the other thread, but probably worth bringing up here as well. I can't help but think this insane tweetstorm was likely done to draw attention away from the news breaking about his numerous conflicts of interest around the world, which is far more damning. Just as he did with the whole Hamilton flap, he generates utter nonsense to distract from real issues (in that case, the $25MM settlement for Drumpf U).

I personally just don't believe this theory anymore. Go read his NY Times interview - and by that I mean the transcript. He is incoherent at times - he rambles. He shows shocking lack of command of facts. And personally I don't believe it is an act either. So I think these tweet storms are ... legit for lack of a better term. And it is a near complete media failure to put his dangerous susceptibility to outbursts, snap decisions that he later reconsiders, and bad behavior in general into proper context. The NY Times and WaPo are doing a fairly job of just putting this all this garbage on the front page and letting the visual tell this story.

Rip wrote:What is absurd is how much time was spent hand wringing over whether Trump would "accept the results". Which we now know was such a big deal to them because they knew that is exactly what they would do and wanted to make it seem as though not doing so was some type of indictment of some evil.

Most amusing part is being able to submit that question to every Democrat candidate in the future. My money's on each and every one squirming around the edge of the question. Good times.

Asking for a recount and validation of the results is not the same thing as claiming the election as rigged and saying that you might not accept the official results. Surely you can understand that difference, right?