Octopus Overlords

tgb wrote: decisions made by the Busey Court.

In the case of the nation vs. religous freedoms, my ruling is that we should all bow before the great squirrel Tanto and bathe in the blood our enemies. Now, who wants some punch? And I don't mean the drink!

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

How do you feel about Mike "I Like Dick" Pence setting the administration's domestic and foreign policy, while Trump focuses on making America great?

Max Peck wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

How do you feel about Mike "I Like Dick" Pence setting the administration's domestic and foreign policy, while Trump focuses on making America great?

I don't like anything at all about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I just said it would be interesting to see how he actually acts in office.

It might be just the thing to break down the partisan divide in congress.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

How do you feel about Mike "I Like Dick" Pence setting the administration's domestic and foreign policy, while Trump focuses on making America great?

I don't like anything at all about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I just said it would be interesting to see how he actually acts in office.

And I'm predicting that his ideologically significant actions will, at the least, be heavily influenced by Pence.

Is he legally allowed to move the executive offices out of the White House and into one of his buildings? No matter what, I fully expect that a President Trump would make use of Trump facilities at every possible opportunity, charging the government exorbitant rates. Extra bonus because the Secret Service would likely have to install additional security for at least a few of them, further increasing their value at taxpayer expense, and therefore increasing the rent he could charge the government.

Max Peck wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

How do you feel about Mike "I Like Dick" Pence setting the administration's domestic and foreign policy, while Trump focuses on making America great?

I don't like anything at all about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I just said it would be interesting to see how he actually acts in office.

And I'm predicting that his ideologically significant actions will, at the least, be heavily influenced by Pence.

That's a strong possibility. It's also possible that Trump doesn't do what he originally said (I know - shocking that he might change tunes on something) and tries to be a dictator rather than let his VP run things. I have to imagine that his ego would certainly require him to make the A List decisions on things like Supreme Court nominations.

Wait until he finds out he can't fire him.

What's also just supremely bonkers is that, as you'll recall, Trump is scheduled to go on trial for fraud later this year. WTF happens if Trump gets elected in early Nov. and then has a judgment against him for multiple counts of fraud entered against him in early Jan. 2009?

Can a president pardon away civil suits in addition to criminal liability? Probably that, now that I think about it.

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

A Trump victory comes with complete GOP control of Congress, so we can expect the total right-wing enchiladagenda.

Aside from a few pet projects like the Wall and threatening to nuke countries that deny him tribute, does Trump even have an interest in governing? Would he waste valuable Trump time fighting the plans of his own party?

All they have to do is add special Trump-business tax rebates to any controversial bill, and it's signed.

Holman wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:If, God forbid, we do end up with a Trump presidency, it will be interesting to see what he actually does in office. Will he stick with his (relatively) new found conservative Republicanism? Or will he go back to being a mish-mash of ideologies? Part of that might depend on whether he would want a second term or not, but if he decides he doesn't care about the base that helped put him in, I could see him picking justices based on who he likes personally rather than those that pass a conservative litmus test. I assume he'd still push for the stupid wall in some form or another, but he was hardly a right winger in the past on social issues, IIRC.

A Trump victory comes with complete GOP control of Congress, so we can expect the total right-wing enchiladagenda.

Aside from a few pet projects like the Wall and threatening to nuke countries that deny him tribute, does Trump even have an interest in governing? Would he waste valuable Trump time fighting the plans of his own party?

All they have to do is add special Trump-business tax rebates to any controversial bill, and it's signed.

For what it's worth 538 currently has the democrats as a slight favorite to retake the Senate, including a very slightly north of 50% chance of getting an outright majority (51+ seats). So there appears to be better chance than I would have thought of a democratic Senate even if Trump wins.

But if Trump gains enough in the polls to win then you would almost definitely see a similar increase for the GOP in the Senate races. I think it would be unlikely for Trump to win the presidency but the Dems take the Senate.

I like how the Russian business bureau guy states that Trump likes "beautiful Russian women", pauses for a second, and then says "Only talking to them, of course".

El Guapo wrote:

I can guarantee this will get spun as "see, this just proves he's a good businessman" by the Trumpsters.

Skinypupy wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

I can guarantee this will get spun as "see, this just proves he's a good businessman" by the Trumpsters.

Mainly I'm pleased to see this stuff getting attention on television news, including the follow-up on how Trump's official response (the sham "blind trust") is clear nonsense.

How do they figure that having the Trump business run by his children somehow equals a blind trust? I mean, I'm way far from an expert, but isn't the purpose of a blind trust to separate someone from the business dealings so that there's no conflict? If so, does he really think anyone's buying that his children are going to keep him completely in the dark? Or that he wouldn't have some idea what they're up to and therefore still be influenced? These are the same children that are basically running his campaign, right?

But I'm sure it's cool, and there's no conflict. Trust me.

He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Chaz wrote:How do they figure that having the Trump business run by his children somehow equals a blind trust? I mean, I'm way far from an expert, but isn't the purpose of a blind trust to separate someone from the business dealings so that there's no conflict? If so, does he really think anyone's buying that his children are going to keep him completely in the dark? Or that he wouldn't have some idea what they're up to and therefore still be influenced? These are the same children that are basically running his campaign, right?

But I'm sure it's cool, and there's no conflict. Trust me.

Yes, a "blind trust" run by your children where you are aware of the investments is also known as "the opposite of a blind trust."

If you want to get picky GMA could have been slightly clearer that that's not a blind trust at all, but they did specifically explain that that's not workable at all, so that's a bit of a quibble.

msteelers wrote:But if Trump gains enough in the polls to win then you would almost definitely see a similar increase for the GOP in the Senate races. I think it would be unlikely for Trump to win the presidency but the Dems take the Senate.

I know - the odds of a split presidency / senate would presumably slide below 50% if Trump gains further, but they'd still probably be significant (I expect at least 30% - 40% chance).

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Wait, I thought the whole problem with Hillary is that she's "untrustworthy" and "corrupt" because she did things that border on questionable ethics. But it's OK if Trump does them, because Clinton did too? Or something?

I'm confused...trying to follow the mental gymnastics of a Trump supporter is really hard.

The problem with the race to the bottom, is you have no idea where it is, and no idea how hard you're going to hit it when you get there.

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

My God...are you...are you saying he's developing sentience?

Skinypupy wrote:

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Wait, I thought the whole problem with Hillary is that she's "untrustworthy" and "corrupt" because she did things that border on questionable ethics. But it's OK if Trump does them, because Clinton did too? Or something?

I'm confused...trying to follow the mental gymnastics of a Trump supporter is really hard.

No it isn't ok, but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of voting for someone who is trustworthy.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

My God...are you...are you saying he's developing sentience?

I wouldn't go that far. Even a dog can learn things from his prey.

Max Peck wrote: And I'm predicting that his ideologically significant actions will, at the least, be heavily influenced by Pence.

Heavily influenced? He doesn't even like Pence! He wanted someone like Christie for his VP, it was his children that talked him into getting a "traditional" conservative on the ticket.

gilraen wrote:

Max Peck wrote: And I'm predicting that his ideologically significant actions will, at the least, be heavily influenced by Pence.

Heavily influenced? He doesn't even like Pence! He wanted someone like Christie for his VP, it was his children that talked him into getting a "traditional" conservative on the ticket.

I don't believe that Trump wants to do the job himself, he just wants to be in charge and take the credit. If he was actually willing to offer Kasich full reign over domestic and foreign policy (to be fair, Donnie Jr says he never made any such offer, and we all know that Trumps don't lie), why wouldn't he be willing to delegate all that bothersome governance to Pence?

Apart from his grounding in racism and xenophobia, Trump's ideological commitments are apparently driven by whoever last arranged a serious meeting with him.

I would expect a Trump administration to feature Westeros-level intra-cabinet power struggles.

Rip wrote:

Skinypupy wrote:

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Wait, I thought the whole problem with Hillary is that she's "untrustworthy" and "corrupt" because she did things that border on questionable ethics. But it's OK if Trump does them, because Clinton did too? Or something?

I'm confused...trying to follow the mental gymnastics of a Trump supporter is really hard.

No it isn't ok, but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of voting for someone who is trustworthy.

You said you preferred Cruz. You never *wanted* to vote for someone trustworthy - you wanted a wingnut ideologue. At least you're getting the nut part.

Edit: What is it, by the way, with conservatives that they gravitate toward loud, simplistic messaging that claims that any room for doubt or any shade of gray is a sign of "weakness." And why is a "strong leader" that "tells it like it is" (you can say "not PC" here if you want to be all trendy) so attractive to these same people anyway? Do you not realize that the world is gray, not black and white? Do you not realize that an absolute certitude in your own opinion is fucking *dangerous,* not to mention incredibly stupid? Cruz and Trump. Jeezus Pete. WTF?

geezer wrote:

Rip wrote:

Skinypupy wrote:

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Wait, I thought the whole problem with Hillary is that she's "untrustworthy" and "corrupt" because she did things that border on questionable ethics. But it's OK if Trump does them, because Clinton did too? Or something?

I'm confused...trying to follow the mental gymnastics of a Trump supporter is really hard.

No it isn't ok, but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of voting for someone who is trustworthy.

You said you preferred Cruz. You never *wanted* to vote for someone trustworthy - you wanted a wingnut ideologue. At least you're getting the nut part.

Edit: What it is, by the way, with conservatives that they gravitate toward loud, simplistic messaging that claims that any room for doubt or any shade of gray is a sign of "weakness." And why is a "strong leader" that "tells it like it is" (you can say "not PC" here if you want to be all trendy) so attractive to these same people anyway? Do you not realize that the world is gray, not black and white? Do you not realize that an absolute certitude in your own opinion is fucking *dangerous,* not to mention incredibly stupid? Cruz and Trump. Jeezus Pete. WTF?

When you are deep down so afraid of people that you have never met, you would give Satan himself a spongebath just to feel safe. Nuance adds uncertainty and uncertainty means something *bad* might happen. Never mind that statistically, you are more likely to be killed by a friend or relative than any immigrant. What gets me is how afraid people are that live far, far, far away from being a target for terrorism. Just pants-shittingly terrified.

Default wrote:What gets me is how afraid people are that live far, far, far away from being a target for terrorism. Just pants-shittingly terrified.

You know what's insane? That the same party that is so terrified of ISIS infiltrating the country and performing a terrorist attack is perfectly content to let thousands of people die each year from gun violence. The irony is that the government is currently actively doing things to prevent terrorist attacks. But they're blocked from even discussing ways to research or prevent gun violence.

That's the kind of hypocritical fear-mongering that drove me out of this party.

The BBC just put up a story entitled "US election: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump compared to world leaders"

It shows a scale for each of a number of issues, then has a head for each candidate pointing to where they stand on that issue. It isn't a deep article, or a surprising one, and won't give anyone here much new information.

What I found hilarious, though, is what they had to do to put Trumps little head on the scales based on his positions.

geezer wrote:

Rip wrote:

Skinypupy wrote:

Rip wrote:He isn't just running against the Clintons, he is learning from them.

Wait, I thought the whole problem with Hillary is that she's "untrustworthy" and "corrupt" because she did things that border on questionable ethics. But it's OK if Trump does them, because Clinton did too? Or something?

I'm confused...trying to follow the mental gymnastics of a Trump supporter is really hard.

No it isn't ok, but unfortunately I don't have the luxury of voting for someone who is trustworthy.

You said you preferred Cruz. You never *wanted* to vote for someone trustworthy - you wanted a wingnut ideologue. At least you're getting the nut part.

Edit: What is it, by the way, with conservatives that they gravitate toward loud, simplistic messaging that claims that any room for doubt or any shade of gray is a sign of "weakness." And why is a "strong leader" that "tells it like it is" (you can say "not PC" here if you want to be all trendy) so attractive to these same people anyway? Do you not realize that the world is gray, not black and white? Do you not realize that an absolute certitude in your own opinion is fucking *dangerous,* not to mention incredibly stupid? Cruz and Trump. Jeezus Pete. WTF?

Actually if you had been following along you would know I wanted to vote for Rand Paul. But the party decided he would be terrible and I had to choose between Cruz and Trump, so I choose Cruz. When started heading south I resigned myself to supporting Trump.

Rip wrote:Actually if you had been following along you would know I wanted to vote for Rand Paul. But the party decided he would be terrible and I had to choose between Cruz and Trump, so I choose Cruz. When started heading south I resigned myself to supporting Trump.

The descent into insanity . . .

This one's for Yellowking:

Well if that doesn't convince YK to vote for Trump, I don't know what will.

I thought Rip was a die hard libertarian.

GreenGoo wrote:
The average non-racist supporter of Drumpf is doing so because they see him as a successful business man who knows the economy. Even the most rudimentary review shows this to be untrue. THAT'S what she should be going after. The actual racists are a lost cause, and the non-racists either aren't aware of don't care about him being racist. They care about the economy. But Drumpf is likely to destroy that as well.

The average non-racist supporter of Trump is doing so because they are tribal, just like the average supporter of Clinton is doing the same. They think their tribe votes for Republicans or Democrats and that's that. The other party isn't part of that tribe so they are the devil.

All the racism screaming does is push people more firmly into supporting Trump. The number of people that think they are racist is negligible.

Poor, uneducated, white people are voting for Trump because they haven't been courted by Democrats for 30 years. They've repeatedly been told that they are deplorables. They are confused that NAFTA was going to take their jobs but immigration won't. I conjecture that the reason they don't vote for social programs is because they have a good-for-nothing family member or friend who has abused the system for years and nothing is done about it while they work their ass off. I suspect it's why older people are more likely to be conservative. They've seen much more abuse of the system. They certainly don't understand taxation.

I further conjecture that showing people you are part of their tribe would be more effective than showing them why they aren't. I firmly believe the shift in homosexual acceptance is because of the openness. People have friends and family members now that it's mostly accepted to be gay. Homosexuals have become part of the tribe. It's the reason Denzel Washington, Opera Winfrey, and Michael Jordan can be three of the 10 most popular people in America. They have become part of the tribe.

Or you can just call them stupid racists I guess. That will make them like you.

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
The average non-racist supporter of Drumpf is doing so because they see him as a successful business man who knows the economy. Even the most rudimentary review shows this to be untrue. THAT'S what she should be going after. The actual racists are a lost cause, and the non-racists either aren't aware of don't care about him being racist. They care about the economy. But Drumpf is likely to destroy that as well.

The average non-racist supporter of Trump is doing so because they are tribal, just like the average supporter of Clinton is doing the same. They think their tribe votes for Republicans or Democrats and that's that. The other party isn't part of that tribe so they are the devil.

Ok, but that's not what they say when you ask them.