Octopus Overlords

He's just so random. He's got to understand that the blind agreement he was getting during the primary from his supporters does not translate to the general public, right? I mean, he's a genius, so he's got to understand that the gibberish he says is just rhetoric, and not enough to get votes from people paying attention, right? He certainly can't actually believe what he says, right?

Right?

Good lord I hate this guy so very, very much.

Trump makes a play for the Libertarian vote:

U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said as many as 70 percent of federal agency regulations could be eliminated if he is elected in November, just hours after an adviser said the candidate would seek to cut 10 percent.

Trump, who blamed regulations for stifling business, told a crowd at a town hall event in New Hampshire on Thursday night that regulations for the environment and safety would remain.

"We are cutting the regulation at a tremendous clip. I would say 70 percent of regulations can go," Trump said. "It’s just stopping businesses from growing."

Earlier in the day during an online discussion with Reuters, Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci, a Wall Street financier who has raised campaign money for Trump, said Trump would eliminate 10 percent of regulations.

"We need regulation but immediately every agency will be asked to rate the importance of their regulations and we will push to remove 10 percent of the least important," he said.

Another Trump campaign adviser reached by Reuters confirmed the 10 percent regulatory cut was part of their economic plan.

Or maybe he was just too busy totally not preparing for Sunday's debate to find out anything about his own positions. Who can say?

Yes, Flint would grow so much faster if we just eliminated water regulations and put MORE lead in the water supply! It's a mineral, right? Builds strong bones!* Gives you stamina**, and broad shoulders!***

* Ok, maybe not bones.
** Or maybe Hillary-like fatigue.
*** At least a good, libertarian-like stature.

Well, 70% could go, but they're going to leave 60% of them there and only cut 10% of the useless ones.

Can we get back to his statement that his statements about and treatment of women was for ENTERTAINMENT?! That's massively offensive to anyone who's not a caveman. Is it supposed to be entertainment for himself, or was he intending to entertain us? I want to punch the guy in the face, which would be massively more entertaining. God, this guy is human trash.

Chaz wrote:God, this guy is human trash.

Yet here we are.
What does that say about the 43.3% of 'us' that support him to be our leader? So depressing.

Misogyny, attacks on the disabled and vets...how inventive. At least If he wins I guess we get his fireside variety show. Now that is entertainment.

Something something government we deserve.

No snark - if you really think Trump will be better for SCOTUS, read this.

Despite their ideological disagreements, justices are far more united than divided on the law. And presidents, by and large, have respected the independence of the judiciary and left the court alone to settle cases as it sees fit — with some notorious exceptions like FDR. He famously threatened to force justices who struck down the New Deal into retirement and "pack the court" with more pliant ones.

Trump would be FDR on steroids. He savaged Judge Gonzalo Curiel's "Mexican" heritage because the judge didn't dismiss the case against Trump University. If something as low stakes as this can set Trump off, imagine what he'll do if the Supreme Court takes up a challenge to a signature issue of his presidency? A Trump presidency is likely to be a rolling wave of one manufactured constitutional crisis after another.

That, however, isn't likely to be President Trump's worst damage.

To the extent that Trump has a vision for the GOP, it is along the lines of Europe-style workers' parties (his term) such as France's National Front. This is an authoritarian, nationalistic, right-wing party whose main goal is to aggressively realign the economy around the interest of domestic workers by fanning the fires of xenophobia and protectionism. George Mason University's Ilya Somin points out that such a party will have no use for federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. To the contrary, such commitments are likely to be an impediment to its goals.

It is unclear what the full contours of Trump's judicial philosophy would be, Somin notes, but they are likely to include sweeping executive powers, a narrow view of freedom of speech, and tight restrictions on civil liberties.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Yet here we are.
What does that say about the 43.3% of 'us' that support him to be our leader? So depressing.

Only this.

Well said.

To the extent that Drumpf has a vision for the GOP, it is along the lines of Europe-style workers' parties (his term) such as France's National Front. This is an authoritarian, nationalistic, right-wing party whose main goal is to aggressively realign the economy around the interest of domestic workers by fanning the fires of xenophobia and protectionism. George Mason University's Ilya Somin points out that such a party will have no use for federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. To the contrary, such commitments are likely to be an impediment to its goals.

This is where it breaks down for me - I'm sure Marine Le Pen would have a plan - and it'd align with the above. While Drumpf's base definitely would need to consist of those folks - they also have the distinction of not having a clue whether he was delivering or not. In fact, some of his ideas would likely lead to anger. I'll get to that in a second but that also could be an opportunity perhaps that he could exploit if he is truly malicious. Elitist belief, sure. But I think it is true.

Focused ideas have difficulty getting implemented in our broken system - especially when the hoi polloi support them and the elites don't - so populist reforms would likely be doomed to failure. The ACA as huge as it seems was incremental. It was built mostly on an existing system. They tweaked eligibility parameters and the tax code mostly. It isn't anything on the massive scale of changes needed to restore jobs for his base. So getting back to the anger, tapering trade and imposing protectionist tariffs would be radical change in comparison. What happens when the price of goods shoots through the roof while we rachet up the tariff? When our goods get reciprocally taxed and our strong dollar works against us? We are too far down the path of globalization. The low prices they enjoy at Walmart were at their own expense in many ways. The question would be how do you reverse it now that the damage is done? How will his base weather the adjustment? I just don't see that happening in an orderly fashion especially with his 'leadership'.

Anyway it seems unlikely that there would be substantive improvements in worker's favor in a Drumpf administration. Instead his cabinet will likely resemble the campaign and be very divided with constant in-fighting. People would rise and fall from favor and national priorities would follow in a haphazard fashion. And people like Putin will attempt with varying degrees of success to eat our lunch. The Supreme Court is an interesting and important discussion too but that is practically a crap shoot. I'd assume someone conservative leaning but more moderate than Scalia; however the court isn't going to be battered with his 'reforms' since they'll never get off the ground.

I'm not worried about whatever Trump might be able to come up with, although that's a mild concern. My main concern is aptly represented in Speaker Ryan's recent remarks about how they're going to ram through their agenda without any ability of the opposition party to stop it.

Election Projection has the Senate at a 50-48-2 GOP control, which would make those independents and the VP of supreme importance going forward, no matter who gets the White House.

The two independents are democrats in all but name, so it's really just the VP that matters.

Isgrimnur wrote:I'm not worried about whatever Drumpf might be able to come up with, although that's a mild concern. My main concern is aptly represented in Speaker Ryan's recent remarks about how they're going to ram through their agenda without any ability of the opposition party to stop it.

Election Projection has the Senate at a 50-48-2 GOP control, which would make those independents and the VP of supreme importance going forward, no matter who gets the White House.

I am beginning to wonder if this is like worrying about rearranging the chairs on the titanic. It seems that given our political class has basically lost its collective mind and disaster is only a major crisis away. In many ways I am beginning to think of it as a choice whether they will ram through agendas which will sink us faster; or they'll obstruct any other agenda and we'll sink slower.

Isgrimnur wrote:My main concern is aptly represented in Speaker Ryan's recent remarks about how they're going to ram through their agenda without any ability of the opposition party to stop it.

Speaker Ryan's agenda is at least a lot less terrifying and destructive than Candidate Trump's agenda. I mean, I'm all for thwarting Paul Ryan as well here, but the reality is that should Trump win, it's Ryan's agenda that wins, not Trump's (especially since I'm not convinced that Trump understands the role of Congress enough to know that they pass laws, not the President).

In other words, I'd likely survive Paul Ryan's America. So that's less terrifying to me than Donald Trump's 'Merica.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:My main concern is aptly represented in Speaker Ryan's recent remarks about how they're going to ram through their agenda without any ability of the opposition party to stop it.

Speaker Ryan's agenda is at least a lot less terrifying and destructive than Candidate Trump's agenda. I mean, I'm all for thwarting Paul Ryan as well here, but the reality is that should Trump win, it's Ryan's agenda that wins, not Trump's (especially since I'm not convinced that Trump understands the role of Congress enough to know that they pass laws, not the President).

In other words, I'd likely survive Paul Ryan's America. So that's less terrifying to me than Donald Trump's 'Merica.

But with a Trump victory, how long does Paul Ryan steer the GOP agenda?

Ryan has already come under fire from the Freedom Caucus for not being radical enough. He'll take more of that right away when the GOP runs the whole show. Plus it will only gets worse: a Trump victory in 2016 spawns a host of Trumplings for Congress in 2018.

Right now the GOP has three factions:
1) the Establishment (Ryan)
2) the Christian Right (Cruz)
3) the Frankenstein wing (Trump)

We saw the weakness of group 1 in the primaries. The next leaders of the GOP will be coming from 2 and 3, and probably uniting them.

The Senate will turn over slower and less reliably - so the Frankenstein wing won't necessarily control both chambers at the same time.

Holman wrote:But with a Trump victory, how long does Paul Ryan steer the GOP agenda?

I don't know. Trump doesn't strike me as interested in actually governing, so presumably as long as the GOP base lets him. My intent wasn't to suggest that I'm cool with Trump winning. Just pointing out that the Paul Ryan Legislative Agenda(tm) is likely the *least* concerning element of a Trump victory.

Holman wrote:Ryan has already come under fire from the Freedom Caucus for not being radical enough. He'll take more of that right away when the GOP runs the whole show.

That's true for Paul Ryan dealing with a President Obama. I don't know that this will be true when Paul Ryan has a rubber stamp from the White House.

Holman wrote:Plus it will only gets worse: a Trump victory in 2016 spawns a host of Trumplings for Congress in 2018.

That's not a guarantee at all. A Trump victory in 2016 suggests a GOP bloodbath in 2018 to me. Trump will be a near-cataclysmic disaster for the GOP. I have no concern at all about a flurry of Trumplets in 2018. I expect an epic meltdown and loss of control of the House (haven't looked at who is up in the Senate to see if that would be lost as well).

How do you expect Trump to attract MORE support after two years of horrific "governing"?

Holman wrote:We saw the weakness of group 1 in the primaries. The next leaders of the GOP will be coming from 2 and 3, and probably uniting them.

Perhaps, but without group 1, there will be no GOP as a real viable party. There simply aren't enough people in groups 2 and 3, and I believe that a Trump Presidency will cause a sizeable portion of Group 1 (at the voter level) to pull the eject handles.

Trump cracks the illegal immigration case wide open!

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Friday that U.S. officials were allowing illegal immigrants into the United States so they can vote, returning to a core issue as he girded for a crucial second debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"They're letting people pour into the country so they can go and vote," Trump said during a meeting with representatives of the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents Border Patrol agents, at Trump Tower in New York.

Trump provided no specifics on the accusation.

...

Trump's comments about people coming across the border to vote were a response to Art Del Cueto, president of the union's Tucson, Arizona, chapter.

Del Cueto said people who were apprehended crossing the border illegally and who have criminal records were not being dealt with because immigration authorities were tied up helping people get citizenship.

Trump asked why, and del Cueto responded, "so they can go ahead and vote before the election."

"They want to hurry up and fast-track them so they can go ahead and be able to vote for the election," Del Cueto said a few moments later, without providing specifics.

"You hear a thing like that, it's a disgrace," Trump said.

I immediately add the following caveat to pretty much everything that comes out of that moron's mouth.

*Trump provided no specifics on the accusation.

hepcat wrote:I immediately add the following caveat to pretty much everything that comes out of that moron's mouth.

*Trump provided no specifics on the accusation.

Since when is "believe me" not considered specifics?

When it's followed by "I can lift well over 12 tons and my penis is well over 17 feet in length".

If he tried to suspend 12 tons with his penis, I could actually see the length claim.

hepcat wrote:When it's followed by "I can lift well over 12 tons and my penis is well over 17 feet in length".

"And can my opponent do that? No, because she has a Vaaagginnnaaa! Hey it's just biology."

Meant to reply to Freyland but in the end in this election it doesn't seem to matter.

Like I said, she has a vaJAIY-NAH, and I do not. Simple as that. What? No seriously...lemme tell you something. Can I tell you something? They told me NOT to bring that up, can you believe that? My good advisors (I do love them, seriously), they said "you can't go out there and say "vaJAIY-NAH". True story! "Why not?" I said, "I like to speak directly, and people appreciate that"
vaJAIY-NAH.
vaJAIY-NAHvaJAIY-NAHvaJAIY-NAH. Ma'am, why are you covering your kids' ears? (aside) 'take her out, she obviously can't handle this')

In fact, let's get the crowd in on this...ok on the count of three everybody 'vaJAIY-NAH!'

Now who has the vaJAIY-NAH in this election? Crooked Hillary, that's who! Know who doesn't? THIS guy! I've got a PENIS. A PENIS, PEOPLE (and how!)! It's PENIS vs. VaJAIY-NAH, and we all know who wins that fight. What?! I'm just sayin'...I'VE got the penis, that's all I'm saying here.

even if that vaJAIY-NAH has been all the way from our great state of Neh-VAH-da to the distant lands of CHAIY-NAH ?

Um... this is all kinds of gross. Trump caught on a hot mic a few months after marrying Melania talking about trying to schtup other women.

Don't listen if you want to keep your lunch down.

“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

Blech.

I just threw up in my mouth. If he wasn't made of Teflon I'd swear this would be the final nail.

The again, if he changed his slogan from "Make America Great Again" to "Grab Her By The Pussy" I might just vote for him.

Yeah just catching this on CNN.

For clarification, "Bush" in this case is Access Hollywood host Billy Bush.

Isgrimnur wrote:For clarification, "Bush" in this case is Access Hollywood host Billy Bush.

I didn't think about how that could have been misinterpreted.

I'm pretty sure most people already realized Trump was a philandering scumbag, but having it on tape does make it a bit more real. And even more damaging is his bragging about using his celebrity and power to kiss and fondle women. I'm guessing that's the angle that's going to hurt him the most.

I'll be really curious to see how other GOP leaders respond. Paul Ryan is set to campaign with Trump tomorrow...

tgb wrote:The again, if he changed his slogan from "Make America Great Again" to "Grab Her By The Pussy" I might just vote for him.

Are you kidding me? This is comedy gold:

"I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture."

That might be the single greatest pickup line ever.

Smoove_B wrote:

"I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture."

That might be the single greatest pickup line ever.

I think in our middle age of life this is a viable pickup line or at least flirting /foreplay for the married folks.

SNL can come up with a new sketch, "Dick in a dresser"

Captain Caveman wrote: And even more damaging is his bragging about using his celebrity and power to kiss and fondle women.

The 2020 Dream Ticket

Vlad does have The Donald's back after all.

Russia lodged a formal complaint last month with the United Nations over a top U.N. official's condemnations of Donald Trump and some European politicians, an intervention that underscores the unusual links between the Republican presidential nominee and the Kremlin.

There is no evidence Trump sought Russia's assistance, or was even aware of the criticism by Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights.

Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, told The Associated Press on Friday that he complained to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about Zeid's remarks.

Three diplomats familiar with the conversation said the complaint occurred in a private meeting Sept. 13. Churkin angrily protested a pair of speeches by Zeid that denounced "demagogues" and specifically targeted Trump and several populist leaders in Europe, even likening their tactics to Islamic State propaganda.

"Prince Zeid is overstepping his limits from time to time and we're unhappy about it," Churkin said Friday. "He criticized a number of heads of state, government. He should stick to his file, which is important enough."

In a speech in Cleveland three months before Republicans gathered there to nominate Trump, Zeid said: "In what may be a crucial election for leadership of this country later this year, we have seen a full-frontal attack - disguised as courageous taboo-busting - on some fundamental, hard-won tenets of decency and social cohesion that have come to be accepted by American society."

"Less than 150 miles away from where I speak, a front-running candidate to be president of this country declared, just a few months ago, his enthusiastic support for torture," said Zeid, a Jordanian royal, referencing a speech Trump gave in Ohio in November promising to restore waterboarding and introduce even harsher interrogation methods for suspected terrorists.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks did not immediately respond to several requests for comment.

Captain Caveman wrote:I'm pretty sure most people already realized Trump was a philandering scumbag, but having it on tape does make it a bit more real. And even more damaging is his bragging about using his celebrity and power to kiss and fondle women. I'm guessing that's the angle that's going to hurt him the most.

I'll be really curious to see how other GOP leaders respond. Paul Ryan is set to campaign with Trump tomorrow...

Apparently the press team routinely assigned to cover Pence was waiting for him to finish a restaurant meal when this Trump news broke. Rather than allowing them to talk to the VP candidate as planned, the campaign shut the reporters down and prevented access.

It was just locker room banter. Come on guys.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk