Octopus Overlords

Smoove_B wrote:I posted it before the election, but he said ~10 years ago that he believes in a literal translation of the Bible. We have a Creationist as the VP of the United States of America. Everything is fine.

And when he stands beside the president-elect, he's the sane one.

I thought I was rid of him when he made his bid. He gave up his gubernatorial race to do it. I thought he was gone. But he was just morphing. Mutating. Now he's back and bigger than ever. Now my problem is everyone's problem.

Life insurance.

Rip wrote:Life insurance.

Bahahaha, I had not thought of that angle. No wonder he didn't pick Dr. Carson, or Bernie Sanders. Both of those would have given him an easy win, but he'd have to watch his back constantly.

I'm planning a victory pig out tomorrow at any place offering veterans something free. Never had time to take advantage of it before. I may eat myself to death, but at least I'd die knowing that the future POTUS isn't going to turn his back, and sacrifice troops in the field without at least trying to help them.

Any names anyone wants to call me I'm fine with, have at it. I won't reciprocate however. Well I might call you a communist or socialist, there's not much worse than that in my book.

Now to facebook to enjoy the tears of people I actually know. I think they keep my in their friends list in case times get too tough and they have to make a gofundme page. LMAO Beyond tacky. lol

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

stessier wrote:How familiar is he with the other districts that could be doing the work?

But that's not his job. His job is to advocate for the best interests of NJ CD 11. Do we need to have a class on how Congress works?

But why does it make sense for the Pres to be under a term limit, but not a Senator?

Maybe because there's only one President?

How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Didn't Trump mention that he would be in favor of term limits for members of Congress?

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

em2nought wrote:but at least I'd die knowing that the future POTUS isn't going to turn his back, and sacrifice troops in the field without at least trying to help them.

Oh man, he has conned you so bad, hasn't he.
Where do you draw you confidence in him? What is it that make you look at this "King Of the City Dwellers", in his bizarre 'Trump' world, and makes you think he has any integrity what so ever or any interest in your interests?

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

Yeah, the main reason why the President is term limited is that he's the elected official that can most plausibly become a tyrant.

gilraen wrote:Didn't Trump mention that he would be in favor of term limits for members of Congress?

I thought how we got started talking about it.

El Guapo wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

Yeah, the main reason why the President is term limited is that he's the elected official that can most plausibly become a tyrant.

Well, yes - obviously the President > Senator > Congressmen in some sense, but I've heard it said many times that a Senator can be nearly as powerful as the President. Pretty sure we are watching one right now appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, aren't we?

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

The power of the executive branch is vested in one man (sorry, but "man" still fits). The power of the legislative branch is spread among 535.

Congress works on seniority and relationships. It would be a mistake to arbitrarily throw out the most powerful members who spent their lives getting there.

For a contrarian viewpoint I would like to see House terms extended because those folks have to spend way too much time dialing for dollars.

“From Selma to Stonewall, Seneca Falls to Standing Rock, the history of America is often forged in a crucible of conflict and courage,” the actor wrote. “Today, it is no different. We may face setback, or we may face triumph, but the direction will remain clear so long as our vision and our convictions do. You need only take measure of the passion of America’s youth ― more cosmopolitan, more diverse, more rooted in science, more aware of their responsibilities as stewards of this Earth than any generation before them ― to regain confidence in our national future. Look to them. We will win.”

Rumor has it he's considering Steve Bannon as Chief of Staff. That should end well.

I look forward to a Chief of Staff who is the bridge to the alt-right.

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:How can one not read that as a threat to the media and activists?

He spent the whole campaign literally threatening media members. It's not going to be a good time for the press.

Though I'll admit I wouldn't cry too hard if he threw Chris Cillizza and Mark Halperin in Guantanamo.

Wife told me today that Trump ejected the press pool from his plane, breaking the tradition that a press representative always accompanies a president or president-elect when traveling.

Apparently that's not new for Trump. Usually the press pool travels with the candidate during the campaign, riding in their plane. Trump has consistently kept the press pool from doing this during his campaign, and refused to take the customary picture with them at the end of the campaign. The last bit is minor, but basically the cherry on top. Basically, him preventing the press from traveling with him is new for the presidency, but not new for Trump.

The funny thing is that it's possible the press wouldn't be quite so antagonistic if he let them get to know him on a more personal level. By keeping them at arm's length, all they have to go on is his public statements, and since he insists on making his public statements as virulent as he can...

RunningMn9 wrote:

Drumpf's Contract on America wrote:FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

Ambiguous. I mean, currently they are all constitutional, no?

Also importantly - they are part of framework the executive branch uses to operate. Many procedures throughout the bureaucracy were altered or depend on following those executive orders. Just cancelling them would cause massive chaos and everything would grind to a halt. His children will talk him out of this one.

Drumpf's Contract on America wrote:SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Fuck you and your party.

This is how I feel as well. I won't personally vote for another Republican as long as that 9th justice sits. It is only one vote but fuck them sideways.

Drumpf's Contract on America wrote:THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

So that I understand this correctly - the idea is that a city is identified as a Sanctuary City (who gets to decide? Christie? ), and as long as they have that designation, *all* federal funding is cut off to that city?

Yep - the financial collapse of every one of those cities would happen almost immediately. His children will talk him out of this one.

Drumpf's Contract on America wrote:Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.

Holy Underpants. The answer to a crippling debt problem (assuming you perceive our current debt problem as crippling, which I don't) is to slash your revenue? What could go wrong? Companies can bring their money home and only pay 10%?!? They're paying 0% now. Why on earth would they do that? What does he define as a middle class family? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that it will be national numbers, and so my living in the NY-NJ-CT triangle will double fist me in the pooper?

I think you could flip that argument the US is getting 0% now and would get 10% now. This number is silly low but the Chamber has been crowing for them to lower the rate. Most of the big global outfits have been parking money they want to bring back because of the tax rate. This isn't the worst idea. Personally I'd like them to give them the lower tax rate on this money as long as they stop inverting.

Smoove_B wrote:I posted it before the election, but he said ~10 years ago that he believes in a literal translation of the Bible. We have a Creationist as the VP of the United States of America. Everything is fine.

He also said in 2000 that he doesn't believe smoking kills. Pretty sure that you ever needed a brain transplant, you'd want his, it's never been used.

Captain Caveman wrote:Jesus Christ.

Back to the 3 AM tweeting.

I'm sure this was in support of all the protesters, and not just the pro-Trump ones. Right? Right?

Defiant wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:Jesus Christ.

Back to the 3 AM tweeting.

I'm sure this was in support of all the protesters, and not just the pro-Trump ones. Right? Right?

I don't know if this was ever documented, but during the campaign it was said the sane (relatively speaking) tweets were coming from staff using his account, and insane ones were from the tiny, tiny fingers of his Supreme Glory.

I still can't get over that first tweet. Trump is elected president in a historic upset and his first substantive tweet is him wallowing in self-pity and lamenting the 1st amendment.

It's even more stark when you look at his twitter responses to previous elections where he was essentially calling for mass protests and revolution.

I've never been super crazy about twitter as a communication medium, but the way that he and his staff are using it is awful. Since they both seem to have access, we're getting this schizophrenic thing where his account says one thing, and then says the exact opposite ten hours later. Part of me hopes that he revokes his staff's access, because having a direct line to his brain is very insightful.

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

I don't know about that. One congress person can keep a president from doing anything. They can keep bills from ever coming to a vote as chairperson of a committee. They can fillibuster forever without it ever being known they are doing it.

Maybe you mean they can't take positive actions on their own. I'd agree with that. But they have the almost unlimited "anti-power" - that is, they can keep many, many things from getting done.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

The power of the executive branch is vested in one man (sorry, but "man" still fits). The power of the legislative branch is spread among 535.

Congress works on seniority and relationships. It would be a mistake to arbitrarily throw out the most powerful members who spent their lives getting there.

I just don't understand how you can say this. You rail against Citizen's United and then are perfectly happy to let people stay there as long as they can. It just boggles my mind.

stessier wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Unagi wrote: How many congressmen do you get to vote for?
And One Senator every something years. I'm ok with it being perhaps larger than 8 years run-time, like 16 or so seems really reasonable.

Except each congress person has very limited power.

I don't know about that. One congress person can keep a president from doing anything. They can keep bills from ever coming to a vote as chairperson of a committee. They can fillibuster forever without it ever being known they are doing it.

Maybe you mean they can't take positive actions on their own. I'd agree with that. But they have the almost unlimited "anti-power" - that is, they can keep many, many things from getting done.

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe an individual congressperson can "keep a president from doing anything"*, with the possible exceptions of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, and even then, that only limits some of what the President can do (there's plenty of actions the president can do that congress has little say in). And even then, to some extent, it requires some support of much of that chamber (and someone very effective in the role, like say, LBJ)

And, to a large extent, "anti-power" is a lot less scary than pro(?)-power (err, Executive power) if you're worried about a tyrant.


* Though I think certain members, like ranking members of committees, can have a lot of influence in certain areas.

Kraken wrote: The power of the executive branch is vested in one man (sorry, but "man" still fits). The power of the legislative branch is spread among 535.

While that's true, it is disrupted somewhat by the fact that almost all congressmen fall into two parties. One person cannot dominate congress for long periods, but one ideology can, and can use that power to ensure they keep it. Of course, the gerries are so mandered that I don't think term limits would solve the problem.

em2nought wrote:I may eat myself to death, but at least I'd die knowing that the future POTUS isn't going to turn his back, and sacrifice troops in the field without at least trying to help them.

Out of sheer curiosity, what is Trump's proposed policy which makes you think this?

1) To amend your comment malchior about not voting for another Republican until that seat is filled. I will never vote for a Republican again. Period.

2) With respect to term limits. I value experience, a lot. I am inclined against systems which forcibly limit the acquisition and application of experience. Apparently I can accept this limitation on the most powerful job in the country, and that's about as far as I can go. In a representative govt like ours, People have the right to the representation they choose.

Also, with respect to emotional overreactions to losing the election. Don't. Understand why you lost and work to fix it.

As I've said before, there is a real problem facing rural America. They were willing to be lied to simply because the lie was that he would help (even though he can't do what he promised).

The answer isn't protests or eliminating the electoral college. The answer is coming up with a legitimate answer to their plight and effectively selling it to them. Get to work.

The part where he showed genuine concern for his fellow man in the course of striving for his goals.

RunningMn9 wrote: I will never vote for a Republican again. Period.

I can't say that but there will need to a sustained show me before it ever happens.

I can. The negotiable part is whether I vote Democrat. That's still up to them. But I will never vote for a Republican for any office at any level ever again. That is the only limited price I can make them pay for nominating this non-Republican piece of shit and electing him.

Anyone read anything credible regarding Russian comments of being in contact with all of Trump's inner circle throughout the election?

I approached that point when they collectively held the Supreme Court hostage. I passed that point when they were gleefully rewarded for doing so.

Back in Trumo's wishlist:

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

What this means is unclear, but could be potentially insane.

Mayor: Database of undocumented New Yorkers could be deleted

A provision of the ID law that allows the personal information retained in the database to be "destroyed" by the end of the year -- a deadline included intentionally in case a "Tea Party Republican" won the White House, according to one of the law's sponsors -- could also be enacted, de Blasio said.

Remus West wrote:Anyone read anything credible regarding Russian comments of being in contact with all of Trump's inner circle throughout the election?

Maybe.

Assuming that isn't Russian bullshit to undermine Trump - that should be headline news - but who knows anymore.

A Russian official told CNN Thursday that that the Russian Foreign Ministry had offered to establish contact with both the Clinton and Trump teams in the run up to the US election. It's a move which the Ministry says is normal diplomatic practice "to maintain relations with the two obvious candidates."
The official said members of Clinton's team visited Moscow unofficially and held meetings with high-level representatives from both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry.

A spokesman for the US State Department, however, said Thursday that it was not uncommon for foreign officials to have contact with US political campaigns.

"There are instances where other foreign governments ... have contacts with the different political parties during a campaign," Mark Toner told reporters at the State Department.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/ ... index.html

RunningMn9 wrote: 2) With respect to term limits. I value experience, a lot. I am inclined against systems which forcibly limit the acquisition and application of experience. Apparently I can accept this limitation on the most powerful job in the country, and that's about as far as I can go. In a representative govt like ours, People have the right to the representation they choose.

I go along with that. I just don't agree with throwing someone out of office after an arbitrary amount of time regardless of their performance.

But, to play devil's advocate: A single limited term would end the dialing-for-dollars compulsion that underlies so many problems. Representatives in particular spend more time fundraising and campaigning than anything else.

Pence is now in charge of the transition - they demoted Christie. I don't know if that is an odd practice or not.