Octopus Overlords

that... was easy, I need more coffee.

I know the Secret Service has a lot of bad press lately, but if they can't identify one of their protectees without a hat, there might be something wrong.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Holman wrote: He thought he was at a fucking campaign rally.

No, he knew it was an ad. The hat he was wearing is available at his website for $40. I'm sure the FLOTUS hat his wife was wearing will be available soon.

Piece of shit.

And the USA hat isn't just "USA." It's "USA" with a flag on one side and a "45" on the other.

(In April the Trump campaign reported having sold more than 525,000 MAGA hats at $25-$50/each.)

I'm all about attacking the POTUS for stupid shit he does but this pegs about a 1 on his vanity, out of touch, and narcissism scale.

I'll save my OUTRAGE for pardoning criminals, strong arming Congress, attacking dissenters, discussing adoptions, hyping his businesses, passively nodding smiles at nazis, expecting the executive office to run federal government like a mafia, and hosts of other things.

Holman wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Holman wrote: He thought he was at a fucking campaign rally.

No, he knew it was an ad. The hat he was wearing is available at his website for $40. I'm sure the FLOTUS hat his wife was wearing will be available soon.

Piece of shit.

And the USA hat isn't just "USA." It's "USA" with a flag on one side and a "45" on the other.

(In April the Trump campaign reported having sold more than 525,000 MAGA hats at $25-$50/each.)

And Trump's name on the back.

Mattis to Trump: Not so fast...

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis late Tuesday announced that transgender troops will be allowed to continue serving in the military pending the results of a study by experts.

The announcement follows an order from President Trump — first announced in a tweet — declaring that transgender service members can no longer serve in the military, effectively reversing an Obama administration policy. The order also affects the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Coast Guard.

"Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said in the statement. "In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place."

Trumpy's gonna be pissed.

stessier wrote:

Vorret wrote:wtf is a flotus

First Lady Of The United Sates - generally married to POTUS - President Of The United States.

Until he decides to trade out again.

Skinypupy wrote:Mattis to Trump: Not so fast...

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis late Tuesday announced that transgender troops will be allowed to continue serving in the military pending the results of a study by experts.

The announcement follows an order from President Trump — first announced in a tweet — declaring that transgender service members can no longer serve in the military, effectively reversing an Obama administration policy. The order also affects the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Coast Guard.

"Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said in the statement. "In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place."

Trumpy's gonna be pissed.

I don't think this pisses off Trump, since the EO gave the military the latitude to decide how to handle currently-enlisted trans servicemembers. My understanding is that Trump basically said "No more trans people can enlist, and the military can't pay medical costs related to transitioning, but the military can decide if they want to allow them to continue to serve, or boot them out. This is Mattis saying "booting out all the trans members not only is a massive, needless waste of resources, and opens up holes that will need to be filled, it also effectively reintroduces don't ask don't tell for trans folks only, as outing yourself would mean they'd kick you out.

So while I think it's a good move by Mattis, it's not exactly the "FU, Trump" that some are making it out to be.

LordMortis wrote:I'm all about attacking the POTUS for stupid shit he does but this pegs about a 1 on his vanity, out of touch, and narcissism scale.

I'll save my OUTRAGE for pardoning criminals, strong arming Congress, attacking dissenters, discussing adoptions, hyping his businesses, passively nodding smiles at nazis, expecting the executive office to run federal government like a mafia, and hosts of other things.

They're all symptoms of the same thing. The disrespect he shows for the office and his disgusting, venal willingness to sell it out are exactly why it's such a shitshow.

The fact that he's brashly using his position to enrich himself at every single possible chance, including while touring a disaster site, isn't a small thing.

Agreed it's not on the scale of crimes & corruption, but it's just further proof of character.

Has Trump ever yet behaved as admirably presidential as Barack Obama on a below-average day?

LawBeefaroni wrote:They're all symptoms of the same thing. The disrespect he shows for the office and his disgusting, venal willingness to sell it out are exactly why it's such a shitshow.

The fact that he's brashly using his position to enrich himself at every single possible chance, including while touring a disaster site, isn't a small thing.

No arguments about the symptom, I just can't find the comparative outrage. It is small by comparison. I'll save being drained for the next big thing. By me estimates, that will be in two weeks tops.

http://www.fox32chicago.com/weather/277800216-story

The White House announced Thursday that President Donald Trump pledged to donate $1 million in personal funds to Harvey relief efforts.

LordMortis wrote:http://www.fox32chicago.com/weather/277800216-story

The White House announced Thursday that President Donald Trump pledged to donate $1 million in personal funds to Harvey relief efforts.

Hmmm, maybe I will also donate 0.01% of my net worth. I hear Red Cross is the wrong answer. I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

coopasonic wrote:I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

In case this is a real question I would suggest the Houston Food Bank.

coopasonic wrote:

LordMortis wrote:http://www.fox32chicago.com/weather/277800216-story

The White House announced Thursday that President Donald Trump pledged to donate $1 million in personal funds to Harvey relief efforts.

Hmmm, maybe I will also donate 0.01% of my net worth. I hear Red Cross is the wrong answer. I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

What's the deal with the Red Cross? My understanding is that the bad juju around them as a disaster relief organization stems from a ProPublica report lambasting their Haiti response. But I have also seen a Red Cross response calling the report wildly misleading, and a number of public figures that I respect (including Obama) encourage giving to the Red Cross.

Has anyone here read through all this stuff?

ProPublica had a link-filled tweetstorm on this yesterday.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to be more than one report.

For the Tapatalkers.

El Guapo wrote:

coopasonic wrote:

LordMortis wrote:http://www.fox32chicago.com/weather/277800216-story

The White House announced Thursday that President Donald Trump pledged to donate $1 million in personal funds to Harvey relief efforts.

Hmmm, maybe I will also donate 0.01% of my net worth. I hear Red Cross is the wrong answer. I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

What's the deal with the Red Cross? My understanding is that the bad juju around them as a disaster relief organization stems from a ProPublica report lambasting their Haiti response. But I have also seen a Red Cross response calling the report wildly misleading, and a number of public figures that I respect (including Obama) encourage giving to the Red Cross.

Has anyone here read through all this stuff?

Without detailed understand, I suspect it comes from the large overhead of big an International and fast deployment organization couple with a lack of transparency from dealing with shady people. If I remember the articles I've read right, red cross has minimal hangs ups with handing money to shitty people if it serves their interest. When you can quick deploy to really shitty places with solid resources and your organization is big money gets grey. Idealists (Though their concerns about corruption may be valid) don't like money to go to administrators and warlords even if it means. Healthcare for the hardest places to get to. I have no evidence either way but I think that is the dilemma.

Personally I don't find it much different than nations dealing with tyrannies. Or churches requiring jesus classes for shelter and food.


Edit: for domestic and local tragedies you are better off with small and direct persons and organizations. Jj watt's family has the ability and connections to volunteer their time and effort to give directly to points of need without overhead or beaurocracy. They have little incentive to swindle the community that feeds and adores them. However individual don't have oversite or institutional experience.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Speaking of JJ Watt, his crowdfunding campaign seems to be going well. Started with a $200k goal ($100k of Watt's), and is now at $12M and counting.

Moliere wrote:

coopasonic wrote:I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

In case this is a real question I would suggest the Houston Food Bank.

That's where my donation and my employers matching funds have gone.

gbasden wrote:

Moliere wrote:

coopasonic wrote:I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

In case this is a real question I would suggest the Houston Food Bank.

That's where my donation and my employers matching funds have gone.

+1, minus the employer match.

Moliere wrote:

coopasonic wrote:I guess need to figure out who to give my $100 to.

In case this is a real question I would suggest the Houston Food Bank.

That's who we're sending food, water, and blankets to.

Trump cites "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" as the reason to cut federal employee's pay raises.

President Trump sent a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday announcing his intention to cut pay raises for civilian government workers.

In the letter, Trump cited his authority in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” to make adjustments to the 2018 pay schedule for federal employees.

Under the previous plan, workers were scheduled for a 1.9 percent bump. Trump will use his authority to lower that to 1.4 percent.

“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course,” Trump wrote.

“A pay increase of this magnitude is not warranted, and Federal agency budgets could not accommodate such an increase while still maintaining support for key Federal priorities such as those that advance the safety and security of the American people.”

I'll give him credit for one thing. In his goal to completely demotivate, create (even more) massive inefficiencies, and destroy the morale of federal government employees, Trump has been wildly successful. I'm sure there will be a truckload more private contracts (that cost twice as much for the same work) incoming any...day...now.

Oh, and which is it? Are we a growing, thriving economy (entirely due to his leadership), or are we in a "national financial emergency". Make up your goddamn mind.

There is no mind.

Only puppet.

You're the puppet.

Oh, we're in a national emergency alright. Just not the one he thinks it is.

Skinypupy wrote:Drumpf cites "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" as the reason to cut federal employee's pay raises.

President Drumpf sent a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday announcing his intention to cut pay raises for civilian government workers.

In the letter, Drumpf cited his authority in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” to make adjustments to the 2018 pay schedule for federal employees.

Under the previous plan, workers were scheduled for a 1.9 percent bump. Drumpf will use his authority to lower that to 1.4 percent.

“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course,” Drumpf wrote.

“A pay increase of this magnitude is not warranted, and Federal agency budgets could not accommodate such an increase while still maintaining support for key Federal priorities such as those that advance the safety and security of the American people.”

I'll give him credit for one thing. In his goal to completely demotivate, create (even more) massive inefficiencies, and destroy the morale of federal government employees, Drumpf has been wildly successful. I'm sure there will be a truckload more private contracts (that cost twice as much for the same work) incoming any...day...now.

Oh, and which is it? Are we a growing, thriving economy (entirely due to his leadership), or are we in a "national financial emergency". Make up your goddamn mind.

A complete and utter prick.

Skinypupy wrote:I'm sure there will be a truckload more private contracts (that cost twice as much for the same work) incoming any...day...now.

Which will help create a stronger economy by pumping billions in taxpayer funds into the hands of 1% of the 1%, who will certainly reinvest those funds in he country and would never move it offshore or hoard it.

It will make it fun to ask my Trump-loving civilian federal employee friend how he's liking that pay raise cut.

All those registered voters...

YellowKing wrote:It will make it fun to ask my Drumpf-loving civilian federal employee friend how he's liking that pay raise cut.

but beautiful, clean coal...

YellowKing wrote:It will make it fun to ask my Trump-loving civilian federal employee friend how he's liking that pay raise cut.

I will have to take the temperature around the room here when they find out. There's a few Trumptards in here. Not many, but a few.

We have one guy who admitted to voting for Trump because he is "smart" because he took advantage of bankruptcy laws. I was stunned he wanted a guy like that in charge.

This was a while ago and he knows it's better to shut up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scoop20906 wrote:We have one guy who admitted to voting for Trump because he is "smart" because he took advantage of bankruptcy laws. I was stunned he wanted a guy like that in charge.

Well, to be fair neither Maddoff nor Shkreli bothered to run so what's a body to do?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Obviously he hired a ghost writer for that. "Happened" is spelled correctly.

Shit happens.

Uh...Hilary hasn't held a public office in months. Let it go dudes.

We get it. 4chan got to choose the president this time. Haha!

It's amazing how ingrained the hatred is for Clinton. She's not even around and conservatives can't stop thinking about her. I assume it's the sexual tension.

Try not to get too worked up about it when you find out she's a grandma who can't bake cookies.

Surprised you guys aren't rumbling more about DACA.

I guess the dead dog protocol is more effective than I realized.

Rip wrote:Surprised you guys aren't rumbling more about DACA.

I guess the dead dog protocol is more effective than I realized.

We could necro the immigration thread for that.

Or not....

Trump's reasons for canceling DACA appear to be that (1) it's Obama's policy, and (2) he's got to keep throwing meat to his immigrant-hating base. Numerous members of Congress urged him not to do it, so the odds are pretty good that they will come up with a rescue plan after a suitable interval of chaos and confusion (because needlessly disrupting people's lives is how America rolls now).

Oh, I'm rumbling about DACA, just not here.

It's probably the cruelest, most vindictive thing he's done yet. Probably to be topped within a few months.