Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[The Conez Imperium]

I think he already has considering he has kicked out the Joint chiefs of Staff from that advisory council.

Bannon is the one to watch from my growing understanding.

The JSC wasn't kicked. The position now only refers too on a need to know basis based upon their area of expertise.

Need to know basis determined by who? I don't think the JSC can rock up to any meeting now without being invited and I can hazard a guess that Trump/Bannon are creating a power structure to circumnavigate the bureaucracy/officers in order to run the country. It's not too far fetched to see this as an early sign of an attempt to control the military wing of the government.

[Washington Resistance Army]

From the looks of it he's more or less a not so vulgar Scalia. Not perfect by any means but he could be a lot worse.

Honestly, if with a Republican majority in government, just another Scalia is probably the best replacement for Scalia we could hope for.
However he is only 50, so we can look forward to his input for at least the next 3 decades.

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

[Alvecia]

Honestly, if with a Republican majority in government, just another Scalia is probably the best replacement for Scalia we could hope for.
However he is only 50, so we can look forward to his input for at least the next 3 decades.

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

Ginsberg is about ready to drop

[Seangoli]

Because Round 1 of the Great Recession was just so pleasant for everyone we are now getting Round 2:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... -rule.html

Also, this gem:

Trump will use a memorandum to ask the labor secretary to consider rescinding a rule set to go into effect in April that orders retirement advisers, overseeing about $3 trillion in assets, to act in the best interest of their clients, Cohn said in the White House interview. He said the rule limits consumer choice.

Boy-howdy, he sure is showing it to Wall Street and corruption by doing something that will directly benefit Wall Street and wreaks of corruption.

Seriously, though, there is a reason why regulations exist. The right has been throwing around regulation like an insult for years, and seem to have forgotten why we have them in the first place.

[Socialist Nordia]

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

Ginsberg is about ready to drop

Pls don't say this. She can hold on, she can do it. I hope. RBG is my hero.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

Ginsberg is about ready to drop

Indeed. I think there was also talk of one of them, Thomas maybe, retiring in the near future. If both of those happen the GOP could suddenly have a lot of Scalia types on the court for several decades.

[Valrifell]

Because Round 1 of the Great Recession was just so pleasant for everyone we are now getting Round 2:

You're not thinking YUUUGGGEE enough. Great Depression Part 2: Electric Boogaloo (now with more starvation!)

[Seangoli]

Honestly, if with a Republican majority in government, just another Scalia is probably the best replacement for Scalia we could hope for.
However he is only 50, so we can look forward to his input for at least the next 3 decades.

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

To be fair, there is no set number of Justices. There can be 8 just as easily as there could be 20. Let's just not tell Trump that.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

his scotus pick seems reasonable

Could be worse. He's merely a conservative, rather than insane.

It's quite difficult to find really crazy federal judges, because that's a quite selective group. However, his views are basically a mix of Scalia Light and Mike Pence in a toga. He's not outright insane, but his judicial views are quite conservative, and quite unlike my own.

[Seangoli]

Could be worse. He's merely a conservative, rather than insane.

It's quite difficult to find really crazy federal judges, because that's a quite selective group. However, his views are basically a mix of Scalia Light and Mike Pence in a toga. He's not outright insane, but his judicial views are quite conservative, and quite unlike my own.

Ideological me really wants the Dems to roadblock him. Pragmatic me realizes this quite likely better than his other options.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

To be fair, there is no set number of Justices. There can be 8 just as easily as there could be 20. Let's just not tell Trump that.

That's one thing I don't think he could get away with. If FDR couldn't pack the court this dummy won't be able to.

[Great Nepal]

So we're gonna get a transparent wall, made of sensors and other technologies. Although i'm not entirely clear on what technology autonomously identifies an illegal Mexicans crossing a border and not say a dog walking across one.

[Seangoli]

So we're gonna get a transparent wall, made of sensors and other technologies. Although i'm not entirely clear on what technology autonomously identifies an illegal Mexicans crossing a border and not say a dog walking across one.

I still haven't seen an answer as to who is going to fill those jobs that migrant workers work in, let alone at a price that won't spell disaster for our agricultural industry.

Aside from about fifteen other problems with the wall.

[Great Nepal]

So we're gonna get a transparent wall, made of sensors and other technologies. Although i'm not entirely clear on what technology autonomously identifies an illegal Mexicans crossing a border and not say a dog walking across one.

I still haven't seen an answer as to who is going to fill those jobs that migrant workers work in, let alone at a price that won't spell disaster for our agricultural industry.

Aside from about fifteen other problems with the wall.

Trump will make the best deals with Mexico so Mexico will pay the workers to work on those jobs, and then go back to Mexico afterwards? Then American farm owners won't have to pay anything, currently the american farm owners have to pay the Mexicans - its totally one sided deal.

[Frenequesta]

Ginsberg is about ready to drop

Indeed. I think there was also talk of one of them, Thomas maybe, retiring in the near future. If both of those happen the GOP could suddenly have a lot of Scalia types on the court for several decades.

I once read somewhere that Thomas intends to spend 43 years on the high court (apparently as revenge for liberals giving him hell for all his life before his appointment). So not until 2034.

[Ifreann]

If more Justices drop off though (I'm expecting at least one or two tbh) it'll be interesting to see what the GOP does.

Ginsberg is about ready to drop

Death wouldn't dare come for RBG.

---

Because Round 1 of the Great Recession was just so pleasant for everyone we are now getting Round 2:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... -rule.html

Also, this gem:

Trump will use a memorandum to ask the labor secretary to consider rescinding a rule set to go into effect in April that orders retirement advisers, overseeing about $3 trillion in assets, to act in the best interest of their clients, Cohn said in the White House interview. He said the rule limits consumer choice.

Boy-howdy, he sure is showing it to Wall Street and corruption by doing something that will directly benefit Wall Street and wreaks of corruption.

Seriously, though, there is a reason why regulations exist. The right has been throwing around regulation like an insult for years, and seem to have forgotten why we have them in the first place.

"If only my retirement adviser didn't have to act in my best interest!" thought nobody ever.

[Frenequesta]

Because Round 1 of the Great Recession was just so pleasant for everyone we are now getting Round 2:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... -rule.html

Also, this gem:

Trump will use a memorandum to ask the labor secretary to consider rescinding a rule set to go into effect in April that orders retirement advisers, overseeing about $3 trillion in assets, to act in the best interest of their clients, Cohn said in the White House interview. He said the rule limits consumer choice.

Boy-howdy, he sure is showing it to Wall Street and corruption by doing something that will directly benefit Wall Street and wreaks of corruption.

Seriously, though, there is a reason why regulations exist. The right has been throwing around regulation like an insult for years, and seem to have forgotten why we have them in the first place.

That rule is "controversial"?

[Ashmoria]

Honestly, of all the things I am laughing about now, Trump and his constant insecurity about his win and inauguration crowd size is probably the most hilarious.

I mean, he is on the phone with world leaders, and he is so compelled to talk about the size of his inauguration crowd? I wish I could have been in the room, just to see the look on Turnbull's face the entire time. Trump is just a toddler in a suit, with worse hair.

Gotta love how he has turned the GOP foreign policy basically on its head. Friendly with Russia, but ranting at Australia. The irony would be delicious if it wasn't so terrifying.

on the start of black history month he spent more time talking about the 10 minutes when some reporter said that he had removed the bust of MLKjr then quickly tweeted that he was wrong--FAKE NEWS (even though it was a tweet and not news at all)--than he did talking about black history

disturbing

[Ashmoria]

Because Round 1 of the Great Recession was just so pleasant for everyone we are now getting Round 2:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02 ... -rule.html

Also, this gem:

Trump will use a memorandum to ask the labor secretary to consider rescinding a rule set to go into effect in April that orders retirement advisers, overseeing about $3 trillion in assets, to act in the best interest of their clients, Cohn said in the White House interview. He said the rule limits consumer choice.

Boy-howdy, he sure is showing it to Wall Street and corruption by doing something that will directly benefit Wall Street and wreaks of corruption.

Seriously, though, there is a reason why regulations exist. The right has been throwing around regulation like an insult for years, and seem to have forgotten why we have them in the first place.

but but but I should be able to use my good friend joey who will steal all my money! that's choice!

[Ashmoria]

So we're gonna get a transparent wall, made of sensors and other technologies. Although i'm not entirely clear on what technology autonomously identifies an illegal Mexicans crossing a border and not say a dog walking across one.

DONT QUESTION IT!

for gods sake if they can make the case that they have built a wall when all they do is finish plans that have been in effect for a long time ITS FOR THE GOOD

[Seangoli]

"If only my retirement adviser didn't have to act in my best interest!" thought nobody ever.

The best reason I've ever heard from anybody on the subject as to why we shouldn't have it is that financial advisers will work in their clients best interest anyway, as that will tend to make the most money. Thus making the rule unnecessary, and needlessly difficult to comply with.

The problem is, of course, that there are people who know the system well enough to figure out a means in which their clients are getting shafted, but they come out ahead.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It's quite difficult to find really crazy federal judges, because that's a quite selective group. However, his views are basically a mix of Scalia Light and Mike Pence in a toga. He's not outright insane, but his judicial views are quite conservative, and quite unlike my own.

Ideological me really wants the Dems to roadblock him. Pragmatic me realizes this quite likely better than his other options.

Yeah, and that would just politicise the Court even more. Really, perhaps the appointment of the Supreme Court should be done not by the president, but by some kind of internal commission or bottom-up system of all the judges. That the Court is split across party lines is a disgrace to any judicial system. Perhaps if the president had to rule via coalition, he could be trusted to appoint Supreme Judges, but the fact that there are clearly Democrat and Republican judges strikes me as unjust. The Republicans should've approved Garland, and the Democrats should approve Gorsuch for the same reason.

[Seangoli]

So we're gonna get a transparent wall, made of sensors and other technologies. Although i'm not entirely clear on what technology autonomously identifies an illegal Mexicans crossing a border and not say a dog walking across one.

DONT QUESTION IT!

for gods sake if they can make the case that they have built a wall when all they do is finish plans that have been in effect for a long time ITS FOR THE GOOD

For fuck's sake, he's already made the case that he single-handedly turned around the F-35 program after one visit two months ago, and cut $600 million from what we will pay for them (neither had to do with him; the F-35 program has apparently turned itself around years ago, and improved production had a planned effect of reducing the cost).

I can almost guarantee you that he's going to take credit for the 700,000 manufacturing jobs that Japan was planning on creating in the US in the first place, even though he had almost nothing to do with their decision.

The guy is Kim Jong Il levels of demagoguery. And the scary part is is that I'm pretty sure he believes it.

[Galloism]

"If only my retirement adviser didn't have to act in my best interest!" thought nobody ever.

The best reason I've ever heard from anybody on the subject as to why we shouldn't have it is that financial advisers will work in their clients best interest anyway, as that will tend to make the most money. Thus making the rule unnecessary, and needlessly difficult to comply with.

The problem is, of course, that there are people who know the system well enough to figure out a means in which their clients are getting shafted, but they come out ahead.

Well, what the rule effectively does is prohibit self-dealing or churning.

But given trump has been caught himself self-dealing to the shareholders detriment, it's no surprise he would be against rules prohibiting actions like his.

[Ashmoria]

"If only my retirement adviser didn't have to act in my best interest!" thought nobody ever.

The best reason I've ever heard from anybody on the subject as to why we shouldn't have it is that financial advisers will work in their clients best interest anyway, as that will tend to make the most money. Thus making the rule unnecessary, and needlessly difficult to comply with.

The problem is, of course, that there are people who know the system well enough to figure out a means in which their clients are getting shafted, but they come out ahead.

suze Ormond famously had that happen to her. it started her on her own career in money stuff.

your financial advisor will still cheat you (if he wants to) its just that with this rule IF YOU FIND OUT you can sue him to get some of your money back--pro tip: he will already have spent it.