NationStates

Major-Tom wrote:fucking unbelieable that we have had so many threads about our POTUS

We'll be up to fifty by election 2020.

Corrian wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:fucking unbelieable that we have had so many threads about our POTUS

How many did Obama have? Like 3?

Megathreads were a lot less common back then.

Eol Sha wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:fucking unbelieable that we have had so many threads about our POTUS

We'll be up to fifty by election 2020.

100 by the time he's out of office in 2024.

That's a scary thought.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Eol Sha wrote:We'll be up to fifty by election 2020.

100 by the time he's out of office in 2024.

That's a scary thought.

Don't think that way. His popularity has crashed,and right now, I don't really see anyway for the democrats to fuck this up and not win 2020.

Hell I will be surprised if the somehow don't win 2018. Unless of course a series of fuck ups happen again.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
100 by the time he's out of office in 2024.

That's a scary thought.

Don't think that way. His popularity has crashed,and right now, I don't really see anyway for the democrats to fuck this up and not win 2020.

Hell I will be surprised if the somehow don't win 2018. Unless of course a series of fuck ups happen again.

I see plenty of ways for them to fuck up 2020, and more than a few to fuck up 2018.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Don't think that way. His popularity has crashed,and right now, I don't really see anyway for the democrats to fuck this up and not win 2020.

Hell I will be surprised if the somehow don't win 2018. Unless of course a series of fuck ups happen again.

I see plenty of ways for them to fuck up 2020, and more than a few to fuck up 2018.

Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
100 by the time he's out of office in 2024.

That's a scary thought.

Don't think that way. His popularity has crashed,and right now, I don't really see anyway for the democrats to fuck this up and not win 2020.

Hell I will be surprised if the somehow don't win 2018. Unless of course a series of fuck ups happen again.

My faith in the Dems not to fuck everything up isn't all that high right now.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I see plenty of ways for them to fuck up 2020, and more than a few to fuck up 2018.

Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

If only it was that easy.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I see plenty of ways for them to fuck up 2020, and more than a few to fuck up 2018.

Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

There isn't an overabundance of likable people in the party nowadays, and most of those who are likable are old as hell and probably shouldn't run. They might have competent people, but when you aren't likable and can't really communicate your ideas (or worse, if people don't like your ideas) you're going to be in trouble.

The Senate is simply unattainable in 2018, and if recentish trends hold the GOP should be able to get out at least enough in the midterms to hold a majority. The Dems can certainly make gains in the House but I struggle to see them getting a majority.

I don't have much faith left in the Dems to not completely screw things up at this point.

Corrian wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
You shut your mouth, any and all wasps are the personification of evil.

I have never had a paper wasp be aggressive to me, and they make nests all over our beams on our house or garage, and fly around me all the time

These fuckers on the other hand...

(Only time I ever got stung)

To be fair, I did kind of throw a hose on the plant they had a home in

Yellow jackets are evil.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

There isn't an overabundance of likable people in the party nowadays, and most of those who are likable are old as hell and probably shouldn't run. They might have competent people, but when you aren't likable and can't really communicate your ideas (or worse, if people don't like your ideas) you're going to be in trouble.

The Senate is simply unattainable in 2018, and if recentish trends hold the GOP should be able to get out at least enough in the midterms to hold a majority. The Dems can certainly make gains in the House but I struggle to see them getting a majority.

I don't have much faith left in the Dems to not completely screw things up at this point.

I think old people should run, if only beacuse they have experience and are likeable.

I think Trump's own unpopularity will trip up the GOP's trends.

In any event, if all else fails, how do you think I would do if I was running for president?

"Make American government do sensible things again" would be my slogan.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
There isn't an overabundance of likable people in the party nowadays, and most of those who are likable are old as hell and probably shouldn't run. They might have competent people, but when you aren't likable and can't really communicate your ideas (or worse, if people don't like your ideas) you're going to be in trouble.

The Senate is simply unattainable in 2018, and if recentish trends hold the GOP should be able to get out at least enough in the midterms to hold a majority. The Dems can certainly make gains in the House but I struggle to see them getting a majority.

I don't have much faith left in the Dems to not completely screw things up at this point.

I think old people should run, if only beacuse they have experience and are likeable.

I think Trump's own unpopularity will trip up the GOP's trends.

In any event, if all else fails, how do you think I would do if I was running for president?

"Make American government do sensible things again" would be my slogan.

You won't get elected. You're Canadian, Herp.

Eol Sha wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
I think old people should run, if only beacuse they have experience and are likeable.

I think Trump's own unpopularity will trip up the GOP's trends.

In any event, if all else fails, how do you think I would do if I was running for president?

"Make American government do sensible things again" would be my slogan.

You won't get elected. You're Canadian, Herp.

He could get elected to congress.

Heres how i would run for office of the president.

"Candidate Balk, what is your opinion of -" " i know you work for MSNBC, you cunt."
"What do you have to say about the Terror attacks in Europe?" "Pay for NATO or Fuck off."
"The Canadian PM has commented on your statements regarding his nation's sovereignty, your response?" "I don't respond to Bastards."
"Mexico-" "Annex but only for the hookers and blow."
"Why have you only campaigned in the Midwestern united states as well as Pennsylvania?" "Fuck everything east of Phillie, thats why."
"what about the west?" "Fuck everything west of Bismarck."
"And the south?" "I dont talk to Bastard children."

Neo Balka wrote:Heres how i would run for office of the president.

"Candidate Balk, what is your opinion of -" " i know you work for MSNBC, you cunt."
"What do you have to say about the Terror attacks in Europe?" "Pay for NATO or Fuck off."
"The Canadian PM has commented on your statements regarding his nation's sovereignty, your response?" "I don't respond to Bastards."
"Mexico-" "Annex but only for the hookers and blow."
"Why have you only campaigned in the Midwestern united states as well as Pennsylvania?" "Fuck everything east of Phillie, thats why."
"what about the west?" "Fuck everything west of Bismarck."
"And the south?" "I dont talk to Bastard children."

I figured Trump probably had an account here.

Maineiacs wrote:

Neo Balka wrote:Heres how i would run for office of the president.

"Candidate Balk, what is your opinion of -" " i know you work for MSNBC, you cunt."
"What do you have to say about the Terror attacks in Europe?" "Pay for NATO or Fuck off."
"The Canadian PM has commented on your statements regarding his nation's sovereignty, your response?" "I don't respond to Bastards."
"Mexico-" "Annex but only for the hookers and blow."
"Why have you only campaigned in the Midwestern united states as well as Pennsylvania?" "Fuck everything east of Phillie, thats why."
"what about the west?" "Fuck everything west of Bismarck."
"And the south?" "I dont talk to Bastard children."

I figured Trump probably had an account here.

yep.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Replying to the Yellowstone thing from the last thread:

What the shitting fuck is wrong with this administration?

It would be easier to answer 'what the shitting fuck is right with this administration?'

I mean, it's easy as fuck to answer both:

For mine: everything.
For yours: nothing.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

There isn't an overabundance of likable people in the party nowadays, and most of those who are likable are old as hell and probably shouldn't run.

I respectfully disagree.

The Dems have a lot of younger talent in the same vein as Cory Booker or Gillibrand, both of which are much younger than Clinton or Trump and seem very likeable to me.

Valrifell wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
There isn't an overabundance of likable people in the party nowadays, and most of those who are likable are old as hell and probably shouldn't run.

I respectfully disagree.

The Dems have a lot of younger talent in the same vein as Cory Booker or Gillibrand, both of which are much younger than Clinton or Trump and seem very likeable to me.

I can't speak for Gillibrand because I really don't know anything and haven't asked anyone but most of the reactions I've seen about Booker pretty much boil down to "eww".

While there might be some younger people in the party who are likable you do have admit most of the names that people (especially people who aren't big into politics) like seem to be 60+ with a few exceptions.

Neo Balka wrote:Heres how i would run for office of the president.

"Candidate Balk, what is your opinion of -" " i know you work for MSNBC, you cunt."
"What do you have to say about the Terror attacks in Europe?" "Pay for NATO or Fuck off."
"The Canadian PM has commented on your statements regarding his nation's sovereignty, your response?" "I don't respond to Bastards."
"Mexico-" "Annex but only for the hookers and blow."
"Why have you only campaigned in the Midwestern united states as well as Pennsylvania?" "Fuck everything east of Phillie, thats why."
"what about the west?" "Fuck everything west of Bismarck."
"And the south?" "I dont talk to Bastard children."

*tear in eye*

You'd have my vote.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I respectfully disagree.

The Dems have a lot of younger talent in the same vein as Cory Booker or Gillibrand, both of which are much younger than Clinton or Trump and seem very likeable to me.

I can't speak for Gillibrand because I really don't know anything and haven't asked anyone but most of the reactions I've seen about Booker pretty much boil down to "eww".

While there might be some younger people in the party who are likable you do have admit most of the names that people (especially people who aren't big into politics) like seem to be 60+ with a few exceptions.

To be fair, though, I had no idea who O'Malley, Sanders, and half of the GOP field was coming in. It's likely some newer talent will find their way out of the woods.

Also, the reaction to Booker is mostly due to his recent healthcare shenanigans, but before that, most people agree he gave a really fantastic speech at the DNC and seemed likeable.

Major-Tom wrote:fucking unbelieable that we have had so many threads about our POTUS

Better be all contained in a single thread than have a thread by the hour.

It'd be nothing but Trump issues in NSG.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I see plenty of ways for them to fuck up 2020, and more than a few to fuck up 2018.

Like how? They have two jobs, find someone who isn't utterly incompetent and somewhat likeable.

2016 doesn't give me much hope that they can even do that. Furthermore, if 2016 proved anything, it's that Democrats can't rely on being the lesser of two evils to win an election. They have to have their own message and people actually have to like it.

Major-Tom wrote:fucking unbelieable that we have had so many threads about our POTUS

I mean the man is an epic fuckup. He's so dense that light bends around him. Every day it's something new.

Zanera wrote:

Senkaku wrote:"He's bringing back jobs!"

If he's legit doing this then I believe this is kind of what I mean by some secretaries wanting to 'dismantle' their own department, or downsize it so much it has no real power.

The office of Insular Affairs (OIA) is part of the Interior dept. so how will that affect them.

Currently, the OIA has administrative responsibility for coordinating federal policy in the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and oversight of federal programs and funds in the freely associated Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.

PR. was taken out of the OIA a long time ago.

Generally, it is agreed that the Pres. needs to cut back government expenses in order to lower taxes. Tax cuts which some say is really geared more to increase the profts of big business and the wealthy. Could explain why this from April 2017

Through twits and in an interview with Reuters, Trump took a hard stand against Puerto Rico receiving the $296 million in Medicaid funds, by considering them “a financial bail out.

ACA = Affordable Care Act -

While the ACA had only two pages dedicated to how it would affect the different US territories, the new healthcare bill includes even less information, mentioning Puerto Rico and the other territories of the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands a grand total of zero times. Because Puerto Rico and the other territories are treated differently when it comes to funding for healthcare, it is difficult to know how the AHCA will truly affect them. It is certainly possible that some may lose coverage, from federal or private insurance agencies, as Medicaid funding is cut, and consumer protections are weakened.

Up to date story on that PR. and Medicaid funds - http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... lock-grant

So is the plan to first try to cut the funds (many rely on these funds) going to the outlaying forgotten US territories and republics associated with the US in order to implement these proposed tax cuts.