Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html?adkey=bn  He supports ditching the electoral college, or in favor of getting rid of it, which is cool. No surprise that he is trending more liberal.

Of course though, so many people on both sides of the aisle hate the EC that it wouldn't matter whether he favored getting rid of it or not, though getting rid of it would actually be a political plus most likely.

plot twist, EC abolished retroactively, trump steps down for Hillary with Al as VP.

[smjjames]

He'll just find some sort of chicanery where he can turn for profit business ventures into aid orgs, so he can monetize their suffering, to extract the funds needed.

Or, find some way to make other people hold the bag.

That sounds highly illegal though..... and he won't be able to hide where the money is coming from.

[wierd]

Not how it works. If Pres and VP are down, speaker of house is prez. Not the candidate who lost the vote.

[Shadowlord]

Nixon could have told you how to get around that.

[Grim Portent]

The way to get around it would be to fire the VP/have them stand down (I presume the system is flexible enough to allow that), pick your desired successor as the new VP and then stand down yourself.

[smjjames]

Nixon could have told you how to get around that.

The wall funding or the EC thing?

[wierd]

Does not matter, retroactive legislation is forbidden by the constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

Not that any legislators CARE about that-- the recent extensions to copyright being quite onerous in this respect, for their efforts to retroactively remove works from the public domain.........


Still, in theory, illegal.

[martinuzz]

That depends on the method of seizure.

If you say "YOu must reinvest in your business's core infrastructure, such as training, or premises", you are still doing exactly what I said-- all the extra must be paid to infrastructure, and is decidedly "not communist" in its nature. The business owner/admin gets to pick what infrastructure he invests in.

If you say "Nope! Uncy sam will take all that, and use it to (insert social program here)", THAT is communism.

In the former, it is functionally equal to paying it to the government, because the government does not have to pay for it, where otherwise they would.

In the latter, you just remove the business owner's accumen for business, and put it in the hands of dangerous elected officials on how to use the money.

In both cases, it is functionally exactly what I said--- however, the former is significantly more free market in nature than the latter.

Communism would be the government stepping in and saying "I'm the new business owner"
Saying "Uncy Sam will take all that, and use it to (insert social program here) is still capitalism, with a very high tax rate. Everything above aforementioned million is 100% tax rate. The business itself is still owned by a private party, so no communism.

[Shadowlord]

Nixon could have told you how to get around that.

The wall funding or the EC thing?

The order of succession thing. If you recall, his VP resigned first, allowing him to bring on a new VP (Gerald Ford), before he himself resigned, and was pardoned by then-now-President Ford. (I ignored the impossible/unconstitutional retroactive-change part of the post, of course)

[TheBiggerFish]

If Trump somehow does a complete 180...

Well, I hope his prospective Cabinet isn't getting very used to their offices?

[redwallzyl]

If Trump somehow does a complete 180...

Well, I hope his prospective Cabinet isn't getting very used to their offices?

can you imagine what its like to be a studying environmental scientist about now?

*well class we could go over the clean water act but that's F***** now.

[Rolan7]

If Trump somehow does a complete 180...

Well, I hope his prospective Cabinet isn't getting very used to their offices?

Exactly.  As much as I hope he's actually running on a platform of reconstructing the establishment...  His cabinet picks indicate that he's probably just choosing based on typical *REACTIONARY* ideals.  Not just conservative ideals, but FAR right.

Of course, all we need is for someone to get facetime an double-dog-dare him to revoke FPTP.

He literally is that vulnerable to dares.  There's  solid case that he only ran for president because Obama and others wrote him off as a joke, and he took offense to that.

Fact is, these are the end times.  Good luck, AI experts!  No pressure, but either trigger the singularity or we're all dead.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not an environmental scientist specifically, but related field. Yeah, it's all fucked.

Survivalist websites might actually gain some use now, if only because they're obsessed about having clean food and water for sale.

[Frumple]

Y'know, that's an interesting thought experiment. Just how much ground water could trump's policies render unusable, and what kind of dispersal pattern would the process follow? Like, if we threw out the EPA (or just violently ravage the regulation and enforcement, which amounts to the same thing) and clean water act and all that, and had basically no checks on agriculture/industry/etc., just how much and how fast would a national scale water quality disaster propagate? Where would it start, where would it end, how long would the effects last, all those sorts of things.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Standing estimation is that if we fully exploit the frackable gas alone, it will create fracking pools across the United States equal in collective volume to the Great Lakes.

Poison more with coal ash and pipeline breaches, I figure you can probably cause a water famine and drive a couple hundred species extinct.