The electoral college could do the right thing by voting in Clinton as a president. But that's a historical longshot. If it did happen, many Republicans will rejoice that they still have the Clintons to beat up on for another eight years.
That's what I don't understand. The expectation with Hillary was that things won't change much in the financial markets, it'll be a low inflation world, and another recession is likely. With Trump winning the election, the stock market took off like a rocket, the feds expect to continue raising interest rates to combat inflation, and the economy is in "happy days are here again" mode. With fools rushing into the stock market, I'm building up a cash reserve for the next crash.
You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it.
I blame Bush for the Great Recession that caused me to be out of work for two years (2009-10), underemploy for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. Thanks to Obama, I'm now back to where I was before the Great Recession. Just in time for the overdue recession under Trump. Woo-hoo!
That's what my brother did when he was unemployed for two years (2009-10) and used his unemployment benefits to become a landscape designer. Except his last job wasn't working in tech. He spent 30 years as an auto body specialist and his doctor refused to certify that he was disabled in the knees.
it said they woudl not hand over the names to the transition team, it may be a different story in January when they're dealing with the whitehouse or their own director.
Once the Trump administration is in place, they will have obey the privacy rules for government employees.
I see where you're trying to go here...but to be fair...
The person I replied too kept harping on the word "law" even though I never mentioned "law" in my original comment.
There is a BIG difference between ignoring advice, and ignoring/breaking a LAW.
That should be clear on Day One when Trump is sworn into office and the income he receives from foreign dignities staying at his Washington, D.C., hotel will be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Assuming, of course, the Republican Congress doesn't look the other way and pretend that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense. And the hotel lease with the government will be in violation as it doesn't permit the lessee (Trump) to be a government official. Trump is a news junkie's speedball..
[...] that it would take a constitutional amendment to enforce this on the Executive Branch.
The 27th amendment on congressional salaries only took nearly 203 years to get ratified by the states.
If no one is worried about Trump, why don't they hand over the names?
Because scientists are not interchangeable cogs like IT workers are. I can easily get a job that pays 50% more money in private sector IT. Scientists who have their reputation smeared by political appointees will have to find a different line of work.
I mean we're giving him the nuclear launch codes, what's being able to remove dissent from the ranks in comparison?
I've read that staffers kept the nuclear football away from Richard Nixon during his time in office. It only takes six minutes to launch a nuke, but only if you have your hands on the football.
Ironically, the air traffic controller union was the only union to endorse Reagan for president. Something that many Trump supporters will soon find out for themselves.
That's why I told you to go back and re-read what I wrote not what you twisted.
[...] try reading the actual article you posted here.
For 40 years, presidents have respected this law. But not Trump. He's taking the Nixonian view that conflict of interests don't apply to him as president.
Nowhere does it mention that a President must liquidate all assets prior to assuming office.
The Office of Government Ethics advised Trump to completely divest from his business empire to avoid conflicts of interest.
Given the cult-like atmosphere at the EPA and the frankly abusive behavior towards the citizens it supposedly exists to protect I think some reduction in useless bloat is warranted.
If they "rebel", he will just shut down the entire department. If they do a job worth doing (energy does not), then he will reform it with new people.
Trump can try. But the reality is that shutting down departments is extremely difficult because each department has supporters in Congress and a network of lobbyists. He can't fire an entire department without violating Civil Service laws that protects workers from politics.
Trump will teach you.
I work in government IT. No one is worried about Trump. No one.
What "rule" are you referring to that REQUIRES MOST Presidents to liquidate all assets? Source please....
Why don't you re-read what I wrote. The first sentence refers to the fact that presidents for 40 years since the Watergate scandal have put their assets into a blind trust. The second sentence refers to the Nixionian concept that the president can't do anything illegal because most laws (or rules) don't explicitly apply to POTUS. In short, Trump is doomed to repeat all the mistakes that Nixon made and all presidents since Nixon avoided for 40 years.
I do think it's sad that your father dutifully stashed away (if I did the math correctly) $96k over the course of 8 years, only to have it sucked away in 6 weeks by cancer and funeral expenses.
If he had went on Medicare, they would have taken everything. If he gone into a nursing home, it would have cost $10K+ per month. Dying isn't cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.
You must be smoking crack. According to CNN, The Friends of Putin are winning throughout Europe — and the U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/opinions/europe-handing-putin-a-win/index.html
He didn't rip up the U.S. Constitution. Not yet anyway.
You SURE about that?
The electoral college could do the right thing by voting in Clinton as a president. But that's a historical longshot. If it did happen, many Republicans will rejoice that they still have the Clintons to beat up on for another eight years.
That's what I don't understand. The expectation with Hillary was that things won't change much in the financial markets, it'll be a low inflation world, and another recession is likely. With Trump winning the election, the stock market took off like a rocket, the feds expect to continue raising interest rates to combat inflation, and the economy is in "happy days are here again" mode. With fools rushing into the stock market, I'm building up a cash reserve for the next crash.
You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it.
I blame Bush for the Great Recession that caused me to be out of work for two years (2009-10), underemploy for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filing for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. Thanks to Obama, I'm now back to where I was before the Great Recession. Just in time for the overdue recession under Trump. Woo-hoo!
Except for Twitter getting the boot, the first meeting of The Friends of Putin Club went pretty well.
When did GP ever mention Hillary?
After 30 years of beating the anti-Clinton drum, some people are unwilling to let go now that the Clintons are gone.
I'm starting a landscaping business.
That's what my brother did when he was unemployed for two years (2009-10) and used his unemployment benefits to become a landscape designer. Except his last job wasn't working in tech. He spent 30 years as an auto body specialist and his doctor refused to certify that he was disabled in the knees.
There's plenty to like about Clinton and plenty to dislike about Nixon [...]
Clinton is relevant for what reason? As I recall, this discussion was about Trump and Nixon.
So, got anything to backup your claim?
Enjoy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58802-2004May26.html
it said they woudl not hand over the names to the transition team, it may be a different story in January when they're dealing with the whitehouse or their own director.
Once the Trump administration is in place, they will have obey the privacy rules for government employees.
Citation for Nixon not having access to football?
Doesn't anyone on /. know how to Google? I'm not your personal research assistant.
This is a ridiculous lie. Nixon brought peace with a major enemy at the time.
That shows how little you know about Nixon.
What did any of your heroes do to bring lasting and real peace to the world?
What heroes do you think I have?
No SJw bullshit fuzzy words, please.
Your bias is showing.
I see where you're trying to go here...but to be fair...
The person I replied too kept harping on the word "law" even though I never mentioned "law" in my original comment.
There is a BIG difference between ignoring advice, and ignoring/breaking a LAW.
That should be clear on Day One when Trump is sworn into office and the income he receives from foreign dignities staying at his Washington, D.C., hotel will be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Assuming, of course, the Republican Congress doesn't look the other way and pretend that Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense. And the hotel lease with the government will be in violation as it doesn't permit the lessee (Trump) to be a government official. Trump is a news junkie's speedball..
[...] that it would take a constitutional amendment to enforce this on the Executive Branch.
The 27th amendment on congressional salaries only took nearly 203 years to get ratified by the states.
If no one is worried about Trump, why don't they hand over the names?
Because scientists are not interchangeable cogs like IT workers are. I can easily get a job that pays 50% more money in private sector IT. Scientists who have their reputation smeared by political appointees will have to find a different line of work.
I mean we're giving him the nuclear launch codes, what's being able to remove dissent from the ranks in comparison?
I've read that staffers kept the nuclear football away from Richard Nixon during his time in office. It only takes six minutes to launch a nuke, but only if you have your hands on the football.
It worked just fine for the air traffic controllers the last time we had a REAL president.
The air traffic controllers violated the law by going on strike. Anyone can get fired for illegal activity.
http://reagan.civiced.org/lessons/domestic-policy-air-traffic-controllers-strike
Ironically, the air traffic controller union was the only union to endorse Reagan for president. Something that many Trump supporters will soon find out for themselves.
lol, reading is hard....
That's why I told you to go back and re-read what I wrote not what you twisted.
[...] try reading the actual article you posted here.
For 40 years, presidents have respected this law. But not Trump. He's taking the Nixonian view that conflict of interests don't apply to him as president.
Nowhere does it mention that a President must liquidate all assets prior to assuming office.
The Office of Government Ethics advised Trump to completely divest from his business empire to avoid conflicts of interest.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ethics-office-reacts-with-joy-at-trumps-decision-to-avoid-conflicts-of-interest/article/2608541
And any middle school teacher will tell you using Wikipedia as a source of information doesn't cut it by even today's lax public school standards.
Wikipedia is a starting point for your own research. Educate yourself.
He can choose to not pay them anytime he wants.
Maybe moving forward. I work in government IT and Congress under Obama fully funded my five-year contract.
Cleaning up after the elephants is where the real money is being made.
Or lean that a government can't be run the same way as a business. "You're fired!" makes for reality TV, but it doesn't work that way in real life.
Given the cult-like atmosphere at the EPA and the frankly abusive behavior towards the citizens it supposedly exists to protect I think some reduction in useless bloat is warranted.
The ghost of Richard Nixon still haunts the EPA.
If they "rebel", he will just shut down the entire department. If they do a job worth doing (energy does not), then he will reform it with new people.
Trump can try. But the reality is that shutting down departments is extremely difficult because each department has supporters in Congress and a network of lobbyists. He can't fire an entire department without violating Civil Service laws that protects workers from politics.
Trump will teach you.
I work in government IT. No one is worried about Trump. No one.
Wow the red herring here is simply amazing...
You're the one twisting my words around to fit you narrative.
Nixon broke laws, not rules and was punished for it, so they obviously did apply to him.
Nixon resigned before he got impeached and received a pardon. He was never tried, convicted and punished for breaking the law.
What LAW is trump saying doesn't apply to him by not liquidating his assets?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act
Or do you simply get all your "facts" from MSNBC and other reputable news sources?
Sorry, I don't watch TV.
Don't worry. Trump will restore Los Angeles to its former smoggy glory.
What "rule" are you referring to that REQUIRES MOST Presidents to liquidate all assets? Source please....
Why don't you re-read what I wrote. The first sentence refers to the fact that presidents for 40 years since the Watergate scandal have put their assets into a blind trust. The second sentence refers to the Nixionian concept that the president can't do anything illegal because most laws (or rules) don't explicitly apply to POTUS. In short, Trump is doomed to repeat all the mistakes that Nixon made and all presidents since Nixon avoided for 40 years.
I do think it's sad that your father dutifully stashed away (if I did the math correctly) $96k over the course of 8 years, only to have it sucked away in 6 weeks by cancer and funeral expenses.
If he had went on Medicare, they would have taken everything. If he gone into a nursing home, it would have cost $10K+ per month. Dying isn't cheap.